Talk:DNA (BTS song)

Soompi links used as citations

Hello, can someone please replace the soompi references with more reliable accepted sources? I noticed a few links when scrolling the page just now however I'm on mobile and cannot make the changes myself. Carlobunnie (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Carlobunnie (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2018 (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:DNA (BTS song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lirim.Z (talk · contribs) 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am reviewing this version from August 7, 2020; 1:32 am

Lead and infobox

• Just use Big Hit, 'Entertainment' doesn't need to be used
• Please add an alt description in the Infobox
• You could add the language parameter
• Should be mentioned that the cover is for the digital release and regular edition
• The studio is mentioned in "Background and release", but not in the Infobox
• Delete unused parameters
• You don't need to use flatlist in the Infoboxes; it's included in the template; see Template:Infobox song#Notes

 Done everything

Background and release

• "The song was written by "Hitman" Bang, Supreme Boi, Kass, Suga, RM and its producer Pdogg. It was engineered by Pdogg, Jeong Wooyeong and KASS, while mixing was handled by James F. Reynolds at Schmuzik Studios. BTS recorded the song at Big Hit Studios in Seoul, South Korea." Is there a reason this isn't under "Music and lyrics"?

• I generally prefer to keep it in Background section.

• again just Big Hit

•  Done

Music and lyrics

• You could add a picture of RM or Suga

• There are already two images in the next section, plus this section contains an audio sample. So I don't think an image is needed here? Besides having an image of either here would be WP:UNDUE to just one of them.

Critical reception and awards

• "Reviewing for Vulture, Dee Lockett stated that song evolved", you missed a "the"
• The ref column should not be sortable

 Done everything

Commercial performance

• "of the September 2017 issue of the [[Gaon Music Chart|Gaon Monthly Digital Chart]] based on digital sales" Link to Gaon Digital Chart, not Gaon Music Chart
• "the 56th and 22nd best-selling song of 2017 and 2018, respectively in South Korea." The Digital Chart combines Downloads+Streams so saying best-selling is wrong; it should "the 56th and 22nd best-performing" or something similar
• might be worth mentioning that DNA sold nearly 100,000 downloads in the US [1]

 Done everything

Music video

• "third video by a K-pop artist" It is the fourth to do so after "Gangnam Style", "Gentleman" and "Ddu-Du Ddu-Du", unless you meant that they are the third Korean act to do so; The Ref (97) you used does not mention "Gentleman"

 Done Rephrased the sentence accordingly

Live performances and other usage

No issues

Track listings

• "Digital download / streaming - Korean version" Replace the hyphen (-) with an en-dash (–)

 Done

Credits and personnel

• The credits are the same for both version so just add "Korean/Japanese version"

 Done

Charts

• No need for a space after the "1" and the Note
• #133 on Gaon Digital Chart Year-End for 2019 [2]

 Done

Sales and certifications

• No issues

Release history

• rowspan="4" for December 6, no need to seperate this

 Done

See also

• Include List of Oricon number-one singles of 2017

 Done

Notes

No issues

Other

References

• Note: Please see the version I used for this review as the numbers might change
• As far as I checked them, the references do cover the assertions made in this article
• You need to check the automatic translations of the Korean Refs better
• Ref 6: BTS not BTS (band)
• Ref 7, 10: All these Refs link to Apple Music, not Itunes
• Ref 26: BTS not BTS (band)
• Ref 30: You can remove 방탄소년단 from the translation, it literally says BTS BTS
• Ref 49: Got7 not GOT7 MOS:Caps
• Ref 53: Exo not EXO
• Ref 54: I ran it through the Google Translator and Yeoneun seems to be the word consecutive; "kwill" is the artist K.Will
• Ref 57, 58, 59: The translation are weird, you can just use Inkigayo's official website Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

• I have rephrased the translated titles

• Ref 60, 61, 62: Korean title+translation
• Ref 67: en-dash (–), not hyphen (-); also the original link is dead
• Ref 73: Add the issue date in the title or through |date=
• Ref 77: "Sheet" is copies
• Ref 83: "MIC Drop", not "Mic Drop"
• Ref 86: Format the Ref like Ref 83, consistency
• Ref 87, 88, 89: YouTube did not publish the videos, Big Hit did; use |via=YouTube|publisher=Big Hit
• Ref 95: Title needs a translation

• The original ref. is in Spanish, so while adding the script-title, I am using the language code=es, but its keeps turning up errors. Can you have a look at it?

• Ref 99: see YT comments; Original link seems to be dead (at least for me)

• Replaced this link, added a Korean news ref.

