Talk:A Boy Is a Gun/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:48, 28 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.

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

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PSA (talk · contribs) 01:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this one. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skip here for my verdict. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:48, 28 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.	The prose is far, far from GAN quality. The article can benefit from a sweep by a copyeditor at WP:GOCE. Here are some of the many issues: In the lead, add the release year of Igor after mentioning it. Billboard, a magazine, ought to be italicized. "The song and music video centers around Tyler's alter ego" then "The music video is centered around Igor-Tyler's alter ego" Two things. You repeat the same information, so I suggest removing the second sentence and explaining who the alter ego is at the first sentence instead. Use a non-spaced em dash or spaced en dash instead of a hyphen. "Igor is interested in a love interest, while the love interest is disinterested." lots of the word "interest" there... I recommend consolidating sentences 4 to 7 of the lead as "The music video centers on Igor and his unreciprocated attraction to a love interest, whom he fights after a mental breakdown." The mansion detail can safely be removed as it is irrelevant for the lead section. Link Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs "fucking shit, And" capitalization Remove space before the quotebox citation "Magnolia", a song, should be enclosed in double quotation marks; Call Me by Your Name, a film, should be in italics. "from which Tyler is a fan of" -> "of which Tyler is a fan". When confused, try writing the clause as "that/which ... [preposition]", move the preposition to the beginning, and attach "which" after it. "movie" I hate to be pretentious, but "film" is more encyclopedic One prints something on a shirt, not in it. Similarly, one posts on social media, not in it. "The song was sampled from Bound" make this active voice: "The song samples 'Bound' " "Bound" and "Bound 1" should be enclosed in double quotation marks I have finished only up until "Background and composition" and there already are a lot of issues. Small ones on their own, but they pile up. Again, I highly recommend having a copyeditor clean it up outside a GAN.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some details are missing from the lead, and some do not need to be there.
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.	For a GAN, this is fine.
	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).	Genius is of situational reliability and, in a GAN, would best be used only for musician interviews. AOTY is WP:USERGENERATED and therefore unreliable. The Michigan Daily is a student newspaper and would not pass for a GAN-quality source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotcheck (in reference to this version): 1: The quotation in the box is verified, but the second citation does not verify the corresponding statements. It makes no mention of clothes being strewn on the lawn, and the student newspaper article does not either. This is raising some red flags. 3: It says that the LA streetwear label Pleasures popularized the slogan and printed it on shirts. BWoU was described as a feminist collective. I sincerely believe this was an honest mistake. 9: "Emotional turmoil" quotation is verified. For the first citation, the enwiki article says "Igor is placed in a mansion, walking around the balcony, when suddenly he runs in a maze-line garden and ends up in a bathtub." This is a nitpick, but the wording implies that after arriving in the garden he is somehow transported into a bathtub or perhaps found a bathtub randomly placed in the garden. The RS source says "Tyler, the Creator wanders around a luxurious mansion as his alter-ego Igor [...] as he gazes from the home's balcony, runs through a maze-like garden and reclines in a bathtub." This makes more sense seeing as it implies that they are separate scenes, not necessarily events that happen chronologically in the film's canon. Again, I wish to believe this was an honest oversight on your part, perhaps a rush in writing this part? 11: The article says "Igor later invites the lover to dinner, though not successful," which implies a rejected invitation. However, the article says "the characters drive, pack their bags and serve dinner, but do so passively, with no expressions crossing their face." I watched the video myself to confirm and they were indeed having dinner; it was just awkward. Again, I want to believe this was an honest mistake, but now there are multiple of these. I have spotted two statements that could plausibly have been just a hasty way of wording an otherwise correct fact (1, 9) and one that is outright wrong and could have been a mistake only if you truly weren't paying attention (3).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no red flags; link to the analysis below since putting it here seemingly breaks the table.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Far from it. This is an article about a song, so where is the music? This discussion has been relegated instead to a sample of dubious usefulness, as I will explain below. A section title also says the lyrics are discussed but I do not see this as well. The nail in the coffin has to be the critical reception, which consists solely of quotations that honestly do not say anything of substance about the song's quality, themes, message, etc. This on its own is grounds for a fail, and given the lack of coverage on the most crucial parts of the song, it would be best to redirect the page to the album article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sure, but I would honestly argue there is not enough detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Honestly, I cannot even say anything that would fit neatly into a "yes/no/maybe" trichotomy considering the critical reception section fails at its job to providing actually useful critique of the song.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No questions about this one.
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.	Highly doubt it. We do not need a non-free MV screenshot that shows a concept as incredibly simple as a "calm farm". WP:FUR states that snippets of non-free content should not be permitted if "the subject [can] be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text". This means the sample either has to go too or illustrate something about the composition, because the article is using the sample to highlight the lyrics, which are already written communication. When deleting, please tag them with {{orfud}}.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Sure, though keep in mind that I find it unlikely at least one of those media would stay.
	7. Overall assessment.

Link to Earwig analysis here.

Verdict

I extend my sincerest apologies and really, really hate to say all of what I am about to say below. I do not usually fail nominations for things like GAN, but issues that stand out this much need to be addressed thoroughly.

I completely recognize you are an enthusiastic editor who is willing to do one's best to improve the encyclopedia, considering you are willing to promote DYK hooks to preps, assess AFC drafts, or work with other enthusiastic editors on bringing articles of mutual interest to the best quality possible. On your own, though, I simply think that with your current capabilities, GAN is not the right place for you. It is a sentiment that not only I seem to hold.

Take a look at what the table says - you have had several issues with prose, were not familiar with policies on non-free media until hopefully now, and recklessly failed to maintain source-text integrity, among others. I note that this is not your first time with failed GANs (Talk:.tv/GA2, Talk:Severe Tropical Storm Lionrock (2010)/GA1, and Talk:Philippines at the 1928 Summer Olympics/GA1); I also note Arconning's closing remarks on 3, which highlight the same issues that plague this article: "I'd have to quickfail as the overall prose of the article is quite far from meeting the standard [and] some terms and wording used in the article should be changed to a more encyclopedic tone. Some statements on the article are unsourced or are wrongfully attributed to a source, so that should also be fixed before nominating again." This is not a one-off case of a single article unfortunately not being as good enough as others in your repertoire; this is a trend.

Your GAN reviews have been a major concern as well: this section on your talk page adequately points out the issue. You should hopefully know this by now, but you have to slow down with not only reviewing—do not take so many if you cannot properly commit—but with nominating as well, because nominating articles seemingly in haste leads to output with very glaring problems. This approach clearly exhausts you; in that same section, you say "I honestly don't know how long to take a break for, I took a break for five days, and I don't know how much longer." Nobody benefits whenever this kind of thing happens. As someone diagnosed wth several mental health disorders, I know very well the feeling of not being able to commit to projects because of mental distress. Still, I recognize it is no excuse to leave editors hanging or produce output that remains to be as best as it can be, or needs more improvement before going through quality assessment processes that are just as taxing to do as writing.

It took you a while to address others' comments with your GAN reviewing, with another talk page section filled with concerned editors to none of whom you replied. We should not act like this in a collaborative environment. Thankfully, the next time someone pointed this out you responded, and you are now being guided by a wonderful editor on how to review nominations. I hope you listen to similar feedback with your GA nominations. Either you seek assistance or step away from the process entirely.

Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:48, 28 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.