Talk:Later Bitches

Later Bitches has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 14, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Later Bitches/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (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

I will review this today! --K. Peake 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Shouldn't Ultra be added to the infobox?

Only the label for the original release should be listed, which is Panik here.

"to distribute "Later Bitches" internationally." → "to distribute the song internationally."
Remove among others from the end of the reception sentence since that adds nothing of substance
The breakthrough hit part is not really sourced

Removed

"number ten in Romania." → "number 10 in Romania." per MOS:NUM
"It also notably charted at" → "It further charted at"
"an official music video was uploaded" → "a music video was uploaded" with the wikilink
"where the track received a" → "where it received a"

Background

Retitle to Background and composition, moving the comp here

To avoid having very very very small sections, I created "Background and composition". On many instances, the "Background" section also encompasses info on the song's release process, so I think this should be fine. Also I prefer this to "Release and reception", since IMO, those don't have anything in common. I hope this is alright.

[5] should be solely at the end of the sentence
"he addressed this matter" → "he addressed this discussion"
"pointing out that at the time of the article's release in September 2018, there" → "pointing out in September 2018 there"
Make comp the last para of this section

Release and composition

The release para can be moved to reception as I will further instruct, to avoid overly short size
Img looks good!
You have written various countries, yet only the UK and the US; maybe add a ref with numerous citations at the end?

I just added 3 more refs, hope that is fine.

Only the German release is sourced in the third sentence
"while Ultra Music and" → "while Ultra and"
"on 9 November 2018." → "on 9 November."
"was premiered on" → "was made available on"
Pipe spoken to Spoken word

Reception

Retitle to Release and reception, making release the first para
The "and immediately lures you onto the dance floor" quote is not sourced

It is, check the source again

Pipe El Profesor to Professor (Money Heist)
"For Radio Eska, the song" → "For the staff of Radio Eska, the song"
The "contender for hit of the year" quote is not sourced

It is, check the source again

Wikilink as Ultratop
"climbing to number ten in" → "climbing to number 10 in" per MOS:NUM
Remove pipe on France since Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique is later linked again
Remove among others from the end of the sentence

Promotion and other usage

Img looks good!
Wikilink lyric video per MOS:LINK2SECT
Pipe lo-fi to Lo-fi music
Are you sure that belonging to is an appropriate description?

Yes, they probably paid him to use his footage. The footage is under his copyright.

Wikilink music video
"was eventually released by" → "was later released by"
"in front of a 5,000-people audience," → "in front of an audience of 5,000,"
"The ceremony further used" → "The ceremony also used"
Why is NRJ not linked on the first mention instead?

Track listing

Good

Charts

Weekly charts

Should German Airplay really be included when the main one is already there?

It's a split ranking, focusing on airplay only (I don't even think those are counted into the official ranking). The source is trustworthy and the chart has gained a reputation, I think this should be included.

Monthly charts

Good

Year-end charts

Split these tables into different ones, so when someone wants to sort the different years it doesn't do both at once

Certifications

Good

Release history

Maybe change 25 May 2018 release to various and merge those citations into one ref?

I usually do this when a song is released on the same date in many, many, maybe almost all countries. In this case, it is only 6 countries, and I think the reader should be aware of this.

Notes

Good

References

Copyvio score looks fabulous at 14.5%!!!
Why are refs 8 and 16 cited as iTunes Store when the rest cite Apple Music? Also, numerous Apple citations are missing the language parameter when they are in foreign ones that opt to translate upon opening.
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 19 and 29, also what exactly makes this a reliable source?

You are right, I'm not 100% sure. It is a popular radio station in Greece. I removed the 150 million streams claim, but I think the info about the awards show can remain since it is noncontroversial information.

Refs 40, 41, 42 and 44 are not consistent with the archive date formatting
Pipe SNEP to Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique on ref 46

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; hopefully you have a good response time for this one! --K. Peake 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Will need one more week since I'm on vacation. Many thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network freak I will allow for that completely, being on holiday myself at the moment so not as active as usual! --K. Peake 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake Thank for for your review, I fixed the majority of your comments. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass now, I am happy with your response even though it may be late and I did some brief copy editing myself! --K. Peake 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]