Talk:Happiness (Red Velvet song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Haven't reviewed one of your GANs since the first review of "Psycho", so it's fair to take this on! --K. Peake 07:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thank you so much for the time you'll invest in reviewing the article! I appreciate it very much! :) You're the best! I hope we work well together on making this article part of GA. Thank you so much once again! LipaCityPH (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LipaCityPH: Thank you very much for your compliments; I am hoping this can become a GA and have made my initial comments now, with the music video section coming shortly! --K. Peake 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Done

LipaCityPH You wikilinked Euro-pop instead of targeting it to the page I suggested, plus there is no target for single --K. Peake 15:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove K-pop and Worldbeat from the infobox since they are not sourced as genres; change Euro pop to Euro-pop with the target
WP:OVERLINK of Chad Hugo under producer(s)
Remove songwriter introduction for Yoo Young-jin because telling us who he is in the body is sufficient
You should instead start the sentence as "The song was composed by..." keeping the composers and producers info only, as the sentence is too long with release in it
"Anne Judith Wik, Chris Holsten with" → "Will Sims, Chad Hugo, Anne Judith Wik, and Chris Holsten, with" with the wikilinks, so all of the composers are identified
"from Chad Hugo and Will Simms," → "from Hugo and Simms."
"the song was released digitally" → "It was released digitally" with the target
The release should be written out in the opening section, as it is only in the release history table currently and the debut single part is unsourced
Target single to Single (music)
"It also marked" → "The song also marked"
The "Red" concept part is not properly sourced in the body, but it is that this was their debut as Red Velvet; either reword or add sourcing for the concept
"Wendy and Joy to the South Korean public." → "Wendy, and Joy to the public."
"one of the group's" → "one of Red Velvet's"
The above sentence is not sourced in the body; fix this
"as the group's introduction in most interviewing and" → "as their introduction for most interviewing and"
Add composition info after this point, followed by critical reception and the song's award
"It also charted moderately in its home country," → "The song charted moderately in South Korea,"
Gaon Digital Chart should be wikilinked
Target World Digital Songs to World Digital Song Sales
Add info about the music video next, followed by the live performance for Music Bank

Background and release

Done

This section is too small currently; merge with the below section and retitle to Background and composition
Wikilink SM Entertainment
"member Irene and Seulgi" → "members Irene and Seulgi"
The 2013 and 2014 parts do not appear to be sourced
Rumors are not mentioned by the source, even though SM Entertainment's confirmation of the group forming is but the source mentions four members, plus you should add the info from it about the teaser and "Happiness" being the group's first song
The next sentence is not properly sourced, plus info about the music video should not be in this section and you should write about the mentioned teaser images instead probably
Remove the official music video sentence from this section
Target f(x) to f(x) (group), but this part is not sourced
"and the label's first" → "and the record label's first" with the wikilink
Target EXO to Exo (group)

Composition

Done

"with fusion of "an" → "that fuses "an" on the audio sample text to be less repetitive
"is described as a" → "was described as a"
The synth, African music beat and "Red" parts are not sourced
Wikilink Chad Hugo
The producers are not mentioned by the source at the end of the sentence
Lowercase the Neptunes per MOS:THEMUSIC
"composed in the key" → "and is composed in the key" with the target
Wikilink Chris Holsten
Remove wikilink on songwriter and target on producer, but none of this songwriting info is backed up by any of the sources
"conveyed a message that how" → "The lyrics convey a message of how"

Commercial performance

Done

Retitle to Reception and move the Critical reception and Accolades sections to part of this section; order should be critical reception, followed by accolades sub-section, then commercial performance sub-section
"marking their first top-five" → "marking Red Velvet's first top five"
"on Gaon Download Chart and" → "on the Gaon Download Chart and" with the target
"The single has since sold 433,336 downloads" → "The song has since sold 1,903,533 downloads in the country" because that is the figure reported by the source
"Chart, making Red Velvet the first K-pop" → "chart, making Red Velvet the first K-pop" with the wikilink
The first group statement is not sourced, nor is the sales amount for the US

Live performances

Done

This section should be directly below the music video one
"for "Happiness" first" → "for "Happiness" first with a performance"
"commissioned and was participated by" → "commissioned, with participation from"
Not all of the music programs are backed up by the ref

