Wikipedia:Peer review/Mic Drop (song)/archive1

Mic Drop (song)

I've listed this article for peer review because I've managed to bring it to a GA and wish to check if it could potentially become a FA in future. I'm hoping to receive feedback from several experienced editors and wish to implement those to shape up the article.

Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 14:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Desiigner is overlinked in the infobox
• If any EPs or albums are introduced as part of a chronology, you need a comma before stating the title in the lead; "fifth extended play," is an example
• The title of the song should only be written once per para, as this looks a lot smoother; the third para could benefit from that one mention, definitely. Also, I would avoid calling it "the single" here at all.

Background and release

• Refer to the country as "the United States" on the first mention rather than the one in the second para; change that and all of the later instances to "the US" since abbreviations should be used after the full name
• Billboard Music Award → Billboard Music Awards
• "commercial acclaim" is poor phrasing – try "commercial success" or something similar
• top ten → top 10, per MOS:NUM
• Commas are not needed before introductions to albums/EPs of chronologies in the body
• Music video should be wikilinked here rather than in the later section

Music and lyrics

• Hip hop should be targeted to Hip hop music
• Change the length to comply with MOS for numbers

Commercial performance

• The term "initially" is useless when mentioning a debut
• "first top 40 hit" is more appropriate than having nothing between "top 40" and "in the country"
• "on the France," use of "the" is pointless
• "in the United States."" there is no speech mark required when this does not end a quote
• Mention the ARIA certification was in Australia

Music videos

• Place the critical commentary in a separate para from the first video's background and synopsis; this will be in-between that para and the second video's one
• "trading off vocals and rapped verses" → "trading off vocals and rapping verses" for making sense grammatically
• Should "November 30th" really be written as that instead of the standard date stylisation?

Credits and personnel

• The sub-sections here should be changed to sub-headings instead

• Kyle Peake, can you clarify what you mean here? Also, I've addressed everything else. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ashleyyoursmile The separate credits should be in this section but not have sub sections and have sub headings though, e.g Korean and Japanese versions. --K. Peake 07:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Kyle Peake,  Done Ashleyyoursmile! 09:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Review finished

• I only made comments for the sections in which there are issues that stand out quite clearly, not going into as much detail as a GA review. Good luck with this article at FAC in the future, potentially! --K. Peake 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comments from Ojorojo

[Responding to talk page request] Hello. I'm not familiar with the song, artist, or genre, so my comments will be more general.

• Infobox – This should focus on the most notable or best known release. Only include details about the first EP or album on which it appears (|EP=, |label=, |producer=). Also, <br> & <small> shouldn't be used in infoboxes.
• Lead – For me, there are far too many details. The lead should just summarize the most important points as they are discussed in the article.
• Background and release – Details about releases should appear later in the article (I prefer a more chronological layout).
• Music and lyrics – Sometimes, going back-and-forth between the different versions is awkward. Maybe the remix should be treated separately, since these are almost like two different versions. Also the inspiration is discussed last, after the recording and production/mixing (again, I prefer chrono).
• Critical reception – Sometimes, it's unclear which version the reviews are addressing.
• Commercial performance – Maybe this should be combined with Charts and Certifications and sales, since they're all covering the same subject.
• Music videos – I think the blow-by-blow narrative is unnecessary and awkward; a summary or overview would be more useful.
• Live performances and other usage – "other usage" is too open ended and may attract "In popular culture"-type drive-by edits. If the Silicon Valley and Olympic uses meet WP:SONGTRIVIA, they should have some context, i.e., what makes them noteworthy rather than just listing appearances.
• Track listings – Sometimes, I wonder about the usefulness of these. They can take up a lot of space and often just repeat the same info. Maybe simplify with prose and combine with "release" from the earlier section and "Release history".
• Watch for overlinking well-known/easily understood words – music critic, music videos, boy band, compilation album, Japanese, Korean, Los Angeles, New York City, percussion, keyboards, synthesizer, guitar, drumbeats, chanting, figure skater, etc.

Obviously, some of this is personal preference and ultimately, the FA reviewers may have other opinions. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia comments

I will chip away at this as I have time.

• with flashy motion — tight choreography, ... please review WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH. Endashes are spaced on Wikipedia, while emdashes are not; you have to pick one style and use it consistently, but we don't use spaced emdashes.
• You can install User:GregU/dashes.js to keep your endashes and hyphens sorted.
• You can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for WP:OVERLINKing; some might be justifiable, so judgment is needed in evaluating the duplicate links.
• There are eleven uses of the word also, and most of them appear redundant; see User:Tony1 writing exercises for helping with redundancy reducing, correct use of hyphens and dashes, and much more.
• For a short article, the lead seems long, and some detail could be trimmed, particularly from the first paragraph.
• Have you seen the essay at WP:RECEPTION? It gives very good tips on how to produce a more enjoyable read in critical reception sections, and tips on how to avoid long strings of "Critic A said B. Critic C said D ... "

Just a start, but all I have time for today, good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Ojorojo, and SandyGeorgia, thank you very much for taking time to review this article and leave comments. Apologies for the delay in response since I'd gotten busy with CVUA and GAN. I can see from the concerns raised here that an overhaul of the entire article is needed, which is going to change the current GA format of the page. So that is going to take quite some time to implement fully. I'm happy with the responses and agree with the suggestions, so I'm closing this review now, if that's okay. I'm going to start working on them and see how it turns out. Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! 10:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)