Talk:Work from Home (song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot I had this article nominated. I kindly ask for you to take down this review. I will not be able to correct any edits on it. My apologies. De88 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Don't you want me to review it so you can see the comments? It might not take you very long. It would be a shame considering how long it's been waiting. — Calvin999 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, honestly. I lost interest in this article a long time ago. I have focused my attention on editing other articles. De88 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Okay, if you're sure. Shame as you put so much time and effort in, and it's been waiting a long time, I think it's passable with not too much improvement. I'll ask for it to be removed. — Calvin999 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Why don't you review it anyway (if not too much trouble), and some kind sould might come along and build it up? Shame for the nom not to get a green badge, even if they don't want to finish the home straight... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what I thought. I can do, no inconvenience to me. — Calvin999 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely WP:BOLD :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this at WT:GAN. Absolutely do the review, others will likely do the work needed if it isn't too great. Courcelles (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

There are some dead and questionable links which need replacing

Infobox

You don't, or shouldn't be needing to source the genre in the info box. This should be sourced in the article.
I'd either collapse both Studio and Writers, or leave both exposed. I don't see the point of covering one but not the other. I personally think exposed is better.
I'd move the link to the music video to External links

Lead

Why are there citations in the lead? There shouldn't be any. This is a summary of the subsequent prose sections, which should all be sourced and cited.
The song impacted contemporary hit radio four days after its initial release on March 1, 2016 and was released as the lead single from the group's second studio album, 7/27 (2016).[3] "Work from Home" was written by Daniel Bedingfield, Joshua Coleman, Dallas Koehlke, Jude Demorest, Tyrone Griffin, Jr., Alexander Izquierdo, and Brian Lee[4] with production from Coleman and Dallas Koehlke. → It should be mentioned first that is is from the album, then who wrote it, and then it's release. Seems odd to talk about it's release as a single before even mentioning the album it's from or who wrote it.
March 1, 2016 → Comma after 2016 per MOS:DATE
"work" → Why is this in quotation when you're not quoting?
Many music publications included it in their lists of best songs of the year.[5][6][7][8] → I'd have thought this would be in the second paragraph included with a summary of it's critical repetition. The order of the lead isn't reflecting the order of the article, so it's not cohesive further on.
The song debuted at number 12 on the Billboard Hot 100 with 88,000 downloads sold,[9] and reached number four in its thirteenth week,[10] becoming their highest charting single in the United States; it surpassed "Worth It", which peaked at number 12 → This is convoluted.
"Work from Home" also became the first top-five single in the country by a girl group in ten years, following the September 2006 peak of "Buttons" by The Pussycat Dolls at number three.[11] Among national airplay charts, the song topped both the Mainstream Top 40 and Rhythmic Songs.[12][13] As of December 2016, the single has sold 1.4 million digital copies in the United States.[14] The song has achieved multi-platinum certifications in several countries, including quintuple platinum in Canada and the United States. → This is really stilted and reads a bit boring to be honest.
February 26, 2016 → Comma after 2016 per MOS:DATE
on the group's Vevo channel. → We don't need to know this in the lead
The video received commentary from critics over the double entendres in the visuals, which are present in the lyrics as well. → 'Received commentary' doesn't sound right, also give an example.
winning the group their first award in this network. → Network?

Background

was initially written → Why 'initially'? If they wrote it, they wrote it.
, the song also contains → This needs to be a new sentence.
Gotta Get thru This → Capitalise Thru as it's linking to a redirect
Also needs to be "Gotta Get Thru This" as it's a title
also produced, performed all instruments and programming for the song → This isn't a complete sentence
produced & recorded → Don't use ampersands in prose like this.
The song came for the group after their A&R → Doesn't make sense
the group had to re-title → I'd say 'chose', unless there's a source saying they had no choice?
Dinah Jane told → Fifth Harmony bandmember Dinah Jane told
Link Dinah Jane (and first mention of other band members)
Dinah Jane told Billboard → Billboard isn't linked here, but is further in the paragraph? Link first mention.
that she was "happy he agreed" to be on the track as he was one of her "favorite artists". → You should have citations at the end of each sentence for verification
Featured artist Ty Dolla Sign discussed → Why is he introduced like this so far in? His previous few mentions just say 'Ty Dollar Sign' without saying who he is.

Composition and lyrical interpretation

The first paragraph here completely contradicts the lead. There's not mention of it being a 'primarily R&B song', instead just saying it has elements of trap.
This is quite jumbled to be honest. You're going from genre influences, to musical production, back to genres, then quoting a review of the genres (which isn't you primarily say it is) to music sheet info, to critics opinions back to instrumentation and genres. There's no flow or cohesion.
Order it with it's genre, and it's influences, it's duration, it's musical structure and instrumentation, then lyrics, then critics opinions.

Critical reception

This is essentially a quote farm. You need to paraphrase some of the quotes. I typically quote, paraphrase, quote, paraphrase.
The Critics lists part is interrupted by so many citations after every other word, it really interrupts the flow. It reads more like a list.
Elle[56] placed the song in its unranked year-end list. → why have you put the citation immediately after Elle? Put citations at the end of a sentence, but no more than 3 or 4 otherwise it's too long.

Chart performance

This reads too much like a chart trajectory and week by week analysis, which isn't allowed. For the Hot 100, for example, you should mention it's debut, perhaps a sentence about it's charting prior to peak, then it's peak, as well as sales, certifications, and any other chart stats or facts it garnered or broke. It should have week to week to week over two paragraphs.
I'd actually say two, rather large, paragraphs solely on the Hot 100 is giving undue weight to this one chart compared to the others.
The paragraphs could definitely be trimmed, they are huge to read.

Music video

This section feels underwritten and under researched to me. Considering it's had over a billion views and was the most view in 2016, I don't feel like there's much here at all. It feels quite sparse. The synopsis could be more detailed, but the reviews looks very sparse to me. There isn't just two publications that commented on this video.

Live perfomances and cover versions

Again this feels under written. They performed this song at high profile events for a long time.
and the 2016 CMT Music Awards, where the group performed the song with country singer Cam, as a mashup with Cam's single, Mayday. → Source?

Accolades

The year column needs to be marked up for access.

Radio and release history

This section actually has citation needed tags

References

From some spot checks:

References 73 through to 80 are without dates and accessdates, and it's Official Charts Company, not Official Charts
Reference 122 doesn't have a date or accessdate
Reference 133 has an inconsistent date format

Outcome

I'm sorry, but upon closer inspection, this nomination is not worthy of being passed. I do not think the vast amount of necessary changes required could be sufficiently rectified in a seven day period. I think it needs largely rewriting and restructuring, as well as sourcing and general maintenance changes. You've put a lot of effort in someplaces, but others have not been researched enough. I don't think it is particularly well written, there are some verification issues, and I don't think it's broad in its coverage. — Calvin999 10:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]