Talk:Do You... (Miguel song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Do You... (Miguel song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


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)
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)
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)
  • 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"

C679 06:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Got them fixed. DepressedPer (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. C679 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ""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

C679 04:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The problems you listed have been dealt with. DepressedPer (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, AGF on the Nielsen Business Media, Inc references, which are seemingly behind a paywall. Closing as pass. C679 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)