Talk:Fancy (Iggy Azalea song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll start to review this. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Composition

• remove "that was", it still is written by Azalea and XCX.

• comment from uninvolved editor – I believe the past tense is correct in this instance. Art exists in an eternal present tense, but I don't think the actual creation of the art does. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I’ve made an additional change.

Release

• 7PM is incorrect via Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Time_of_day, but it’s also a little too fancrufty. I’ve changed it to “evening of”
• "The album" should be named, as it hasn't been mentioned yet in the article proper. Consider the article separate from the lead.

Critical reception

• there's no hint of who's referred to in the "praising their chemistry" quote; I presume it's XCX? The link is dead, as well… is there a copy on Archive.org?
• Was Rolling Stone the only starred review?

Commercial performance

I've made a few adjustments to make it better.

Background

I love that Director X was behind the video! He's from the same city as me.

• The sentence about the Clueless theme is a little sprawling.

Passing "Charts", "Certifications", "Release history", "See also", "External links", Categories.

Various other sections are left, but if you want to start on these, I welcome that. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks report: links 5, 11, 13, 34 all need attention. I've fixed two others. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Passing "Track listing".

Production credits and personnel

• "Iggy Azalea's vocals engineered by"... is there no credit for Charli's?

Use in popular culture

• This section is rather unwieldly. Every couple sentence, there's Jimmy Fallon. Have you considered grouping the article thematically (true covers, parodies, etc.)? There's nothing specifically wrong about the section, it's just not appealing to read.

I've done some cleaning of "Synopsis".

Reception

• The Harper's Bazaar article is only of 24 iconic fashion moments in music videos, no where does it say that they are the 24 most iconic.
• It wasn't explicitly clear that the 100 M mark is the sole determinate of the VEVO Certified award; it's not a household name.

I've removed the "too much non-free" box from the top of the article. Both the cover image and the sound clip are properly justified on the info pages, and one image and one sound clip together is perfectly acceptable. The free license image helps balance things.

Okay, placing this article on hold. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Many edits have been made to the article in the last eight days, but using the Harper's Bazaar misquote as a checkpoint, and the lack of comments here, I'm going to assume that the GAN itself is abandoned. I'm failing the article, but it is close to GA status, in my opinion. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)