• Ref 113: Apple Music
• Ref 118: BTS not BTS (band)
• For the charts you used the template which for whatever reason do not include a translation parameter; might be worth discussing but not your fault
• Ref 136: Date format

 Done everything else

Copy Vialotion

• Copy Violation: I used this tool; The highest in the article is 32,9%, because you copied lyrics translations; generally only copied lyrics or used direct quotes – I see no issue

Outcome

•  On hold There are some small things to work on here, but all in all a very good article. Five days should be enough to fix the minor issues. I'll grant you 5 days to edit the article, you seem active enough. Best regards Lirim | Talk 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lirim.Z, thank you so much for reviewing this article. I've mostly fixed all issues that you pointed out, except a few and have left comments accordingly. Please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed or if I've missed out anything. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 74, 127, 128, 131 still need chart issue dates--Lirim | Talk 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lirim,  Done --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am passing this article. Very good written, structured article. Looking forward to more.--Lirim | Talk 19:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit:: I forgot, that I should wait for a couple of days if somebody else has some comments. I am sorry.--Lirim | Talk 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lirim.Z, thanks a lot for this review! I'm happy to hear that you're ready to pass this. A small query: Does this stand a chance as a FA in future? I'd really appreciate your feedback. Of course I shall make the necessary changes to the prose, etc., but I would like to ask for your opinion first. --Ashleyyoursmile! 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• It has been nearly three days. That should be enough. Article passed this review.--Lirim | Talk 12:10, 13 August 2020 (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.

Np and sorry

Ashleyyoursmile sorry. I didn't check to see that it was still ongoing. I just decided to do the usual CE. I'll stop, but I do have a few questions for my own clarity so I can proceed better in general moving forward: why is it work instead of publisher? From what I've seen, when it's their articles being ref'd BB is usually marked as work and when it's their charts they're marked as publisher, so I'm confused as to why it's wrong. And 2) the reason I added 'to number fourteen' was because the sentence read as incomplete when it was just 'before falling for the week of October 15, 2017' - that wording begets the question where did it fall? Did it fall off the chart completely, did it fall out of the top 10, top 20? That was my reasoning behind the insertion. I apologize if the number shouldn't be there but the sentence phrasing hangs at the end. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Carlobunnie, no issues. For the first doubt, I'm not aware of what you are mentioning. The only thing I know and have seen across GAs is that we follow the format that is followed by single chart template. Since it cites Billboard as work or website (you'll find them italicised), so we are doing the same here instead of citing as publisher. As for your second query, falling out of the top ten works well I guess. Because I do agree that we are leaving it incomplete. However per WP:CHARTS the number shouldn't be mentioned. Anyways, I appreciate the work you do with the articles and is always grateful for that. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Carlobunnie Billboard is not a publisher; they are part of the publisher Lynne Segall. Publisher isn't used for charts, because it's often too much. The Gaon Chart publisher is the KMCA but adding that to every single ref is useless. The publisher parameter generally doesn't get used much. |work= for magazine and |websites= for websites is often more than enough; |publisher= for charts and music videos uploaders and |via= mostly for stuff like YouTube, Spotify etc.--Lirim | Talk 19:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile and Lirim.Z: thank you both for the clarifications. About my first question, I probably didn't explain it well but early on when I first began actively editing a longtime music article/chart editor had said, in multiple edit summaries iirc, that the 'work' parameter should be used when citing BB articles and the 'publisher' parameter for chart references so that's what I've followed over the years. I didn't personally think BB must be a publisher but that was the understanding I came to re: charts based on what I was told. That's also why when I saw 'work' (the one Ashely corrected) I thought it was a mistake or something. The single chart template (I went and read it) confused me because I only saw the output being rendered in italics with no mention of 'work' or 'website' anywhere on the page making me think it was just a stylization thing not that it meant those parameters should be used. Sorry again for the trouble, also Lirim please don't think I was attempting to disrupt your review; I realize my edits could be construed that way. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the lyrics of BTS' song "DNA" compares love to mathematical formula and divine providence? Source: [3]
  • ALT1:... that BTS impersonate the double helix structure of an actual DNA molecule through choreography in the music video for "DNA"? Source: [4]

• Reviewed: Closed on Sunday

Improved to Good Article status by Ashleyyoursmile (talk). Self-nominated at 19:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: for ALT0 GA passed on 13 August 2020, QPQ done, minor copyvio due to lyrics translations but that is OK to me ~ Amkgp 💬 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)