Talk:Dreams and Nightmares (song)/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this for you! Grk1011 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (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 (reference section): b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

3:26, Maybach, and Warner Bros are not sourced elsewhere in the article

Partly done I mentioned the length where relevant, however why are those labels needed when they are Meek's ones that the album was released through? If you can explain why, I will add in release. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise they would be unsourced. I don't think it says anywhere in the article that they were the labels that the album was released by. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"he then wrote a second verse to this" this wording is a bit off. I'd suggest removing that whole sentence. Not sure the particulars of the song's writing process are lead-worthy without the additional context provided in the body.

Partly done I re-worded if this works? --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "beat switch" a common term? That's what I find confusing. What does it mean to switch (by reading the article I could figure it out, but alone here it was odd). You could say something like It was recorded at the Ocean Sky Hotel in Miami during the late sessions for the album in September 2012. After rapping his first part, Mill requested a beat switch and finished writing the second verse once it was added. The resulting song is a hip hop number with maximalist and grime elements. It contains piano in the two parts and moves between them with the beat switch. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done I re-worded this slightly from what you said. --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

mention that the radio stations are in Philadelphia to add context.
the section feels a bit too WP:PEACOCK with expressions such as "instantly recognized the song's greatness" and "taken aback". The lead mentions that the song received universal acclaim, but after reading the article, I find that a bit odd since it wasn't released as a single, experienced "minor reception" and only made it to the bubbling under chart. Not saying it's a bad song, but it's praise doesn't seem to have translated to anything substantial?

Done for the above; the last one is fixed for PEACOCK but the universal acclaim is about the reviews, not commercial reception and it was actually certification double platinum in the end anyway! --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrics

"The first part representing dreams features.." (check that these refs have this)

Comment: these are in the sources; even check ones at the end of sentences. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was saying that if you add my suggestion in italics, just double check that you don't need an additional ref for it. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done although I missed the point initially --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"described as angelic" by whom?

Carl Lamarre of Billboard, if I need to add that? --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The second part which represents nightmares then relies..." (check that these refs have this)

Pitchfork mentions the coda structure, while Slant sources those chords. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting to add what's in italics to clarify what you're talking about. Remind the reader what the second part was. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"not adding" -> suggest without
"delivery, delivering" <- word choice

Done for the above --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

"showing the change in the middle" <- maybe emphasizing"? Also, to whom?

Done --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The last review does not support universal acclaim

Not done it is still positive, even if to a lesser degree. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

no comments

Usage in media

The title of this section is a bit misleading since it also includes some covers, samples, etc?

Comment: does appearances work in place of usage? --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

The Drake quote doesn't need the "..."
"the intro" meaning because it was the first track?
The second mention of the Super Bowl confused me. I then went back and realized the first mention of streams was actually not about the Super Bowl. Reorganize this paragraph for clarity.
I don't think 71% is "soaring"

Done for the above --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is James?

Not done LeBron James; he is the only James at all mentioned here and this was done earlier in the article. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I had to control+F to find that means it should probably be mentioned in full again. The reader doesn't always read the entire at once, typically jumping to a section they're interested in. Mentioning the full name once is enough for a section, not not always for an article. This is extra noticeable here where the last name could also be someone's first name. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done now it makes sense for clarity --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence about the Super Bowl could use terms like "more recently" and "once again" otherwise it's a bit tacked-on

Done --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

The ref was dead

Comment: if you look at the GA criterion, this does not matter. --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

earwig's tool shows 36.7%, but that's the quotes

Discussion

@Kyle Peake: Not much to fix as expected from a seasoned editor like yourself! Placing on hold. Grk1011 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grk1011 thanks a lot, handled everything now! --K. Peake 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: A couple comments above. Grk1011 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grk1011 I have completed the final changes now! --K. Peake 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Passing now! Grk1011 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.