Critical reception

Done

Regarding what I said about earlier about moving this, it should be the first para of the Reception section but not have a dedicated sub-section; that will only be for the other two areas that are currently sections
The reviews are out of order; go in the order of the positive ones followed by the less enthusiastic reviews. Also, are you sure reception was mixed?
"called the track" → "called the track a"
"described "the frivolous melody" → "opined that "the frivolous melody"
"as "little early to judge" further saying" → "as a "little early to judge", further saying"
"writers Kim Sung-dae, Kim Sung-hwan, Park Byung-woon," → "writers Kim Sung-Dae, Kim Sung-Hwan, Park Byung-Woon,"
Y Magazine → Y-Magazine
"described the track as" → "described the track as featuring"
"and English" further adding" → "and English", further adding"
"for the new year" → "for the new year of 2014"
Move the Weiv magazine ranking to the start of accolades instead, plus add list in prose after the speech marks

Accolades

Done

"the song got nominated for" → "the song was nominated for"
The nomination is not mentioned by the source
"The song got nominated for Digital Bonsang in" → "The song received a nomination for Digital Bonsang at"
"the 29th Golden Disk Awards held on" → "the 29th Golden Disk Awards, held in"
Remove the table because it is not needed for one award

Music video

Done

Background

Wikilink music video and reggae on img text, plus reword it somewhat so the text is not identical to the prose in this section
The animated scenes, exciting, energetic, reggae steps and rhythmic movements part are not sourced; same issue with the prose in the other sub-section
Kim Sung-wook is the director, not Wookie Kim
Wikilink music video
"before the official digital release on" → "before the digital release of the song on" but this part is not backed up, nor is the original release date but the latter can be backed up by [21]
"also featured a few of then-SM trainees including Kim Ye-rim," → "also featured a few then-SM trainees, including Yeri," with the target
"released on August 1 but then re-released" → "released on August 1, 2014, but then experienced a re-release" and this should be the second sentence
The view count is not sourced and the removal is not needed to be mentioned since you have already done so, plus edited version is unsourced too

Synopsis and reception

I will not be reviewing any further per my comments below

Final comments and verdict

LipaCityPH Sorry but I am going to have to ✗ Fail this article due to it being so poorly organised and having a large amount of original research point out above, as the amount is simply too high for you to be likely to fix in a week or so. However, I fully encourage you to work on this article in the future and I may review again if you re-nominate. --K. Peake 15:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Sorry I replied late. I do understand. Still, thank you for the effort you made on making the comments! I'll still follow your comments so that in the future, the article will be eligible for GA. Thank you once again. LipaCityPH (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LipaCityPH Thank you for coming to an agreement and understanding my decision of failure rather than trying to force it being reverted. I always enjoy seeing your work on the GANs page and it is likely that I will give this a second review when it's ready! --K. Peake 16:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: I actually have done most of your comments now. :) I also added some information that are relevant and can be helpful for the article. For the music video section, I think it was hard for you to review that section most especially in the synopsis and reception part. It was because there was no relevant information and it seems to be missing the synopsis and reception itself. Don't worry I added some. I had a hard time finding references (citations) for some of the sentences since the song was released way back almost 7 years ago. However, I managed to find some and hope that becomes relevant. I actually sent this message/comment to you since I was planning to re-nominate it but I'm afraid you'll think that I'm obsessed about nomination of this article that's why I did not nominate it first. I did my best and my part in this article genuinely with the help of your reviews/comments. Hope to hear an honest response from you soon! :) Thank you once again! LipaCityPH (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LipaCityPH On the subject of the music video section, that does look a lot better now. However, you have not fixed numerous issues that are significant, especially the amount of original research in other sections. I'd advise for you to take another look at my comments and the article itself before a re-nomination. --K. Peake 09:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: I haven't familiarize myself yet 'original research' here in Wikipedia since I mainly fix articles (like references) and I try to rewrite pages for GA nomination. I haven't encountered 'original research' problems yet. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Maybe, in some other time if I'll able to point out myself the samples of present original research in the article I will be able to nominate this page once again. Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate your reply to my message/comment. :) LipaCityPH (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LipaCityPH See WP:OR; original research refers to adding material that is not sourced properly. Hope you understand. --K. Peake 09:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]