Talk:Stars (¥$ song)

Stars (¥$ song) 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
September 10, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

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

Christian music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stars (¥$ song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 13:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. 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, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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.	No evidence of edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Copyvio check: I reviewed both matches over 5%. "the contracts that were ripped up" could probably be rephrased to avoid using the words from the source (or made into a quote). Otherwise, no concerns - most of the matches were attributed quotes.

Done rephrased. --K. Peake 14:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image is CC and relevant. Caption is fine.
Sources: All seem appropriate, Ref 11 (Aron) shows me a "cite news: CS1 maint: url-status (link)" message but I guess that won't be shown to, or detract from the experiens of, the vast majority of readers.

Spot check on "Ty Dolla Sign acknowledged his loyalty to West for having believed in the rapper during both his successes and failures." "acknowledged his loyalty to West" - no issues. "for having believed in the rapper during both his successes and failures." - I'm not so sure; Ty Dolla Sign seems to be talking about West's successes and failures, rather than his own, but I might be misinterpreting it.

Not done the rapper obviously refers to West, as Ty Dolla Sign is introduced as a singer here. --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not a requirement for GA, but I do note that Ty Dolla Sign is sometimes referred to as a rapper in sources (e.g. the NME one from 13 November). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Camper had first worked with West when he was 20 years old" - I think this is a bit ambiguous; maybe reword to make it clearer that it was Camper who was 20.

Done nice catch here! --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"saw each other at multiple occasions" - "on multiple occasions" seems more natural to me, but aybe it's an ENGVAR thing.

Done --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "in Saudi Arabia from November 2023 until February 2024" - where are the dates verified; is it based on the article dates? I see three months verified.

Comment: the first source mentions them having began the recording sessions in November 2023, while the second source confirms the sessions ran for three months up to February 2024 so these do provide the dates in prose. --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something still. The first source (Nov 13) has phrases like "recently" and "just landed", but how do we know it was November, and not, for example, late October that the sessions started?

~~To explain further, the corresponding source says the recording lasted 3 months so is this not sufficient to verify these months?~~ BennyOnTheLoose Looking into this further, the sources support the fall of 2023 into the next year so I have edited to this now if these dates work? --K. Peake 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "he also contributed vocals to "Stars"" - no issues.
Spot check on "On February 9, 2024, musician Dijon posted to Instagram Stories that he was not aware of his 2019 track "Good Luck" being sampled on the song." - no issues
Spot check on "The next day, GOOD Music executive Che Pope refuted that Dijon "should be good"" - I don't see 10 Feb confirmed in the source. Pope is described in the sources as "from Yeezy Music" and I don't see a mention of "GOOD Music". "Refuted" means "to prove wrong by argument or evidence" - isn't something like "responded" more appropriate here?

Done --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "Musically, "Stars" is a dark, slow-building gospel track" - no issues. (I don't think that this falls foul of WP:SYNTH)
Spot check on "combined with a sample of Dijon's vocals from "Good Luck"." - I dont see "Good Luck" mentioned in that source, although it is verified in Ref 7.

Done I didn't notice this admittedly! --K. Peake 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "West acknowledges the allegations of antisemitism against him," = no issues
"The song was met with lukewarm reviews from music critics, with general praise for the composition" seems a fair summary from the reviews I saw.
Spot check on "In Canada, the song debuted at number 29 on the Canadian Hot 100 and lasted for two weeks on the chart" - no issues.

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. thanks, Kyle Peake. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2024 (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.