This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
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
I'll start this momentarily. —VersaceSpace🌃 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
This article is very well written, I have very few issues with it, which are as follows:
I think the RapReviews commentary could be safely removed as it's a non-notable publication, and the reviewer is employed by The Young Folks (not a notable publication either).
I think a Kanye picture without the MAGA hat would be more suitable in the 'release and reception' section.
Comment: are you sure this matters, as it is one of the few photos of him from 2018/19 period? --K. Peake 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think a less divisive picture would be better, but if there's no alternative, I suppose this is fine. My fear is that to readers this might read as snide or "shady" towards Ye —VersaceSpace🌃 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is there a reason why the website paramater of ref 28 says Billboard Pro and not just Billboard?
This is because it is from the pro version of Billboard, which is subscription access only. --K. Peake 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware of that fact, but is it not the same publication? I've never seen Billboard cited this way. —VersaceSpace🌃 19:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Citations stand alone in their usage so I think the website names can be wiki-linked in every possible citation.
Not done since this would cause users who interpret WP:OVERLINK differently to say the sources are overlinked --K. Peake 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is there something specific that the Hip hop-n-More cite is referencing, which is not being taken care of by the Highsnobiety citation? If not then ref 5 can be removed.
Ref 5 gives the month of the leak as well as who was featured on vocals. --K. Peake 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
On hold, but this is very good. —VersaceSpace🌃 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
VersaceSpace Thanks for your comments, I have responded to them above. --K. Peake 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@VersaceSpace: I have replaced the photo of West with one I now found actually from 2019 after you elaborated on your point, however I'll elaborate on the Billboard one that Pro is only in brackets so isn't that acceptable? --K. Peake 19:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't think "pro" should be in that parameter at all. The subscription is called Billboard Pro, but the website and publication are still just Billboard. That the subscription is named doesn't mean it's a part of the website's name. —VersaceSpace🌃 19:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
VersaceSpace Big kudos to you for that explanation; I have removed pro altogether now. --K. Peake 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. All the issues I raised have been addressed now, so I'll ✓Pass this! —VersaceSpace🌃 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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.
Overall: I have temporarily duplicated the Guardian citation in the article because "each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation [...] appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact." It can be removed after the hook has its turn on the Main Page. Otherwise this seems fine to me, nice work! Both hooks are fine with me (slight preference for #2 but the promoter can make the final call). DanCherek (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply