Talk:Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ShootForTheStarsAimForTheMoon.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sample credits

@The Ultimate Boss: Sometimes sources don't always cover every single sample on an album, samples are credited in the album's booklet. Samples are also credited in the album's songs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking

@AshMusique: The reason why I remove the link to WYKBL because it already linked in the background section, and the rest of the singles don't need to linked twice in the article's prose, they can be linked in the templates instead. Which is why me and The Ultimate Boss remove them in first place. You clearly don't know how good articles or featured articles works. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, it would be helpful for you to use edit summaries in future. And that's three sections above, so there is nothing wrong with linking it again in a different section - as I said, it makes for easier navigation for readers. Keep in mind that most readers who use Wikipedia do so on mobile devices, and templates are also not viewable on majority of mobile devices. Either way, a reader shouldn't have to scroll all the way to the bottom or the top of an article to find a link which could have been provided in the section they are perusing (especially in such a lengthy article as this one). I write my articles in the absolute cleanest fashion and thank you for the links, rather insulting of you to assume I don't understand how featured and good article criteria works, but I very much do; one of the criteria is that FA/GA articles meet all the guidelines the MOS has layed out. Now some editors, including GA reviewers might argue that repeating links fails GA criteria, however if you read MOS:REPEATLINK, it very clearly says "Generally , a link should appear only once in an article", it does not say links should not be repeated at all or where links should not be duplicated. I know it says "but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, [...] and at the first occurrence after the lead", however it allows for exceptions in repeating links at the discretion of an editor. AshMusique (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@AshMusique: Wrong. The mobile version does not count, most readers don't care about the linking in the prose, they go to the track listing section, which all the links of the tracks are at. MOS:REPEATLINK still says a link should appear only once in an article. Maybe you should stop using the mobile version and stop arguing with editors who work hard on articles to get them to good quality. Don't mean to be rude but I'm saying what it is. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, that's your own opinion and threads on original research. Also that's not the point, it's not merely about whether the reader cares whether there's linking in the prose or not. I didn't say a reader wants to see all the tracks in the article. Even if that were the case, what I'm saying is, it's helpful to have the link(s) right there where the reader is reading, so unnecessary navigation isn't needed. And no, again, MOS:REPEATLINK says "Generally , a link should appear only once in an article", it allows for exceptions, and though it mentions which parts of the article the exceptions are meant for, some discretion is allowed in cases like these, taking the reader into consideration. As simple as that. You still have not convinced me otherwise. Please don't tell me which version of Wikipedia I must use, thank you, I edit best from it. You're completely missing what the point is here - it's not about me. I'm not "arguing" with anyone, I commend users who put in the hard work to get articles to GA status, but I'm also not going to not implement changes I deem in best interest of the reader. This is after all a collaborative effort. The fact that you see it as arguing is not sensible, I am simply trying to get my point across. And your hostility is not appreciated, regardless of whether you think what you're saying is "what it is", please kindly pipe down. AshMusique (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @HĐ: @Kyle Peake: @MarioSoulTruthFan: in this issue. What do you guys think, is AshMusique is right about this or wrong? I like to hear another editor opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are my two cents on this subject. Usually I link singles in the infobox, tracklist, lead and once in the article if it is mentioned in the prose. However, its a case by case situation if something that is mentioned on the first section of the body of the article and then two sections below I would wikilink it again, it really varies. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I would advise against wikilinking more than once in the body's prose, as doing so sets a standard by which countless links could be prone to being repeated. If you look further, the guideline actually says "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead", so prose should follow the general rule. --K. Peake 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: @Kyle Peake: I agreed with what you guys said. The tracks are already linked at the infobox, lead and track listing. I don't see the reason why they need to be linked multiple times, the article isn't that long to begin with. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

When I said I would wikilink it again, it would be if the article was long enough. The article is being reviewed perhaps the reviewer will address said subject. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@AshMusique: I like to apologize for my aggressive language, doesn't mean to come off as rude. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts, thank you. Apology accepted, I appreciate it. Hope you're well. AshMusique (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Non-free use rationales for both images are in great shape.
• Additionally, I couldn't find any issues in the infobox.
• Add a comma after "July 3, 2020" per WP:DATECOMMA.

Background and recording

• The last sentence in the first paragraph needs a source.
• That's about it here, #Recording looks great.

Music and lyrics

• This has to be the best-sourced section ever created! Well done.
• "song which features" → "song that features"
• "are sentimental" → "are a sentimental"
• "obsessesing" → "obsessing"
• "with bonus track" → "with the bonus track"

Title and artwork

• In the quote blocks, move the references after Complex.

Release and promotion

• Some sentences here have 3-4 sources. I recommend using WP:CITEBUNDLEs to reduce the clutter.
• "the albums second single" → "the album's second single"
• Since the sentence is kinda short, remove the comma after "relationship".

Critical reception

• Try reducing the use of quotes with the help of WP:RECEPTION.
• In the #Accolades table make the references column unsortable: ! scope="col" class=unsortable | Ref.

