Talk:Up (Cardi B song)/Archive 1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Up (Cardi B song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Troubled.elias (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VersaceSpace! As promised in my talk page, since I have the time today, I'll go ahead and review this article! If no one else gets to it, I would appreciate if you left a review for Not My Responsibility - it's very brief and won't take a while to read :) ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments
- Obviously not required per the criteria, but I've gone ahead and expanded some citations for this article, as well as included archived versions of links.
- Article seems stable to me.
- All two images are fair-use/NFC use. Rationales are... okay, at least for GAN. Their use is clear and appropriate.
- I'm worried about whether the article satisfies the "broad in its coverage" part of the criteria... I feel like it's missing a "Composition" or "Music/lyrics" section, or at the very least a corresponding paragraph of sufficient length in the "Background" section. Sure, we get a genre, but is there nothing in the sources about the instruments, vocal delivery, or lyricism - even just a broad summary?
- The "live performances" section is quite short, tbh. Did she perform the song only at the Grammys (at least one worth noting)? This two-sentence paragraph can go on the background section if not, then I'd rename said section to "Background and release"
- "In the music video Cardi B has a kiss with two women" could use a citation. Ditto with the "In other media" sentences, I believe.
- this script I have says that PopSugar is not reliable; please replace the citation with one from a better source. Also, I have never seen these publications in GAs before: what makes The Forty Five and Footwear News reliable sources? Do they indicate an editorial policy or a masthead somewhere in their page? Do the authors have bylines in other RS, etc.
- The second sentence that describes Zoladz's thoughts on "Up" seem better fit for a composition section, although the first sentence seems fitting in "critical reception". Please cut down on all the quotes though - we might run afoul of possible copyright vio.
- Speaking of which... oh dear lord, I ran this through Earwig and this is not looking good. It reported a 48.7% similarity with a Billboard source - check the "commercial performance" section. The highlighted sentences are word-for-word the same. This is a copyright/plagiarism issue. I'd put this on hold and ask that this urgently be fixed, but compounded with other problems (certain statements that need citations, reliability of sources, broad coverage?) I will have to quickfail this. Please fix the copyvio stuff outside of GA; it will take a while to properly paraphrase the relevant sentences. I appreciate the hard work, but there is still a long way to go.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.