Talk:Heartless (Kanye West song)/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 05:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up. This is a longer article, and a full review may take some time. My quick impression is positive. (🎵 In the night I hear them talk, the coldest story ever told... 🎵) Vaticidalprophet 05:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First comments in the first couple of sections:

"NSFW" seems included in the fact the photos he posted were nude (see WP:PLEONASM) and is somewhat distracting slang.

Done --K. Peake 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think The song is the only one on the album that contains rapping from West, while rap features are contributed to "Amazing" and "See You in My Nightmares" by Lil Wayne and Young Jeezy, respectively would sound better switched from passive to active voice; I'm not one of the passive-voice-purgers, but it's a bit unexpected here, if that makes sense.

Done if this looks better? --K. Peake 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For seeking out a minimalist direction sonically, West directed his team to bring unique drum machines to Avex Recording Studio -- "for"? (And what was unique about the drum machines?)

Removed the word for, but the uniqueness of the drum machines is explained by the following sentence about them being reprogrammed. --K. Peake 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Upbeat pop" at the beginning of "Composition and lyrics" is WP:SEAOFBLUE; it reads a little too much like it would go to a subgenre called "upbeat pop".

Done I removed the wikilink on upbeat --K. Peake 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet 12:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet I have responded to your initial comments... didn't know because I had not checked Wiki too much due to work. --K. Peake 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed per discussion here. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review will not be completed

As noted above, the reviewer will not be returning—discussion has been archived and is now here—and two-and-a-half-month attempt to get a new reviewer by changing the status to 2nd opinion has not gotten any results. Accordingly, I have returned the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority. I hope it will be picked up reasonably quickly. The next review will take place on a different page from this one. Pinging nominator K. Peake, so they know what is happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I fully understand this since after the review has been on second opinion status for so long, even I have started to get fed up. Thank you for dropping the review efficiently, though I would like to ask when this does get taken on, will it not be listed as having failed on the previous GAN by the reviewer due to the original one quitting? --K. Peake 08:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Peake, since this review was not completed, there is no failure involved, and none listed on the article's talk page. It is effectively starting over, as if this review never happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Now the article has passed as a GA, I have not included this review in the history since there was no result; do you believe I am correct to do so then? --K. Peake 07:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Peake: yes. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.