Talk:Young, Wild & Free/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination.

General

• There are several dead links. I suggest finding alternate sources for the red red links, and updating the URLs for the the green redirects.

 Done

Info box

• You might as well remove the 'Recorded' parameter, unless you know at the least the year it was recorded?
• Add the date template for the 'Date' parameter
• Add the length template for the 'Length' parameter
• I wouldn't make the songwriters collapsable, but it's up to you

 Done. I would rather, since there are 18 of them.

Lead

• , featuring a → Remove the comma
• featuring a guest appearance → If it features someone, it's indicative of a guest appearance, so I would omit 'a guest appearance' as it makes it unnecessarily long winded
• 2011 by → Comma after 2011
• Link Atlantic Records
• lead single from the soundtrack → Pipe link this to the soundtrack album
• of the film, → Remove comma
• , under → There's a double space here
• , under their stage name, → Remove both commas. The sentences so far have been unnecessarily broken up and it makes it read quite disjointedly
• It was initially written by → Initially written by (Don't use more words than you need to)
• I would write who wrote the song firs, then who produced it. Not who produced it, then who wrote it. The actual process is the other wayround
• If you're going to directly quote in the lead, it needs to be accompanied by the source (citation)
• who noticed it → I wouldn't use 'noticed'
• rap but → You would put a comma here
• The second paragraph doesn't flow to me. It's a lot of short sentences.
• on October → in October

 Done

Background and production

• There should be citations at the end of each sentence. It's difficult to verify what you've written, especially quotations, if there is no citation to go with it.
• It all begun when The Smeezingtons were freestyling in the studio. → This is too conversational/colloquial.
• Afterwards Mars sent the song, due to Bay-Shuck, to Snoop Dogg who, eventually, showed it to Wiz Khalifa. → I actually don't understand what this is meant to say?
• The latter five due to the elements sampled from the song "Toot It & Boot It" by American rapper YG featuring Ty Dolla Sign.[3] The latter track had already sampled the opening piano of "Songs in the Wind" by The Association, written by Bluechel, from their album Renaissance (1966). → This is quite interesting, but doesn't read very interesting. This could be worded so much better. It would be a lot better if the previous sentence included the non-sample writers, and then you go on to explain why additional writers are credited and list them.

 Done

Composition and lyrical interpretation

• Link rap and pop, and put pop before rap (alphabetical OCD)
• with a length of → with lasts for a duration of (you start off with 'length' in the next sentence)
• The length is the same in the explicit and clean version of the track. → I actually don't think this is relevant.
• as it takes influences from pop music → as it incorporates pop elements
• by Bruno Mars → by Mars

 Done

Critical reception and accolades

• The three singers don't care who judges them and Rubenstein thinks → This is not written encyclopaedically
• he felt that the flavor of the recording didn't last long. → Not sure what you mean by the flavour not lasting
• When reviewing the album, → Not needed
• It gradually climbed up the Hot 100 and peaked at number seven → I wouldn't call going from 10 to 7 a gradual climb
• The song was successful on the Billboard rhythmic and Hot Rap Songs charts. It reached number one on the Rhythmic Top 40 chart and stayed there for three weeks, while it peaked at number four on the latter chart. → Name both the charts properly first, and then the peaks.
• 10th week → tenth week

 Done

Music video

• Filming sessions for an accompanying music video for "Young, Wild & Free" → This implies there were more than one, but it doesn't seem like there was from proceeding sentences?
• Filming sessions for an accompanying music video for "Young, Wild & Free" → The accompanying music video for "Young, Wild & Free"
• Snoop Dogg told → Be consistence in your referral to him as Snoop Dogg or Dogg, use one and apply it to the whole article.
• 2011 across → Comma after 2011

 DoneI'm using his latter anme instead of the full name, there is no problem with Khalifa nor Mars so shouldn't be a problem with him either. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Live Performances and reception

• De-capitalise 'performances'
• The first paragraph reads really rigidly, it's just listing off the performance with no flow or description in between. It's quite jolted.

 Done I can't do better than what I've done. It's fine by me actually, I'm not going to describe the performances with information I don't have and can't find.

Credits and personnel

• Do the liner notes not say anything about sampling credits? I'd have thought it would.

 Done, It says about one of the sampling credits but not about both.

Charts

• The year end chart tables need to be marked up for WP:ACCESS like the chart position table is (the shaded column)
• I'd also make both the year end chart tables the same with as well.

 Done

Release

• I'm not sure why this prose is here. It would usually be included in Background section, at the end, or in it's own section about release.
• I'd add the prose to a section above, and then rename it 'Release history' with just the table, but the table also needed marking up with the shaded column too.

 Done

References

• MTV News shouldn't be in italics
• Or Amazon
• 16, or Digital Spy. But should be linked (the first time)
• 22, link LA Times
• Only the first instance should be link, some Billboard's are linked and some aren't.
• 32, missing date
• So is 38
• And 39
• 53 has a typo in the title (soundtrack spelt wrong)
• Idolator shouldn't be italics
• Some say iTunes, some say iTunes in italics with the country in brackets
• Is there supposed to be a = in the title of 90?
• 91 has an inconsistent date format which isn't used elsewhere
• 92 missing date

 Done some of the links are automatic I can't do nothing about it, they come with the table.

Outcome

There are quite a lot of problems with this article, in terms of how it's written and how it's structured and formatted. I don't believe it passes 1a (or 4 as a result) or 1b of the criteria. I'm skeptical about some of your sources as well in relation to 2b, and it fails 6 (images could definitely be added, mainly because of the sampling). I think this needs to be largely re-written and therefore I suggest you look over my comments and perhaps list for a Peer Review. It isn't close to be a Good Article. It needs a lot more work before it should be nominated again, but well done for your effort thus far.  — Calvin999 19:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I think you overreacted when looking at the article. It's next to GA material, the mistakes you pointed out can be easily amended. Nevertheless, thank you for reviewing it. However, after I adress the issues you pointed out I will re-nominated it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I disagree that it's level with (recently promoted) Good Articles, as they don't have this amount of errors. It's most probably why no one has reviewed it in all this time because of how much needs doing. To be honest, I think it needs re-writing and that is not easily amended. Sure, nominate it when you feel you've improved it. Failing it isn't undermining the effort you've put in thus far and shouldn't be taken personally. I've listed constructive comments for you to move forward with which will eliminate these errors at least.  — Calvin999 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm using those comments to improve the article. I will also very likely list it to GOCE so they can improve the prose. It seemed like. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, or the GOCE. That is a good step.  — Calvin999 09:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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.