This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
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
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.
Taking. It is nice to be working with you in GAN for the first time. Please give me a moment within the day to finish the review PSA 🏕️ (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I was a bit unprepared for this since I made this article some time in February and it definitely would still require a lott of work, thank you though! 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(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);[2]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Most are reliable for articles about contemporary music, except for Genius and Musicnotes.com. Please find replacements if there are; otherwise, remove them and the information on the article that you cited from these sources.
Ran Earwig on the article and found no glaring issues. Highlighted texts are just quotations. However, there are some issues beyond just copyvio; see #Discussion.
On hold
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
Definitely far from it. Apart from the talk about Angelina Jolie (the inclusion of which is dubious IMO; see WP:RUMOUR), I see no other critical commentary around the song. No reviews praising it or critiquing it? Check the album reviews and add coverage of the song into the article. Furthermore, information about the music and production could use a little expansion beyond the genre description.
Fail
(b) (focused)
For the most part, I suppose.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
A bit on the fence on the Angelina Jolie coverage, per WP:RUMOUR as said earlier, but there are only two lines in the article that discuss this, so as long as it stays that way I think we're good.
Pass
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
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)
See my next comment.
On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Not sure about the appropriateness of the single image here. It seems purely decorative. Can we remove this?
I firmly believe it is far from meeting GA status, but convention and good faith tells me this may be fixed within a week. If none of the above issues have been thoroughly fixed, I will regrettably have to fail this.
"Rex hands me a Bullet mic ... and we just start singing. Few days later, Rex says, 'Hey, we played that thing for Abel' — you know, the Weeknd — 'and he really likes it' ... Somehow it floated into his creative ether and he jumped in as a writer." vs
"...went to producer Rex Kudo's house, who handed Johnston a microphone, and Johnston then sang with Kudo. A few days later, Kudo played Johnston's vocals for the Weeknd, who liked it, and eventually Johnston came in as a writer for the song."
Most comments will revolve around grammar and concision.
"revealed to the Los Angeles Times" -> "told the Los Angeles Times" with Los Angeles Times in italics
Done
No; the wording is still the same.
"him and Christian Love" -> "he and Christian Love"
Done
"producer Rex Kudo's house" be consistent with the non-use of false titles here
Done
"producer Rex Kudo's house, who handed..." -> "producer Rex Kudo's house. Kudo handed" (a house cannot hand someone a microphone)
"eventually" is not needed
Done
"came in as a writer for the song" phrasal verb makes the sentence clunky. perhaps replace with "...for the Weeknd, who liked it; Johnson got writing credits for the song"
Done
"sung by Johnston and Christian Love" remove Love's first name
Done
"with Tyler, the Creator being revealed" no need for "being"
Done
After saying "January 3, 2022", the article should stop listing the years for subsequent dates to avoid redundancy
Done
"The title of the song was then revealed alongside the tracklist for Dawn FM" -> "The tracklist, which listed the song, was revealed on January 5, and the album was released on January 7."
Done
"The song has been described as a soft rock ballad" if no other source lists a different genre it's safe to replace "has been described as" with "is"
Done
"Ken Partridge of Genius described the first verse of the song as the Weeknd singing about his success ... but also has him sing about an ex-lover" -> "On the first verse, the Weeknd sings about his success ... and about an ex-lover"
Done
"while the Weeknd claims that he 'loved her right,' and further claims that he made her 'scream like Neve Campbell'." -> split into its own sentence, then rewrite to "He says that not only did he love her, he also made her 'scream like Neve Campbell'.
Done
Do not link "scream" to Scream (1996 film) per MOS:EASTEREGG; rather, if you want to keep the link, try finding a source that discusses the reference.
Done
"willing to marriage" should be "willing to marry"
Done
"being the seventh highest charting track from the album" "being" and "from the album" can be culled
I have done some copyediting to correct awkward wording and trim sentences, to save you the time and trouble of having to do it yourself. Please revert some changes if you disagree.
"what was originally a fling interests him" try not to use "fling" here as that is an unencyclopedic word.
The "under construction" template is still on top of the page. Are you sure you have exhausted all the sources? There is noticeably still no critical reception. Considering much of the articles that focus on this song specifically are thinkpieces about Angelina Jolie, which clash with our guidelines about spreading rumors, I also am unsure if this should remain an article. Now that will be another discussion to deal with, but to focus on this review: the "broad" criterion remains to be met, since not all main points are covered in the article. Please address this ASAP. PSA 🏕️ (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that expansion of this article is done, and since I think everything has been exhausted, this is good enough for a GAN. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Will pass PSA 🏕️ (talk) 11:59, 9 May 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.