Talk:B.O.B (song)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Laying claim to reviewing this article. Planning on getting it done during the weekend. GamerPro64 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Before I go all out on the review, I want to mention that reference 11 is dead. I'll get more into reading the article but I just want to point that out first. GamerPro64 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Replaced reference 11 with the shmoop reference used in the Music video section. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. After looking through the article, I am going to have to fail the GAN. I feel like it fails criterion 3.a on the Good article criteria as since its a well known song from the group, there has to be more than just what is already presented. Maybe use articles like 4 Minutes or Fast Lane for comparison. I also have problems with sources like Shmoop but I can't find anything to figure out if they're reliable or not.

If you don't think this review was done correctly or you don't agree with the decision, you can go to WP:GAR and ask for a community reassessment. GamerPro64 17:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, GamerPro. The problem with the song is that it's not exactly "popular". I mean, it sort of is, but it isn't. Yes, it's "well known", by critics (which is obviously very well sourced in the article), but not by audiences - I mean, come on, it couldn't even get to the 100 spot on the Hot 100 spot? Even on the 'sub-chart' it appeared on, it didn't have a very high placement. Not much popularity of course means publications aren't going to write to much about. Critics wrote about it yes, but why would magazines write about songs people aren't interested in? This of course means that there's going to be a lack of sources.

Maybe it's just me, but I judge the "source-a-tivity" and lenght of the article depending on its "mainstream" popularity. For example, OutKast's "Hey Ya!" reached number one on the Hot 100 and a whole bunch of other charts, was on the duo's best-selling albums (and one of the best-selling of the decade), was played like 52509395 times daily on the radio, and this meant magazines and other publications are going to write about it, because people want it, it's super-mega popular. So of course, you have to say: "The article's short, very short compared to 'Hey Ya!', but this is unavoidable, as 'Hey Ya!' was a smash hit, while this song was basically a flop, it didn't even come close to the 100th spot of Hot 100... Judging in its popularity, the article's in very nice shape." The same goes for Eminem's Infinite album, his first, which sold a thousand copies, is not going to have the sources his 20 million-selling known-as-classic The Marshall Mathers LP. See what I'm sayin': You gotta judge by the subject's popularity, notability.

For something so "chart-floppish", this is in remarkably good shape IMHO, and, come on - look at this, and then look at this. - Give me a break, will ya? :) Heh. Regarding the Shmoop source, it's been covered by a lot of notable organizations Bloomberg L.P. and CNET and it's an educational website, it seems pretty well-known and reliable to me. So, um, please re-consider? Pretty please? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna level with you Khan. I do not like doing reviews for GANs. I prefer doing reviews for FAR, GAR, etc. So I do not wish to do this again as I don't think I'm qualified to really to these types of reviews. But I will suggest asking someone else or doing a community GAR. What I'm saying is that I will not review this article once more. GamerPro64 19:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. And, btw, my real name doesn't even resemble Khan haha. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

References

Discogs is not a reliable source. It needs to be replaced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pitchfork review

The Pitchfork link showing "B.O.B." as the best song of the 2000s is quite in-depth, and should be used to add more review details in the reception section. It has a ton of great stuff in it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for more certified information, you could try the Broken Record podcast hosted by Rick Rubin. At time mark 37:00, Andre goes into the importance of inspiration from genres outside of hip hop to avoid sameness. He explicitly says that "B.O.B." would have never happened if it weren't for Rage Against The Machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHcHTJ8D5k ElMeroEse (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: JayJay (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to give this a quick review. It simply fails criterion 3a, there needs to be more than just reviews and the basic stuff on music articles. There is a tag at the top from using non-free media which is the sound file, it needs a rationale in order to be used on this article and also reference #20 is not a reliable source so that is a big nono.JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 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):

7. 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.