Talk:Down (Fifth Harmony song)

Down (Fifth Harmony song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 7, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 23, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Sources

I added some text using as support the magazines US Weekly and Cosmopolitan (magazine), however it was reverted and the only reason given by who revert was them are not reliable because both are tabloids. But I ever use these sources in others articles. Just want to know if "US Weekly" or "Cosmopolitan" can not be useful to the critical reception. LikeGaga (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LikeGaga Us Weekly is a tabloid magazine and Cosmopolitan a fashion magazine - they are not reliable music journalists. I would suggest that you familiarize with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. While Forbes is a credible source, the article is written by "a contributor" not part of the editorial staff, user-generated content is unacceptable as sources on an encyclopedia. Details and opinions of the song should be provided by music magazines and journalists, not horrible tabloids and fashion magazines. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES have some better sources that you should use instead. Cool Marc 14:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion/Down

I expanded the music video, reception and the chart performance section. Would someone expand the splice the "Background and release" and make a section for "Release and artwork"? As far as the article goes, it is nearing completion. De88 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Well, the genre warriors have been busy here for the past few days. We have:

Rasheoda a new account with lots of unsourced/undiscussed genre changes right out of the block.
109.147.29.222 blocked for long term disruption
Musicalnote1 recently indefed for genre warring.

I have reverted to the last stable version by Cornerstonepicker. If any of the battling sides would care to discuss this, this talk page is the right place.

As always, if the page starts to smell of socks of some of the frequent fliers, we can block them and/or protect the page as needed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I just want to edit the genre field and add some sources because every single edit that goes on that involves genre seems to always get removed if if i add a RELIABLE soure 101.163.17.138 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP, of course, an obvious Hercules123! sock. 115.164.182.206 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warrior socks

I have removed all of the genres again.

Both of the socks are quite obvious and have no place here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Down (Fifth Harmony song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrClog (talk · contribs) 12:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this within 7 days. --MrClog (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The comments in this review include comments from the first GA review.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Please see the comments below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Please see the comments below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Very good!
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The issues addressed below need to be fixed before this could be a GA. Considering some sections in the article will need quite some work (rewrite, etc.), I do not think that these issues could reasonably be fixed by temporarily placing this review on hold. Also, the nominator is not active.

--MrClog (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments from the first review that are unaddressed:

(1a) I am confused by the following sentence "Although it is written in a romantic perspective, "Down" was inspired by the group's bond as a quartet and the adversities they have faced together and individually.". You say in the beginning that it was written from a romantic perspective, yet contradict it in the second half by saying they wrote it about their bond as a group. I would revise the beginning to make it clear that critics/listeners may perceive it as a love song as I think that it was you are really getting at with this contrast.
(1a) In the lead’s second paragraph, you break up the criticism about the song and its similarities with “Work from Home” into two sentences. It makes the section awkward and repetitive so I would avoid that.
(1a+b) I have two issues with this sentence "This marked their first single since the departure of original member Camila Cabello in December 2016.". One, I would discourage you from starting a sentence with “This” as it can lead to confusion about what you are referencing. Two, I do not understand the placement of this sentence in the lead. Right now, it is at the end of the third paragraph and follows the information on the song’s promotion (i.e. the music video and live performances). This sentence deals more with the song’s release and seems better suited for the first paragraph. In its current placement, it seems rather abrupt.
(1a) For this sentence (While Normani Kordei sings the second verse, "You the type that I could bake for / 'Cause baby, you know how to take that cake”.), the “while” does not make sense in this context as there is no point of comparison being made so remove it.
(2b) This part (Jauregui is in the driver's seat, adjusting her rear-view mirror. Each member steps out of a Dodge Durango. All of them are dressed in retro-style outfits and head towards a room individually. Four doors close simultaneously as the title of the song appears. Jauregui is in a room as dim violet neon lights brighten it as an electric fan circulates air.) requires a citation.
(2b) You mention in the lead that “It was included as part of their set list on the PSA Tour (2017-18).”, but the information is not in the section or cited.

(1a) The Critical reception section at this point only lists opinions without a clear structure, which makes it confusing. Please see this essay for more information. The section will need a rewrite, probably.
(1a) The above also goes for the Reception and accolades subsection.