Talk:Do You... (Miguel song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Being the main contributor, writing this article from scratch ([1]), it would have been nice to have been consulted about this nomination before it was made @DepressedPer:; "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." (WP:GAI) Dan56 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes, I acted upon instinct of seeing a potential GA in an article on surface level. I should've informed you before making the nomination. I'm sorry. DepressedPer (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no harm, no foul here necessarily. I didn't think there'd be enough to make this a good article, content-wise, but we could address anything from the reviewer if needed. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Not enough content-wise would not prevent the attainment of GA status. There is not much wrong with this article, three things are noted below:
"late-night talk show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon"
"A wash of euphoric vocal reverb leads to blasting drums"
"Carrie Battan writes that"

C 679 06:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got them fixed. DepressedPer (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhat of a concern regarding the text, which is very similar at another website, although it appears to have been copied from and not to Wikipedia.
The prose is free of major issues, meeting criterion 1. Two images are present within the article (6), one non-free has the relevant FUR whereas the other is appropriately licensed. There is also an audio clip, which is non-free but also meets inclusion criteria thanks in part to its FUR. The article is neutral and very stable (4, 5), having had almost no changes in a two-year period. Criterion 3 is also met due to the structure supporting a broad, although not extensive, article. Referencing check to follow. C 679 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""Do You..." was voted number 245 in The Village Voice‍ 's annual Pazz & Jop critics' poll.[23]" is this notable? It looks like it got to this position thanks to two "mentions", and a total of 438 songs achieved a similar thing. What's the significance?
fn24 and fn26 show the chart but only top 25, whereas it is apparently at #49 and #32.
fn25 doesn't appear to include the necessary information (in two places)
source (fn29): "making out on a pool table ... taking a helicopter trip" - article: "making out on a pool table, and taking a helicopter trip"
source (fn27): "That footage is intercut with a sequence of Miguel performing on stage in a packed club" - article: "which is intercut with a sequence of Miguel performing on stage in a nightclub."
Of the stated chart positions, none of them are directly supported by the citations. The first three do not appear, whereas the fourth (US Rhythmic) is listed as #29 but the reference displays #37

C 679 04:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problems you listed have been dealt with. DepressedPer (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, AGF on the Nielsen Business Media, Inc references, which are seemingly behind a paywall. Closing as pass. C 679 06:17, 25 April 2015 (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.