Talk:Work (Iggy Azalea song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is my first GAN! I've been through the GA criteria and hope the article doesn't have too many flaws!—Cool Marc 11:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Splitting per WP:SIZERULE is standard across Wikipedia. With pages over 100kB being listed as "Almost certainly should divided". At 125kB, may I suggest significantly reducing the size of this article. All information should be essential and offer ease-of-reading for the viewer. Size is a factor that needs to be addressed here. KaneZolanski (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you can be certain that by the end of this review, the article will fit comfortable in the 75-85kb range. There's a ton of fluff and whatnot. Marc, I'm going to begin the review by helping you out and removing all unreliable sources. Additionally, I'm going to prune this baby down until it's an acceptable length.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 08:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I glanced over the article and a lot of the information is unneeded and unnecessary. It's bloats an otherwise ok looking article. Once sizing and sourcing is cleared up I'm sure it'll be eligible for GA. It's a rather large article, so if you need any help with anything just ask. KaneZolanski (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help mate. I fear if we leave this all to the nominator it might be to overwhelming. I sort of trimmed the article (some refs were damaged). If you don't mind doing a third-eye trim yourself that'd be awesome :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That was my thought, also. From what I can see, the nominator has put a lot of time into adding to and creating this article to it's current state (Pre GAN). So removing all that hard work would probably have been a challenge in itself. I believe it's now down to a manageable standard from which the nominator can work from. But, of course, more information could be trimmed. KaneZolanski (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for the trimming KaneZolanski and Petergriffin9901. Like you guys said, from my point of view it would be hard for me to recognize what is fluff and what is not, as I've single-handedly written the entire article. An outsider of the article would do a much better job than I would, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin, lol. Thanks again, this is of course a learning experience for me and I truly hope we can get this to GA!—Cool Marc 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some information which I genuinely thought was of high value to the article has now been removed altogether such as:

When the song was recorded.
It was one of the first songs written for the album.
Reviews of the song's most important live performances (Jimmy Kimmel, her tour!)
The RuPaul interpolation used on tour!

Is it possible for me to restore this info or is it considered fluff?—Cool Marc 12:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information you labeled is interesting, yes, but for an encyclopaedic article they do act as more of a filler. This would be perfectly fine on an undeveloped, under-sourced article. But, to your credit, this article is not short of relevant information and sourcing. Things that could be touched on, in not too much detail, could be when the song was recorded and that it was one of the first for the album. The other information I'm afraid doesn't hold much value in the grand scheme of things, concerning the article. KaneZolanski (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some fixes after the fluff removal. I'm not quite sure as to what further I can do for the article other than the abovementioned. So shout when you're ready Peter? Thanks again for the fluff removal!—Cool Marc 13:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marc. SO we've done a lot so far. Pat yourselves on the back :). I see you've taken this to the guild for a copy-edit. Smart move. You need someone with some strong grammar to come and continue to prune excesses and re-write much of the weak prose. I will be here to assist you, but the article still needs a thorough copy-edit.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 10:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could take many weeks before someone from the Copy Editing Guild gets around to this article, they have a major backlog. But I'll try and personally ask a few users, could you recommend me someone maybe Peter?—Cool Marc 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here to mention that CoolMarc asked me if I could run through and copy-edit the article. Note that I've never done copyedit work at the GA-level, but I'm happy to throw in what I've got. I've started, mostly with small grammar changes and re-wordings. I'll try to go through it several times over the next day or two. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: thank you so much for helping with the copy editing. So grateful! The article should be GA soon by the looks of things, yey!—Cool Marc 08:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I've done fixes for every section, except for the Music video and Live performances section which I will get working on shortly. Will be doing a complete re-write for these two sections to make them as brief and encyclopedic as possible.—Cool Marc 13:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SuperHamster: is there any copy editing left to do for this? Also, @Petergriffin9901: is there other flaws that need to be sorted out, besides the copy editing?—Cool Marc 12:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolmarc: Hey - I'd say I'm done. Mostly did grammar fixes and formatting changes, with some re-wordings here and there. If any section still seems awkward, I'd be happy to take another look. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that I have some OR and close paraphrasing concerns. Here's one example (there may be many more): "Its instrumentation is mainly string-laden and drum-heavy,[27] with The Invisible Men's production casting Azalea's vocal against a combination of 808-heavy trap music, EDM clapping and plaintive melodies. [26]" - 'string-laden' is directly from the source, which is iffy, and nothing in that source speaks of drums. The second source says "Producers The Invisible Men shine here as Azalea’s vocals when cast against an 808-heavy trap-meets-EDM firework party of claps and plaintive melodies makes for an extraordinarily well-rounded listen." It's too close for my liking. Adabow (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KaneZolanski: @Petergriffin9901: WP:SIZERULE discusses article size in terms of readable prose size, not Wiki text. This is different from what is shown in the edit history. A tool for working this our is User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. That's not to say this article was too big beforehand, but I'm just letting you know that that's what the rule of thumb refers to. Adabow (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean wasn't? Thanks for the tip mate. Either way, it needed trimming.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yeah. Adabow (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WikiRedactor to reduce the sample following Adabow's tagging.—Cool Marc 00:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sample has been fixed. @Petergriffin9901: shall we continue?—Cool Marc 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, sorry to say this nomination has failed due to extensive concerns and lack of activity. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Marc, the article as pre-mature. Additionally, I had personally done extensive amounts of triming etc. to the article. I think it would be best to put some more work into it, and re-nominate it so it can be reviewed with a fresh pair of eyes. Good luck.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently contacted Coolmarc over Facebook regarding his inactivity, and it doesn't look like he'll be coming back. I may be able to help. A list of bullet point concerns would be useful.--Laun chba ller 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]