Talk:Heart Wants What It Wants/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair to make you wait for another one when you did everything the reviewer asked. Will check over the basics and most likely pass this in the next few days.

Great, got too busy to do it until now. Starting this momentarily. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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):
Not terrible. I have some minor concerns that should be corrected before passing.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Technically, you should link AllAccess in your ref, but that's not part of the criteria.

Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It's not too big by any stretch of the imagination, but some parts of it feel like filler content just to make the article bigger.
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):
I have a problem with the still used in the music video. Will detail fully below.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Issues to fix

Image

Let's start with the image, and the rest involves writing or organization.
- They are tagged, yes, but I don't see how the still in the music video is appropriate to use as it currently stands. What about this shot makes it pass the non-free content criteria? A visual aid from the video would be helpful given Bebe's unique '70s motif in this era, but you need to caption the shot with something that demonstrates how a part of the video caught the attention of the media.

Comment: I think this has been sufficiently addressed prior to me? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition

the song emerges as a follow-up single to it and leads to the forthcoming single "Call On Me". This isn't really a necessary portion to include and I'd prefer if you removed this and reworked part of it to say how it was a follow-up to the widespread success of "I'm Good".

Done prior to me I think -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put a paragraph break between discussing the song's release and how the song has been described.

Done Also prior -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following "you fall out of love", change the first use of "and" to "as well as" so you don't double-and so quickly.

Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics include: "My heart only wants what it wants/ What it wants, what it wants 'til it doesn't/ I can't promise you love, it was." This seems to me like a random and unnecessary inclusion of lyrics, and without using the same source, the preceding sentence's offered context is weak and putting these two together reads as unintentional synth.

Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

You use the word "garnered" twice in a short article body, and three times total. Shake it up a bit, perhaps "received"?

Done prior to me -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As of" is a term that should generally be used to benchmark a time, and not someone's opinion. Use "According to" instead. Similarly, I don't think "complies" does what you want it do to here. Maybe "engages"?

Done prior to me -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose names Eryn Murphy's publication as Euphoria Magazine, the citation writes it Euphoriazine, and the publication itself appears to just be named Euphoria on its website (excluding the URL). Which one is it? Make it consistent. In any case, I don't think it's the one in the prose currently.

Done +

Comment:??? It's prior, but I think it makes sense to change it to Euphoria. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why Jenesaispop is italicized in this article but not in its own article's title. I would guess because it is an online publication only, but so is Uproxx and it has italics in its name. For now, remove the italics from Jenesaispop. I think I will investigate this issue in the future. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In that same sentence, while "linked" works, I think "likened" works better.

Done prior to me -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first use of "reached" would normally be appropriate, but the context was not given that these are music charts. Consequently, I would change this one to "charted at".

Done prior to me-Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

American English should be used in this article, and "utilising" is spelled utilizing here.

Done prior to me -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "vinyl" should be expanded to "vinyl record" because that may not be immediately clear enough.

Done prior to me -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

That's about it, good luck! Now placing on hold. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DannyMusicEditor: hope you're good. Thank you for your effort and the review. I've resolved the issues, hope you're fine with. :D Iaof2017 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iaof2017: Great job. I appreciate the attempt on clarifying the lyrical inclusion, but I'm still not satisfied with that one. Let me try to explain better: I don't see an immediate and obvious connection to the previous sentence's observation, which came from a different citation. My problem is not that we're including them at all; in fact, if the two statements came from the same source, I'd advocate for its inclusion. However, since they're from separate cites, the problem is twofold: we can't really assume this set of lyrics is what the previous reviewer was talking about with an entirely different new source, that's synthesis. Without said synthesis, we have no real grounds to add copyrighted lyrics to the page. Does that make sense? dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for taking the time to provide detailed feedback on that matter. It's important to note that I included the lyrics based on a reliable source. When multiple sources contribute to understanding a topic, it's common to use information from different sources to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of a subject. The key is that the source supporting the lyrics is reliable, which is crucial for ensuring the accuracy of the content. However, what would you suggest? Iaof2017 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been neglecting this, my time for editing Wikipedia has been limited recently. I still don't think you're getting the message. Yes, when you examine them for individual merits, each of the two sources are reliable. I am not questioning that; for reliability, that much is made clear.

It's drawing the conclusion that one of said two sources is describing about a certain set of lyrics which happen to be randomly mentioned by a second reliable source, but the first one did not specify the lyrics, nor does the second one corroborate the first source's findings. Including the lyrics following up the original description not only implies we drew the conclusion that they're connected, but also becomes a needless copyright violation without adequate context. I normally wouldn't be bothered, but it's about copyright to me, and I take it very seriously on a GA review. I want this to pass, so if you'd like me to get a speedy second look at this I can offer it at WikiProject Songs. If I'm found to be wrong I will happily pass it as is. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iaof2017: I am suspecting you did not see this. Pinging to make sure. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Hey there, I'm just a random editor here and marked everything that's been fixed above just for the sake of convenience but also did some BOLD edits in fixing all the remaining issues. I went ahead and removed the lyrics as I do agree it's randomly integrated into the article without any meaningful context established in prose, but if the prime editor disputes that, I think it's best to discuss that further below. Let me know if there are any other unresolved issues. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to both of you. Thank you for the feedback @DannyMusicEditor:, unfortunately, I overlooked the ping. Also thanks to you, @Dcdiehardfan: for your contribution I'm totally fine with it. Cheers! :) Iaof2017 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Feel free to also ping me back if there are any other remaining issues so that they can be resolved. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with this version. Now passing. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]