Talk:Deep in Love/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) This article has been pending for a GA review since nearly a year ago so I thought I'd help out! 14:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good apart from the fact that Roton isn't mentioned as a label since it is referenced as being released through the label and a lack of genre. I'm thinking that you could use pop as the genre since that does meet what is described in the body?

The infobox should only mention the label of the initial release, in this case being Step and Go. Also, "Pop" isn't sourced anywhere, and adding it there would be WP:OR.

But the infobox mentions both CD and digital, with the latter being released through Roton so it should be added and that doesn't mean changing the release date or adding a second. I have added the recording date as it is sourced as 2011 in the body. Do you think you could try and find a source explaining the song's comp more or directly stating what genre it is? If not, then writing electronic as the genre wouldn't be OR, as remix EPs are generally released for electronic tracks and the song has a "Club Edit". Plus the music video should be in the infobox (see "DNA" for how) and place the audio sample in background and release (see "Amazing" for how).

I did add "Roton" to the infobox, yet no genre should be added unless a ref explicitly names a song's genre; this is not the case an assuming things goes agains guidelines. Also, there is no real necessity for audio samples to be added in a section, it can very well also be part of the infobox (that's also why the parametre exists). Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't need to say "Deep in Love" twice in the same para; just consistently use "the track" instead but in the next para, you can use the actual title once like in the first and write the track elsewhere.

It is resonably fair to repeat the song's title in the same para once you alternate it with alternatives such as "song" and "track"

Replacing the song and second usage of "Deep in Love" would only lead to three uses of the track in the first para, which isn't a tedious read.

Alright. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• "while also made available for digital download in various countries" → "while later made available for digital download in various countries"

 Done

• "was written Boxer and Warner" → "was written by Boxer and Warner"

 Done

• "He went on to work on the track for four months." → "He ultimately worked on the track for four months."

The initial way I wrote it sounds better to me.

Sounds awkward with two "on" usages in the sentence, which is why I believe you should reword.

Alright. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• "was uploaded onto Roton's YouTube channel on 15 August 2011" → "was uploaded to Roton's YouTube channel on 15 August 2011"

 Done

• "the song was also performed at the ZU Loves You event" → "the track was performed at the ZU Loves You event"

 Done

• "Commercially, "Deep in Love" reached the top 40" → "It reached the top 40"

 Done

Background and release

• "the latter of whom provides guest vocals alongside Morena" - Morena is listed as a lead artist, maybe change this to simply "the latter of whom provides guest vocals"?

 Done

• YouTube shouldn't be cited as a source, so find a reliable source covering that interview or else the info should be removed due to copyright infringement. I did see that you used YouTube as a source in the music video section, it is acceptable for Vevo as that is verified.

In my opinion, YouTube can be used as a source for interviews (as long as it's clear it is the original footage), as well as for music videos if the publishing channel is the label or any other official.

Wait, looked more into it and that is an official channel so can be sourced. Didn't think it was at first.

• Give the bottom paragraph a release section as there is two paragraphs of background. Then retitle it "Background and composition".

Why is it problematic to have more about the background in two paragraphs? And I don't think a two-line "Release" section is worth.

Yeah you're right. Just leave it in three paragraphs.

• "were also available for purchase" → "were also released"

 Done

Commercial performance

• This section belongs inbetween "Music video and promotion" and "Track listing"

This is incorrect; the order should always be: "Critical response" -> "Commercial performance" -> "Music video"

where'd you get this info from? I've been told it's the order I said. As for critical response, could you find some reviews to create that section? (this will work as one as it comments on the song as "a musical success")

Alright. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak If you can't find any more reviews, just use that one and re title the commercial performance section to reception with it added, as reception can mean both commercial and critical. --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake Which review are you talking about? There is none. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak The one linked that I referenced elsewhere in this page. Just combine that with the commercial performance for a reception section. Kyle Peake (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: What he says is so vague, and he doesn't really review the song — he acknowledges that the song was a hit. It's not worth for inclusion. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• "reached number 37 in Italy" → "reached number 37 on the FIMI Singles Chart"

 Done

• "It was also certified Platinum in the region" → "It was eventually certified Platinum in the region"

 Done

• "The song further reached number eight" → "The song peaked at number eight"

 Done

Music video and promotion

• Though VEVO is an acceptable source for when the video was uploaded, describing the music video should cite published sources rather than linking for someone to directly watch it.

As for my comment on VEVO, look above. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, synopsis of a music video can be sourced by the music video alone.

Didn't know that. This section is good now.

• YouTube source for live performance works as it is a verified account

Track listing

• Retitle "Track listings", otherwise good

 Done

Charts

• Good

Certifications

• Good

Release history

• WikiLink Roton

The label is already linked in "Background and release"

If a label is in a column like this one, you are supposed to WikiLink it even if another section does. Similarly to how the charts column links to chart articles that are already linked.

Alright. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Insert a col for refs, see what I did on "Fade".

 Done

References

• Already made my comments about YouTube
• Hungary chart and Italian certification sources need accessdates

 Done

Final comments and verdict

This article has had a reasonable of work put in to it, but still needs fixes before it can become a GA so I will sadly have to ✗ Fail "Deep in Love". Also, a "Credits and personnel" section is needed to verify that those people are the songwriters and producers; you can cite the CD as a source as you have done throughout this article. An image needs to be included for the article to pass as a GA; I'll do this addition for you.

@Kyle Peake: Hi there! I responded to your comments. Also an image is not a necessity for an article to be passed to GAN, and it this case it shouldn't be a random image of London if we don't know the exact recording studio. We don't need a "Credits" section for just thre people involved overall, it's futile. Regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Though it may seem pointless, even if a small number of people worked on the song it still needs verification. Plus if you know who mixed and engineered it, they can be sourced in the section too.

@Kyle Peake: I think your comments have been adressed now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Note to Kyle Peake: I think it would be useful for you to review the Good article nomination instructions, particularly those sections for reviewers. In general, if a nominated article has issues that prevent immediate passage, yet they can be dealt with in a reasonable period of time—generally a week or so—rather than failing the article the same day, standard practice is to put the nomination on hold to give the nominator a chance to address the issues you've raised. The review is then in a single place, rather than having repeat nominations and reviews as has happened here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)