Talk:Pantropiko/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

Nominator: AstrooKai (talk · contribs) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 03:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Good day and happy holidays! This would be my third GA review. I was the GA reviewer for Cherry on Top (Bini song). I can complete the table within 2 weeks (since I am unavailable from December 28 to January 2 or 3). Ping me if you make any reply or comment to this page so I can be aware ASAP.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	No major issue so far.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Checking on the use of the word "summer" Seems its use as a season is resolved already. No major issue so far.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References appropriately formatted.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources are reliable. All claims backed with RS. Checking on Mega Magazine source in discussion.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	revid 1265503497 has 4.8% similarity in Earwig's copyvio detector.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article describes background, composition and lyrics, and reception (critical and commercial). Still, I hope more information can be added. More critical reception. How did they describe the lyrics and music video?	On hold
(b) (focused)	No major issues.	On hold

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No problem with the article containing praises, but the wording may be repetitive and fail WP:NPOV.  Done Already resolved in Discussion. Looks good.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Non-free media has fair use rationales	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Check the subtitle files. The "Like a tropical island" line doesn't show off in the srt file. Currently checking basis that 'pag (since it's shortened kapag) should be used instead of pag. Add an alt image to the cover.  Done	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	I am on a wikiholiday until the start of January. I can put this on GA, but I'll wait for further improvements/comments.

Discussion

Hi RFNirmala! Good to see you here again! Happy Holidays to you too! I checked your review and addressed 6.b. The apostrophe should have been there since I based it on various sources, I guess I overlooked it when editing it. Anyway, it is fixed now. I will check back here again once you're available. Happy Holidays once again! AstrooKai (Talk) 05:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @AstrooKai. Still, the line in in the English srt isn't yet showing, on desktop and mobile Wikipedia. RFNirmala (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. It was because there was a colon in the timestamp where a comma should have been. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Some points I have as of now. I will add more points in the following days. In the meantime, it's best to add as much (appropriate and verifiable) info to make the article more comprehensive.

• I assume "Production" refers to the music video. It's best to add more information on the music video to supplement the current content. If we can expand on this, we can rename the section to "Music video" to avoid confusion with the word "Production" (of what? the section only mentions the music video, not the song)

The section combines information about the development of the choreography and its impact on the song's popularity, along with brief details about the music video’s filming location. The section has been named this way for quite some time, and the content was retained with only minor copyedits. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find additional information to expand it further, especially regarding the music video, as there hasn't been much coverage on its production in the news. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Written by its producers, Jumbo De Belen, Mat Olavides, along with Angelika Ortiz and Paula Patricia Chavez" Clarify in the lead who are the producers. I suggest either Written by its producers Jumbo De Belen and Mat Olavides, along with Angelika Ortiz and Paula Patricia or the slightly-longer Written by Angelika Ortiz and Paula Patricia Chavez, along with its producers Jumbo De Belen and Mat Olavides.

 Done. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Remove mentions of iTunes and Spotify charts, as per WP:CHARTS.

Before I nominated this for GA, I had already removed all iTunes and Spotify charts statistics per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. The only remaining mentions of Spotify are about how the song contributed to Bini's rise in the industry, such as The track contributed to Bini becoming Spotify's highest-streamed female OPM artist and the Filipino P-pop group with the most monthly listeners and The song surpassed 100 million streams on Spotify and YouTube Music by July 2024. These, while mentioning Spotify, don't talk about the song's chart performance in the platform, which I think should be good per WP:CHARTS. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I could understand letting iTunes, YouTube, and Spotify in the article if there aren't much other sources, though I'm still doubtful in mentioning those platforms.

In the lead, at least to avoid mentioning streaming services twice, you can add an accolade and/or mention Pantropiko being featured in their concerts such as Biniverse (which you should add in the article if you do so). RFNirmala (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason "Spotify" occurred twice in the lead section is:

• The passage This reception, along with its popularity on streaming platforms, helped Bini become Spotify's highest-streamed female OPM artist and the Filipino P-pop group with the most monthly listeners. pertains to the group's success in the platform, which should not violate WP:CHARTS since it describes the group's success in general rather than chart performances.
• The passage By July 2024, the song surpassed 100 million streams on Spotify and YouTube Music. pertains to the song's stream performance on Spotify and YouTube Music, which still should not violate WP:CHARTS since it does not talk about chart performances.

In general, WP:CHARTS should not affect whether these platforms should be mentioned. The guideline states that This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts. But Spotify is a streaming platform, not a music chart alone.

As for the Biniverse concert, I'm not sure if it's WP:DUE since the song already achieved commercial success long before the concert. I guess it can be included if there's a section dedicated to the song's live performances by the group, though I'm kinda doubtful if it's significant enough to be included in the article considering its relative significance with the article's current context. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. We can keep Spotify and others. Adding the accolade and the concert would be optional. RFNirmala (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• You may elaborate on what "FlipMusic" is for the songwriting camp.

 Done. Made this as a footnote.

• The nickname Pow Chavez. I suggest clarifying Paula Patricia "Pow" Chavez in the infobox instead of the lead to avoid info overload and modify "Composition and lyrics" to reflect the full name and nickname.

 Done. I just expanded it as Paula Patricia "Pow" Chavez both in the lead and Composition and lyrics section. I didn't include the nickname in the infobox since Apple Music's credits for the song don't include the nickname (this is also for consistency with the Credits and personnel section where nicknames are absent). AstrooKai (Talk) 08:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have concerns on the Jollibee sentence, which might be out of place with "Reception".

