Jump to content

Talk:Take a Hint/GA1

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

GA review

[edit]
Passed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator: Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section mentions the key points. Layout is good, with short but acceptable sections. No WTW issues. List incorporation is good.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Sources are listed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Article cites reliable sources for informative statements and music-related publications for reviews.
2c. it contains no original research. Article reflects what is in sources.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig says 20.5%, but just quotes that are properly attributed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Despite being a short article, it includes all the main statements by reliable sources.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Every statement is about the song.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Quotes reviews and opinions without undue weight.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The article uses one image, which is valid fair use.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The only image is the album art.
7. Overall assessment. much like the song itself. this surprisingly slaps.

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Sourcing is a little iffy:
    • Looper and ZergNet [CORRECTION: Valnet] (which operates MovieWeb) are notorious content farms, so they should be removed. And Headline Planet has been listed as an unreliable source.
     Partly done: I have removed Looper and Headline Planet , but kept in 'MovieWeb because it has editorial oversight and the author has worked in other reliable publications such as Pulse Nigeria.
    • Her Campus is not very reliable (see this discussion). I will allow your use of the source for attributed opinions, but you should remove other uses of the source.
     Done
    • I'm not sure about including college newspapers for this—student newspapers are considered okay as sources, but I don't think their music reviews should be cited since they're not music publications.
    Removed
    • Can you explain what makes Young Hollywood reliable?
    It has editorial oversight and is used in other GA articles.
    • Okay, I will consider Young Hollywood a good enough source. But for the sake of thoroughness, I can find only a few uses of Young Hollywood in other GAs. Excluding your GAs, I count seven, of which one cites an interview and two only quote reviews. That being said, I do not object to its use in this article, since you're using it for an uncontroversial statement that has other citations. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sections are quite short, but I think it's fine since it's a short article, and these are sections I'd expect to see in a song article. I'll suggest maybe having the critical reception and commercial performance in the same section, but it's okay as it is.
  • I'll be doing some small copyedits myself, mainly for typos.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]
  • featuring American singers and actresses Victoria Justice and Elizabeth Gillies
     Done
  • You say the episode and the song came out on the same day, but this is not mentioned in the body.
    Removed
  • Perhaps the names of the characters could be linked to the sections on List of Victorious characters.
     Done

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

[edit]
  • at a fictional karaoke restaurant called Nozu
     Done
  • I think the last sentence of the second paragraph should be moved to the first paragraph, since the second paragraph is a plot summary.
     Done

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

[edit]
  • Critics mention that the song's lyrics are about Don't really need to attribute this to critics.
     Done
  • I don't think the statements by Common Sense Media are really relevant here. CSM will mention that the song has innuendo because that's the focus of the website; it's not really relevant for the description of the lyrics. I would suggest moving this information to the "Critical reception" section: it could say, she opined that the track's "overall message might be a little mature for young tween fans who watch the show", noting its use of innuendo and implicit profanity.
     Done

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
  • Sources describing something as a "hit song" does not need to be mentioned here. That's not critical reception; that's just a description of the fact that it was a hit.
    Removed

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances and commercial performance

[edit]
  • nearly ten years after its original release is unnecessary
    Removed

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article

[edit]
  • This looks good; meets the list incorporation criteria.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

[edit]
  1. checkY checkY checkY checkY Also, I think the statement "originally performed by Meghan Kabir" is worth mentioning.
    • Added
    • checkY checkY
    • ☒N Does not mention these lyrics
      Moved to that performed the song live in 2012
    • checkY checkY
    • Not sure if this source is worth including; it only mentions the song as a joke.
      Removed
    • ☒N This source doesn't actually mention her performing the song, only that the song was released.
      Moved to release date of the song
    • checkY
    • checkY
    • I don't think this source needs to be included, since the other sources mention that "Freak the Freak Out" was certified gold while specifically mentioning "Take a Hint".
      Removed
Vigilantcosmicpenguin I have addressed your concerns above. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Take_a_Hint/GA1&oldid=1281336414"