Talk:Streets (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Will it be alright if I respond to the comments? The nominator does not appear to be active around this time, so I'm willing to substitute to make the review process faster. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 02:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yea. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Neat, will address the comments shortly then! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The TikTok #SilhouetteChallenge rendered popular what is now called the "Streets (Silhouette Remix)" version, which includes a snippet of Paul Anka's 1959 hit song "Put Your Head on My Shoulder".[1][2]" → "The TikTok #SilhouetteChallenge helped make what is now called the "Streets (Silhouette Remix)" popular, which includes a snippet of Paul Anka's 1959 hit song "Put Your Head on My Shoulder".[1][2]" Also the info about this song sampling Anka's song should probably be in the Composition section (although referring to the Silhouette remix).
 Done Rewrote that part of lede, and included information about the Paul Anka sampling in the article body - though I put it in "Release and remixes" instead of "Composition" because the latter talks about the original version
  • I am concerned by the overuse of sources from TikTok in this article, especially when there are reliable sources (some already used in this article) that can be used to replace the TikTok sources: NME, Vulture, Also Vulture. The writer for the Forbes article is unreliable; given this discussion. Also, Not sure that meaww.com is reliable.
 Done Removed all sources citing TikTok, Forbes, and Meaww, and replaced them with more reliable alternatives.
  • For the Synopsis section, cite sources where it matches the prose content.
 Done
  • There is also a little bit of plagiarism with the meaww source; more specifically the parts "after it became a sleeper hit the previous month", and this part could also be changed; "The song was written by Doja Cat, David Sprecher, Lydia Asrat, Theron Otis Feemster, Christopher Jefferies, and Demarie Sheki, produced by brother production duo Blaq Tuxedo, who are also credited as co-writers."
 Done Removed the Meaww source and rewritten the following excerpts.
  • Images are licensed fine.
I've added more accompanying images to that article since you made that comment, so it may be worth checking those out too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troubled.elias (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The way the {{Multiple image}} template is placed looks a bit awkward in my opinion. The Music video image is okay.}
 Done Removed the image; figured it was a bit unnecessary anyway
  • "Nonetheless, the Pitchfork reviewer liked how Doja Cat showed her versatility in the "ultra-soft and chill" song[4]" I would suggest changing it to what is used at Black Tie White Noise, like "Nonetheless, Starling liked how Doja Cat showed her versatility in the "ultra-soft and chill" song[4]"
 Done

Overall

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·


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.

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(
)
Paul Anka in 1961
Paul Anka in 1961

Improved to Good Article status by Troubled.elias (talk). Self-nominated at 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC).

  • The article passed GA recently enough and meets all of the other criteria, but I almost put a query tag on this instead-- the article here doesn't directly say, "Streets hit #16 because of the viral TikTok mashup", but instead said it helped it to "climb the Billboard Hot 100", which isn't exactly the same... but it also later states in the article that it hit #16. I'm willing to go with it here because both parts are cited separately. Great work on the review. Nomader (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Also I didn't remark on the photo in my review (because I didn't review it!). The photo looks good at the needed resolution, checks out on copyright, and is clear. It is relevant for both the hook and the article. The photo also checks out. Nomader (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Tweaked ALT0 to T:DYK/P4 without image

This edit

@BlizzySway: hi! Hope your day is going well. In the linked diff, you split an entire paragraph from a subsection into its own section, and you marked the corresponding edit with "slight rearrangements". As the major contributor to the article, I disagree, though I appreciate the boldness. I also appreciate discussion - per WP:FAOWN, it is a courtesy to discuss changes of this scale to featured articles on the talk page first before performing the edit.

To explain: I put information about the release under a "commercial performance and release" section because the song's release as a single is a direct result of its commercial performance. Hence the order of elements in the header. Putting a separate release section before a commercial performance section, while it may seem like the norm in multiple song articles (because usually what happens with singles is that release -> chart appearance), dilutes the message the article is trying to convey. This is not a simple case of "the song was released and then it charted" - it is the other way around. Even then, the "release" section is comparatively short enough that we can simply put it as a subsection in a much bigger section. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the application of MOS:NUM: MOS:NUMNOTES states that "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." So for example, the "eight" in "'Streets' was Doja Cat's first song to reach the Global 200's top 10, hitting its peak at number eight" can actually be spelled out with figures for consistency. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Streets_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1191391497"