I placed it there since it can be considered as a commercial performance. For context, the second paragraph in the Reception talks about the song's performance and achievement in the commercial industry, similar to Commercial performance sections. If the entry is unsuitable to be included in the section, please let me know what alternatives can be done to it, thanks! AstrooKai (Talk) 08:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I did a spotcheck of the references. Most of the sources are reliable and reflect the claims written. However, in the 1st paragraph of Reception, we need another RS other than Mega Magazine. Their claim that the song "helped expand Bini's local and international influence" is based on just one promotional paragraph.

I removed this for now due to the limited references that are available. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• For the lead, I suggest including a part of the "Background" (written in a songwriting camp). There could also be a sentence on the song's feedback to supplement commercial performance, and some context on

 Done. See revision 1265295989. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the praise on the song could fall under MOS:PUFFERY. To resolve this, you can rephrase the sentences to make it appear the sources are describing the song instead of the article, stick to what the sources say, or tone down. To start, I found this ref describing the song as "a celebration of love and summer" and its inspiration from PH beaches. Examples of content to watch:

The song's upbeat melody and rhythm align with its summer-inspired theme, incorporating catchy hooks and vibrant production. Lead sentence. This will adjust to the main body.

into a vibrant, tropical bubblegum pop anthem designed for group harmony and catchy, upbeat energy

The word "vibrant" is repeated 5 times.

 Done. I made a general copyedit, sticking close to what the sources say, also in accordance with WP:FULLCITE. Let me know if other passages seem off from their sources. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I wikilinked "viral" in the lead. Is it OK if you rephrase "viral success" (to remove the word 'success')? RFNirmala (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I instead removed the word "viral" from the two "viral success" since the word "viral" feels out of place in the grammar of the entire sentence. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Reply below the bullet points if there are any concerns or replies. RFNirmala (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Note to other reviewers

@AstrooKai: I will be on a wikiholiday from December 26 to the start of January and cannot edit in the meantime. Strictly within the GA scope, the article could be ready to pass as a GA (criteria 3 on hold is just for the article to be also on hold). But, I noted some points which I wanted to be resolved before approving it. My points in the discussion are:

• Naming of the "Production" section, which only describes music video choreography.
• Mentions of streaming platforms in the lead. If there are concerns on these, mentions were done to show their success in these platforms (and as a group). I provided suggestions such as an accolade and inclusion to Biniverse, but placing the concert mention might be insignificant to the article.
• I suggest adding more details on the article (e.g. the music video, feedback and reception outside charts and streaming), although nominator says there isn't much news coverage of the song.

After discussion, I allowed these points to be resolved optionally, as these details might not be in the GA criteria, especially 2 and 3. Other editors can comment on what could be done to improve the article. Just ping me and AstrooKai. RFNirmala (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@AstrooKai Glad to have you! I will pass this article as GA, since an accolade only changed since I had this on hold. Still, I look forward for my review points to be done by other editors.

• Add more info for the production, choreography, and music video. Possibly this source, with other RS.

About this, I still can't find additional information that can be used for expansion for the same reason. Pantropiko was a sleeper hit, so it hadn't that much coverage prior to its popularity. When it went viral in early 2024, most of the news coverage focused on its commercial performance (e.g. how it topped the charts, how it contributed to Bini's rise in the industry, music streams). The choreography production was not detailed by sources and was only given minority view and brief inclusion (just mentioning that Sheena created the steps). As for the music video, most of the sources only talks about how the music video got listed on YouTube’s Top 100 Daily Global Music Video chart. The only mention about the MV's production is where it was filmed, which was only published by one source.[1] To be honest, it's quite a miracle that the song's musical production (composition) was well-documented by sources.[2][3] AstrooKai (Talk) 06:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• The song has accolades that can establish itself and can supplement or replace streaming platforms. This is definitely not WP:CHARTS, but other aspects of the article deserve lead mentions too.

 Done. See revision 1266567637. Let me know if the phrase require adjustments.

• For its inclusion in concerts, best if you add it. There are GA songs that note inclusions in set lists (loosely similar to I Want You (SB19 song) and Been Like This. I can let the Jollibee sentence through.

I was already planning this, but I don't know where to place it. Most of the GA songs (like the ones you mentioned) note the song's live performances in "Promotion" sections. However, this article doesn't have one, since, like I said in the first point, the song was a sleeper hit, which received less (or possibly none) coverage about its promotion. All of the 2023 news coverage about the song were from ABS-CBN (which is a primary source) and only talks about its commercial performances after its release. One ABS-CBN source showed the group performing the song at ASAP but they did not explicitly said that the performance was a promotion. Rather, it only links the YouTube video link of the episode, which I consider is not a significant coverage.

What do you think? Are the live performances after its popularity still considered a "promotion"? Because in my knowledge, promotion is the act of promoting something to get it more attention, but the song already had the popularity prior to its inclusion in concerts and other live performances. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems the best we can do is leave Reception as is. We'll not include the ASAP performance, which does not mention anything about Bini and Pantropiko and was done 1 year after release. Same for Biniverse, which would be awkward for the article's current prose. RFNirmala (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. My three concerns are now addressed. I'll be passing this as GA. RFNirmala (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Will close the review if you acknowledge this. RFNirmala (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2025 (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.