Commercial performance and track listing

• Couldn't find any issues in either of these two sections.

Personnel and charts

• These sections look good as well.

Certifications and release history

• Looks good.

References

• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".

Progress

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:
· · ·

Some Dude From North Carolina thanks so much for the comments! I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

50 Cent in 2007

• ... that rapper 50 Cent (pictured) served as executive producer for rapper Pop Smoke's debut album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, after the latter was shot and killed at the age of 20 during a home invasion? Source:Billboard

• Reviewed: Brandon Kintzler

Improved to Good Article status by The Ultimate Boss (talk). Self-nominated at 22:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC).

• @The Ultimate Boss: Before I review, may I suggest that you completely re-write this hook. You make it seem as if 50 Cent was shot and killed in a home invasion. Also, phrases like "debut posthumous studio album" which are mandatory in articles, are considered superfluous in DYK hence why they don't need to be included. Consider writing this hook: "... that after Pop Smoke's sudden death during a home invasion, 50 Cent took it upon himself to finish the former's debut album, Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, on his behalf." or something along those lines. HeyitsBen ^talk 08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

HeyitsBen Changed to "the latter". ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - This hook simply states the executive producer of a posthumous album and the reason of death... nothing much. I suggest that you spice it up by including the fact that 50 Cent "curated" Pop's album "took it upon himself" to finish it after his death, which the Billboard source supports already.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: HeyitsBen ^talk 09:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging nominator @Shoot for the Stars: this was reviewed over a month ago and the issues above need to be resolved before this can be promoted. DanCherek (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominator says he's semi-retired, but since the concern is hooks, I'll suggest some for @HeyitsBen, DanCherek, and Shoot for the Stars:. Kingsif (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that Pop Smoke's first album, Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, was released nearly six months after he died?
• ALT2: ... that the cover art of trap album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon depicts a flower made of metal to signify a permanent memorial to its deceased rapper Pop Smoke?
• ALT3: ... that tracks on Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon include vocals from a dead man and a felon on the telephone?
• ALT4: ... that the release date of trap album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon was postponed out of respect for Black Lives Matter?
• ALT5: ... that critics have disagreed on whether Pop Smoke, who died during production of his album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, would have been proud of the result?

Kingsif (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, can you please return and comment on the proposed hooks? DanCherek, do any of them meet with your approval? This nom has been languishing for weeks now! MeegsC (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Approve ALT1 (but change "six months" to "five months") and ALT5 as the ones that sound most interesting to me. Disclaimer: I have only evaluated these hooks and that they are cited inline in the article; I am deferring to the original review from Cybertrip [HeyitsBen] for other aspects like copyvio, general sourcing, etc. DanCherek (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Response to The Ultimate Boss

@The Ultimate Boss: I reverted your edit because the publications started with the word "the" is usually ignored, just take a look at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding the features to the text

I have re added the feature list to the beginning of the page as it lists all the features shown on the album similar to that of most other pages of this nature. I am also adding it to the talk section so other people can see and then decide on what the outcome should be. Feature list or not. User: Chiade85 (User talk: Chiade85) 19:53, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)

User: Chiade85 , please don't speak only to one user here, but tell us what you did, precisely. We don't know what "feature list" means. Also, as long as a disputed addition is discussed, it should not be added to the article, - only after it found consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I only spoke to them only because they were the one who had such an issue with it. The feature list is the list of all features seen on the album in the main body of introduction text. Chiade85 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)

The talk is for everybody interested. I indented as we normally do on talk pages. I'll do it for you. You added this, a list of many names who were featured in a recording, to the introduction. If you ask me, the introduction should have only the key facts, and these detailed names are not key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chiade85: Don't called people names who I disagree your editing skills okay. The reason why I reverted your edits because you added every single body in the lead, added too much content like that is unnecessary and made the lead look bloated (See WP:TOOMUCH and WP:LEAD). And your grammar doesn't help matters either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I personally feel like the content isn't unnecessary if I wasn't the one editing it then I would want to see the features on the album. But if you don't see it like that whatever. Also don't mention things like grammar/spelling (I know you didn't, it's hypothetical)as you don't know what issues a person may have with things like that, so if you don't like someone's grammar change it yourself. I am no longer going to use Wikipedia as I am going to retire the account or ask for a deletion as I clearly can't add necessary information to the pages and can't seem to have people see things the way I do so I'll leave it to the professionals I guess. User:Chiade85 (User talk:Chiade85) 22:52, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)

Please don't rush. The information is probably good to have, but not in the introduction. It needs a reliable source, and people need to agree that it's good to have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chiade85: I think you being petty here, just because me and Gerda Arendt disagree with your editing doesn't mean you should quit Wikipedia over this issue. When you get reverted by another editor, you don't restore your edits, simple as that (WP:BRD). You can get better as an editor but just like everybody else here, you have to follow the guidelines (WP:MOS). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Chiade, my first article was deleted, - I didn't leave Wikipedia but asked for help, and found it. Try it, we are here to help to put content in the right position with good references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)