Talk:Time (Childish Gambino song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 08:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• I'm not sure why you are using Donald Glover throughout in an article titled "Time (Childish Gambino song)", if he is known in music as Childish Gambino. He doesn't perform or release music as Donald Glover. Article prose also changes from Glover to Gambino throughout
• Full names in production parameter in the infobox since this is not a track listing but an infobox
• It was produced and written by Glover, along with DJ Dahi, Ludwig Göransson, and Chukwudi Hodge. Australian songwriter Sarah Aarons is also credited for writing and British producer Jai Paul provided miscellaneous production. Could be trimmed to one concise sentence. "Miscellaneous production" is not lead-worthy.
• The lyrics to "Time" awkward grammar
• drastic transformations a more neutral adjective is needed
• with critics being split on the song's lyrics. split is an awkward word to use, more context is needed as to why critics were divided on the lyrics
• It peaked at number 21 on the NZ Hot Singles published by Recorded Music NZ. This is a heatseeker chart, not a main chart. Mentioning such a minor chart position in the lead feels like undue weight.
• The background section apart from the Guava Island details, is a collation of trivia not related to this song.
• The hook and lyrics were left unchanged, but the song had dark and somber production why the "but" conjunction, how are these related? More context needed.
• DJ Dahi wrote the song's chord melody, after which Göransson was invited to the recording sessions. You compose a chord melody, you don't write it. This sentence needs work and could be written more clearly and concisely.
• "tweaked" is not an encyclopedic term
• The Grande image feels decorative and unnecessary
• Is it really necessary to constantly introduce each songwriter and producer by their nationality and profession? This has already been established in the lead and infobox who they are and it makes for tedious reading.
• Frequent and unnecessary use of "after which"
• DJ Dahi stated that Paul had "very unique ways" of approaching the song and that his mixing contributed to its sound. More context is needed here, this is very vague as it is and is not telling the reader much.
• Quotes like "easy-going, soulful number." need attribution or even better, paraphrasing
• The sample caption saying Grande's vocals received both praise and criticism from music critics. is completely WP:UNDUE when only 1 critic in this article called it "a gorgeous duet" and another said "robotic effect" on her vocal
• with nature sounds of crickets and frogs grammar issues, were there any other animal noises?
• "Time", featuring vocals from Grande, was included in Glover's livestream for his fourth studio album 3.15.20 on March 15, 2020. It has been established numerous times already that Grande features on the song, was this the premiere of the song?
• "Time", along with "Algorythm", are the only two tracks on the album with proper names; the rest, such as "12.38", are marked by timestamps.[16] DJ Dahi explained that because the recording process took years, "it can be something that you can't timestamp."[8] This is relevant this is relevant to the background and development section, not release.
• In New Zealand, "Time" peaked at number 21 on the Hot Singles chart published Recorded Music NZ. Clarify that this is an extension of the main singles chart
• Jones called "Time" a gorgeous duet between Glover and Grande. He praised the song's positive lyrics in face of "the social media era Who is Jones? Mention full name at the start of the new section for people not related to the song. "Gorgeous" should be in quote marks. I don't see any "praise" in the album review, just a passing mention for the song.
• Rowan5215 wrote mention that he is a staff writer from Sputnikmusic in this new section. Seeing a random user name here is quite odd.
• You use "the song" throughout this small critical reception, try use "the track" as well for variety.
• "Exasperating" is lifted directly from the source and needed to be in quote marks or paraphrased
• compared it to Scottish rock band Primal Scream's third studio album Screamadelica (1991). what about it was compared?
• No need to introduce Clash as "British fashion and music magazine Clash", they are a well known publication in music and are used on Metacritic. Missing author attribution Debbie Ijaduola
• WP:OVERLINK in Credits and personnel section

Criterion 2

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• There is inconsistent use of "author" and "last"+"first" parameters throughout, last and first is preferred
• Ref 3 has a connection problem
• Rolling Stone is overlinked in the references
• Ref 22 is missing the author
• The single release appears to be WP:OR as it was only playlisted by one radio station in the UK, not all of "mainstream radio in the UK"

Criterion 3

It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

Unfortunately, it is a long way from being broad in coverage, and there is focus on trivia in the background section.

Criterion 4

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

• The Consequence of Sound review was not interpreted in a neutral way.
• There are other WP:UNDUE issues mentioned above.
• The small amount of reviews are all from reviews of the album that give passing mentions to the song.
• More reviews are needed to conclude that "critics were divided"

Criterion 5

It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

Criterion 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):

Sample rationale is fine, the caption is not as per above.

Overall

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

I am very sorry, but I have to fail this. It appears that it was rush-nominated based on all the issues for such a small article. It is a long way from meeting Criterion 3. I am concerned if this meets WP:NSONG as well given that only one source (a teen gossip site) has given the song independent coverage and the rest is unrelated trivia, and from reviews about the parent album. Cool Marc ✉ 19:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)