Talk:Stoney (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 15:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again! Thanks for reviewing this one. Locust member (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose

Article is disjointed in several places, including the lead; lack of flow. However, its chronological organization is alright. I'll try fix the lead.
- Do you think you could tell me specifically what is disjointed and/or what I would need to do to fix it?
(lead) with some writing that it did not live up to its potential and falls short of the success built up from "White Iverson". Could this be phrased better?
- Will get to this later
  - "with some saying it did not live up to its potential or match the success of "White Iverson"." is this good?
During May 2016, he released his debut mixtape August 26th, which was titled after the original planned release date of Stoney. It was then delayed, which he has since apologized for. phrase better.
- Will get to this later
  - "His debut mixtape, August 26th, was released in May 2016. It was titled after the original planned release date for Stoney, though it was subsequently delayed." how is this?
    - Better. // Chchcheckit (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Iverson, the namesake of "White Iverson", responded favorably to the song during March 2016. He said that Malone did "an awesome job" and that we would like to meet him irrelevant to the album, moreso to the song. also: "he" // Chchcheckit (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Locust member (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

No unreliable sources used.

Broad

Wide scope, covering recording, songs, reception and whatnot. Yeah.

Stable

Mostly? Most changes have been pretty recent, but mostly from nom.
may need consensus on what post malone is: revision history suggests disagreement over terming him a rapper or singer (it varies on pages)
- The majority seems to refer to him as a singer. It’s just one editor that keeps reverting it back (AndrewTheWikiEditor) but from messages on his talk page, he looks like a vandal.

NPOV

how do the comments about posty being a "culture vulture" tie into the album (i.e. compared to how the columbine controversy relates to marilyn manson's holy wood)? Otherwise i am unsure of its relevance to the article/neutrality. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only included it to show that the success of "White Iverson" was not all sunshine and rainbows and it did get criticism. Since I added in its accomplishments (gaining him a record deal, working with high profile artists, and certified diamond) I feel like I should also include how people criticized Posty and the song online. I can remove though if you think it shouldn't be in the article. Locust member (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per the above comparison to Marilyn Manson: i don't see how this ties in to the album's production nor composition. I feel like these criticisms are better suited to the song's reception on its own article, than presented as pretext/presumptions of the album i guess. if that makes sense // Chchcheckit (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense, I removed it from the article. Locust member (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

pending

Copyvio

Earwig: highest is 27.5%, passes
Both artworks and Dallas photo have appropriate rationale and use.

Yeah. //Chchcheckit (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on the review? No rush of course, just wondering as it has been two weeks since it started. Locust member (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else needs to take over the review. I'm stuck because I have multiple exams I'm trying to do currently. I thought I could do both but I just can't. I'm sorry. This is probably the shittest way to say it but fuck. I don't know how to ask or to do that // Chchcheckit (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; no worries at all. I'm not sure how to transfer a review either. Maybe a mod will stop in eventually? I'm in no rush as I said before so I won't mind how long it takes for this to get transferred. Locust member (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but my lack of disclosure is still a shitty thing to do. I'm really worn out and uninspired to edit on wikipedia and no matter what i try to work on the novelty factor doesn't work. which is why things have gone the way they have. Two ways this can go: this review will either take a while or someone else takes over.

That being said, I may still provide some comments since I owe you them. Most of my issues are prose and organization related. For example:

In an October 2017 interview with Paper magazine, he called the album "mediocre", and later told Nardwuar that he thinks "White Iverson" is his only "good song" during December 2017. Relevant, but probably worth putting in the review section. This is post-release, not a pretext to the album so why is it in background?
Reception has surnames but is not clear whose publication relates to whom. maybe a small note like "Yeung of AllMusic"? If you think this suggestion sucks ignore it.
Im pretty happy with commercial reception and the composition section. pending any organiztion changes.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done both, I think the latter is a valid change. Locust member (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Locust member Tried CE'ing the lead.

Interviews need a little more attribution to their sources.
Also: Stoney received mixed reviews from music critics, with some saying it did not live up to its potential or match the success of "White Iverson". Could the critical reception be improved/redone? Re-read the reviews. Also "some saying" is a little WP:WEASEL-y
Commercial performance needs updating: only refers to 3x Platinum when album has been 5x platinum since 2021.
Also: this source https://www.xxlmag.com/post-malones-stoney-album-breaks-chart-record-held-by-michael-jacksons-thriller/ are useful for cmmercial performance.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: this https://www.billboard.com/music/awards/post-malone-singles-career-timeline-8456323/ Chchcheckit (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/72926-post-malones-i-fall-apart-will-get-single-treatment-following-viral-video-news

https://www.billboard.com/pro/post-malone-i-fall-apart-hot-100-stoney/

// Chchcheckit (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]