Talk:Drink You Away/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Azealia911 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Lead and infobox

• "as fourth single from" → "as the fourth and final single from"
• "it was defined by critics as a multi-genre including classic-rock, country-pop, gospel-blues and Memphis soul song." this needs tweaking, I'd move 'song' from the end of the sentence to the middle, so it reads "it was defined by critics as a multi-genre song, being described as classic-rock, country-pop, gospel-blues and Memphis soul."
• Link alcoholism.

Production and release

• "as fourth single from" → "as the fourth and final single from"
• " [of 'Drink You Away'] " → " [of "Drink You Away"] "

Composition and lyrical interpretation

• The title for the sound clip should use appropriate quote marks.
• "is a song with a length of" → "runs for a duration of"
• Remove "the" before "Time magazine"
• "thought that it is" thought that it was or thinks that it is?
• "is an "unabashed" Memphis soul" an unabashed Memphis soul what?
• "reintroduces it to Timberlake's Memphis roots" what exactly is the it in question? It's a little unclear.
• "Lyrically features references" → "Lyrically, the song features references"
• "could be seen in the lyrics" the lyrics haven't disappeared, so "can be seen in the lyrics"
• Comma after "Vibe magazine"
• "as "honky-tonking" on which the singer compares his love to alcoholism" is honky-tonking a verb? or adjective? I'm unfamiliar with the term altogether so I'm left questioning whether Timberlake is honky-tonking on the song or whether the song is in the style of "honky-tonking".

Critical

• No need for the apostrophe's around 'A'.
• Use appropriate quote marks for Mirrors.
• "thought that the song is" again, tense, he thought the song was one of the biggest surprises when he reviewed the album.
• PopMatters is presented in italics.
• "Brice Ezell called the song a "hat trick" on the album" I'd like some more context if you'd be so kind, how exactly is the song a "hat trick" which by definition is "three successes of the same kind within a limited period". Where are the other two successes? Are they mentioned in the review? Or is the reviewer mis-spoken?
• "described it as a "it's a big" remove it's.
• "commenting "is a surefire hit" reads awkwardly, add "that it seems to be" or something similar before using the quote.
• Remove "On the negative side", it sound unencyclopedic. People will get the flow of the article and the shift to a cluster of negative reviews.
• Pitchfork Media is presented in italics.

Commercial

• This section doesn't require splitting into three paragraphs, one will suffice.
• Can you prove that the song charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart "due to strong digital downloads"? Given that the chart takes into account airplay and streaming as well as digital downloads.
• The source for the song's debut on the aforementioned chart doesn't state that it debuted at 34, it only gives its peak of 17.
• "It has since peaked at number 5." needs a source.
• "For the chart dated February 6, 2016, the song debuted at number 60 on Billboard's Country Airplay chart and climbed 38-36 on the Mainstream Top 40 radio airplay chart." and ""Drink You Away" also peaked at number 85 on the Canadian Hot 100 chart." needs sourcing, you can use the charts from the applicable section using refname.
• "Following the release of the parent album, the song sold 2,358 digital copies." are we still talking about Canada?...
• The Candian Hot 100 position still needs sourcing
• I'd move "Following the release of the parent album, the song sold 2,358 digital copies." to the end of the paragraph, having it after you talk about the Canadian Hot 100 looks as if you're saying it sold that amount of copies in Canada, not South Korea.

Live performances and covers

• Again, this section doesn't seem large enough to require splitting into three paragraphs, one will suffice.
• Unlink Rolling Stone.

Credits and personnel

• I assumed Timberlake would appear first in the personnel section of his own song, no?

Charts

• Scope the row for the mainstream top 40.

Radio and release history

• Title doesn't need both "radio" and "release" history, "Release history" seems more appropriate.

References

• I'm having trouble accessing references 11 and 14, anything on your end?

Post-review comments

• Not bad, just needs tweaking in certain areas. Let me know if you need longer than a week to address my comments. Azealia911 _talk 23:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Azealia911: If there are still some changes remaining, I will be happy to make them.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer MaranoFan. It looks like Tomica is working their way through my comments and suggestions, so let's just wait until they respond here before we start jumping the gun :) Azealia911 _talk 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I just had an observation that most of these concerns had been addressed, and this should've been promoted You're the best judge though, all the best with the review.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Tomica:, I've bolded a couple of comments you may have missed when amending the article and have left a couple more, let me know when you think you've addressed them. Azealia911 _talk 16:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Azealia911 Hello, from me! (finally lol) Double check, but I think I have done all the queries that you posted here. Couple of explanations though 1) There was nothing about the hat-trick explanation in the review; 2) I removed one dead reference, but the other one is working perfectly for me; 3) I wouldn't merge the two sentences with the whole paragraph in 'Live performances and covers', because even though it's very tiny is the second topic (covers) so makes sense to be separate. Other than that, all the issues were on point :). Thank you for the extended review. Appreciate it! — Tom^(T2ME) 09:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks great now, passing. Azealia911 _talk 11:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! It's been a while since I had a good article ^_^. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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.