Talk:Streets (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: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will it be alright if I respond to the comments? The nominator does not appear to be active around this time, so I'm willing to substitute to make the review process faster. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 02:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, will address the comments shortly then! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"The TikTok #SilhouetteChallenge rendered popular what is now called the "Streets (Silhouette Remix)" version, which includes a snippet of Paul Anka's 1959 hit song "Put Your Head on My Shoulder".[1][2]" → "The TikTok #SilhouetteChallenge helped make what is now called the "Streets (Silhouette Remix)" popular, which includes a snippet of Paul Anka's 1959 hit song "Put Your Head on My Shoulder".[1][2]" Also the info about this song sampling Anka's song should probably be in the Composition section (although referring to the Silhouette remix).

Done Rewrote that part of lede, and included information about the Paul Anka sampling in the article body - though I put it in "Release and remixes" instead of "Composition" because the latter talks about the original version

I am concerned by the overuse of sources from TikTok in this article, especially when there are reliable sources (some already used in this article) that can be used to replace the TikTok sources: NME, Vulture, Also Vulture. The writer for the Forbes article is unreliable; given this discussion. Also, Not sure that meaww.com is reliable.

Done Removed all sources citing TikTok, Forbes, and Meaww, and replaced them with more reliable alternatives.

For the Synopsis section, cite sources where it matches the prose content.

Done

There is also a little bit of plagiarism with the meaww source; more specifically the parts "after it became a sleeper hit the previous month", and this part could also be changed; "The song was written by Doja Cat, David Sprecher, Lydia Asrat, Theron Otis Feemster, Christopher Jefferies, and Demarie Sheki, produced by brother production duo Blaq Tuxedo, who are also credited as co-writers."

Done Removed the Meaww source and rewritten the following excerpts.

Images are licensed fine.

I've added more accompanying images to that article since you made that comment, so it may be worth checking those out too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troubled.elias (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way the {{Multiple image}} template is placed looks a bit awkward in my opinion. The Music video image is okay.}

Done Removed the image; figured it was a bit unnecessary anyway

"Nonetheless, the Pitchfork reviewer liked how Doja Cat showed her versatility in the "ultra-soft and chill" song[4]" I would suggest changing it to what is used at Black Tie White Noise, like "Nonetheless, Starling liked how Doja Cat showed her versatility in the "ultra-soft and chill" song[4]"

Done

Okay. passing now. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the review! This is my first time participating in a GA nomination, and I'm glad it went over well. Do you think we should notify the original nominator about this? ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 15:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, nevermind - I just checked and apparently a bot does it on its own. Neat. Once again, thanks for the review! ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 16:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

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. 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:
· · ·

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.