This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music 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
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
For all your contributions to the music GANs page, I will review this soon; I can seen that you are as reliable as clockwork for responses! --K. Peake 06:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you man! I appreciate it. I'm trying to get NOACF to good topic status. I just need to copyedit the remaining singles before overhauling the album itself. Looking forward to your input and experience. Cheers! (P.S. I apologize for the not-totally-proper use of British English. I’ve tried my best, but I’m used to writing in Canadian English; the strange hybrid lovechild of British and American English, lol.) Giacobbetalk 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Couldn't you trim down the instrumentation mentioned in the second para because it reads like a supermarket list; specifically remove flugelhorn, saxophone and trumpet since they've already been mentioned in the lead
A supermarket list hahaha DoneGiacobbetalk 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The source mentions the album being recorded in 2019, not the majority of it; however, this needs fixing from other source(s) since I can see from the album article that it was not fully recorded that year
Reworded and added a second ref. DoneGiacobbetalk 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Why is the PF ref invoked solely at the end of the para when it is used for multiple sentences prior? This would be acceptable if the entirety of the para was backed up by the source, but it is not; try invoking around every two sentences or so as a guideline.
I'm afraid a little confused. This was the way I normally write articles. However, in my last GA review, the reviewer wanted to me to reformat and only cite at the last use of the ref in the paragraph. He pointed me to WP:RECITE, which I couldn't find any info on. So now I'm a little confused. Should I be citing whenever the source is used, or only at its last use in a paragraph? Giacobbetalk 14:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(CA)Giacobbe You do have a valid point and after having read WP:REPCITE, I believe that you should only invoke ref 9 in two areas: the one it is already in and at the end of the "created the final version" sentence. This is because it is used to back up all of the sentences to the latter point, but the sentence in-between that one and the end one is solely attributed to ref 8, so you can have the last sentence also invoke ref 9 comfortably. --K. Peake 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
"called it the best song" → "called it the most promising song" since not only is this what the source says, but it is most appropriate for context of a performance
The funk and techno elements are not sourced, unless they are from the Financial Times ref that I can't view due to not having a subscription
Was using WP:RECITE. I've recited it here, as per our discussion above. DoneGiacobbetalk 15:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(CA)Giacobbe I gave a wikilink to the WP guideline properly above and this looks a lot better, identifying the elements as techno-funk! --K. Peake 15:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I had trouble finding it before. BTW, if you ever come across an article by the Financial Times blocked behind a paywall, simply Tweet the link and open it from there. It will let you read it through the app :) Giacobbetalk 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The intro length, "ghostly" description, drones, reverb, and glitch elements are not sourced by the two refs at the end of the sentence or the following one
"Maybe I would like you better if you took off your clothes / I wanna see and stop thinking / If you're too shy then let me know"" needs small speech marks around this part of the quote
The release years added in brackets aren't included in the quoted text; either add with [] or alter prose to take the songs and artists out of the quote
Copyvio score looks too high at 59.2%; try to fix this by cutting down on the quoting from the Atwood Magazine ref, but the instances where it is merely the title being flagged under copyvio should be ignored
Took a look at this and it isn't from the quote, lol. I didn't realize, but Atwood has all the lyrics displayed in the article. Giacobbetalk 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(CA)Giacobbe Are you sure you don't need to reduce the lyrics quoting from the Billboard ref? --K. Peake 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, pretty much had to remove the entire intro line to get the score to 44%. Nonetheless it's DoneGiacobbetalk 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
Silly question but how do I go about this? Giacobbetalk 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(CA)Giacobbe View the revision history and click on fix dead links. --K. Peake 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but the most noticeable one throughout was American English being used even though English is the performer's nationality. --K. Peake 14:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kyle Peake: I believe I've addressed all of your concerns and made the necessary changes. Thank you for taking the time to review this article for me, I genuinely appreciate it. You rock. Cheers! Giacobbetalk 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
(CA)Giacobbe It is amazing to hear you are so satisfied with this review, but you still need to address the comments I made regarding the references and edit out mentions of the song's title where I said to in the lead. --K. Peake 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kyle Peake: Sorry, must have missed those two in the lead. Copyvio score now at 44%. I can't archive the references, it gives me an error message: "Analysis error: blocked: You have been blocked from editing". Giacobbetalk 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@(CA)Giacobbe: That has happened to me before, it is not a user specific thing; the issue only arises when the tool is not working temporarily. ✓Pass nevertheless, as the sources can be archived days from now hopefully or however long it takes for the tool to fix! --K. Peake 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kyle Peake: Ahh okay. No worries, I'll try again later tonight. Fingers crossed. Thank you for your (very) speedy review. Top notch work. Cheers! Giacobbetalk 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@(CA)Giacobbe: Yeah you try that, if not successful then give it a few days before another attempt. Also, I would like to issue a big thanks to you for working as well as clockwork in your response!!! --K. Peake 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply