Wikipedia

Talk:New Slaves

Latest comment: 6 days ago by MaranoFan in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

Redirect?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Third opinion

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (User:Erpert)

The reason I brought up Koala15's talk page in my edit summary is because s/he has appeared to be making a lot of these kinds of edits lately regarding music-related topics that are not only notable, but are also well-sourced. Anyway, a song that has yet to be released but is still notable does not violate WP:NSONGS; in addition, the song was released on May 18 (a source for that was pretty easy to find). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by ReformedArsenal

WP:NSONGS states

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3]
  2. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
  3. Has won one or more significant awards or honors.
  4. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups

It doesn't, as far as I can tell, meet 2, 3, or 4. As far as number 1 goes... I don't see a few online articles, which seem to be more about the performance of the song than the song itself, as being enough to establish WP:N. I think that until one of the four criteria is clearly established, the redirect is the right way to go.

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.
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Slaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago27 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Slaves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 14:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's up, Kyle! I will have this review done within the next few days. Consider reviewing one of mine since I have many in the queue but this is not necessary. Best, NØ 14:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead

edit
  • The lead does look bulky to me, honestly, but this seems like a matter of stylistic choice and three paragraphs is okay given the word count here per MOS:LEADSIZE.
  • Write out "New York City" in full in the parenthesis for the studio name in the infobox.
  • Both record labels are only mentioned in the infobox and in neither the lead nor the body. It also seems they are not sourced currently
  • "with a songwriting credit for Gábor Presser as a result of a sample of his composition" - "with Gábor Presser receiving credits due to a sample of his composition"
  • " a few critics praised Ocean's appearance" - "a few critics praised Ocean's contribution" maybe? To make it obvious this isn't about his physical appearance
  • The mention of the Complex and Paste lists seems random, how about mentioning Complex, Consequence, Pitchfork, and Time, etc. instead and specifying they placed it in the top 5?
  •   Comment: I'm not sure about this, would that be too extensive? Also, would you want me to mention Complex and Time named it the best song of 2013 and then say it was also listed by other publications including...? --K. Peake 19:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • If you want to keep the sentence length around the same, maybe it could be "The song was listed as one of the best tracks of 2013 by multiple publications, including at number one by Complex and Time." I just think it makes more sense to include Time's number one placement over Paste's less significant number eight.--NØ 19:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "The" should be lowercase in "The Yeezus Tour" when used mid-sentence I think.
  • "West declared that its second verse was the best rap verse of all time in July 2013" - Not sure "declared" is the right word to use. Maybe "stated"?

Background

edit
  • Mention Kanye West by his full name and with the wikilink at the first mention in the Background section.
  • Does Travis Scott need to be introduced as a GOOD Music signee? I just feel like he is notable enough to not need an introduction tbh
  • "standing as the first leak from the album" - "becoming the first leak from the album"
  • "In a 2014 interview with Zach Baron of GQ" - "In a 2014 interview", because the mention of Baron does not add any necessary context.

Composition and lyrics

edit
  • ""HBA War" is already introduced as Dutch E Germ's song in the previous section so perhaps just the song name would do here.
  • A link to consumerism might be helpful both here and in the lead.
  • Do we usually censor and refer to the N-word as the "N-word" on Wikipedia? I have no idea but assumed this would be discouraged per WP:NOTCENSORED
  • I'll defer to your expertise in writing hip hop articles and consider just calling it the "N-word" correct. Probably best to stick to the source anyways.--NØ 19:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Release and promotion

edit
  • "West's sixth studio album Yeezus - "West's sixth studio album, Yeezus". But also shouldn't Yeezus be introduced as West's sixth studio album upon the first mention in the Background section and not here?
  • "West updated his website's map with 24 further locations" - "West updated his website's map with 24 other locations"
  • Does Milan need a link? Seems like a well-known place
  • "West tweeted that he was opening the debate of the song's second verse being the best rap verse of all time in July 2013" - Did he open a debate as stated here or declared it as fact as stated in the lead?

Reception

edit
  • There's nothing wrong with this section r.e. the GA criteria in my opinion. It may require a significant reduction in direct quotes and a clubbing of similar opinions to cut down on the bulk of text if you plan to nominate it for further processes, though.

Accolades

edit
  • ""New Slaves" was named to year-end lists of multiple publications in 2013" - Let's go with "included in" instead of "named to"
  • The Consequence and Village Voice lists should at least be covered in the prose, imo, so we are at least getting to lists where it was placed in the top 5.

Live performances

edit
  • "West stood in place and looked dead-eyed into the camera throughout" - It is not clear what "throughout" is meant to convey here. Throughout the performance?
  • "attempted to make them more appropriate for TV" - "made them more appropriate for TV". I don't see any reason to believe this attempt failed.
  • Lowercase "the" in "the Yeezus Tour" when used mid-sentence.
  • "made an unannounced appearance for Dave Chappelle's comedy show" - maube "on Dave Chappelle's comedy show" instead of "for"

Lawsuit

edit
  • "Presser launched a lawsuit against West for one third of "New Slaves" that includes an unauthorized sample of his work" - "Presser launched a lawsuit against West for one third of "New Slaves", alleging that it includes an unauthorized sample of his work"
  • "On March 20, 2017, West reached an out-of-court settlement with Presser that was undisclosed" - I think it should be more clearly stated that it was the settlement amount that was undisclosed
  • "although allowed the sample for another week before he sought an agreement" - "although he allowed the sample for another week before seeking an agreement"

Cover versions and other usage

edit
  • Looks good!

Credits and personnel

edit
  • "Credits adapted from the Yeezus liner notes." - Make this a full sentence by adding "are" between "Credits" and "adapted" since a period is used.

Charts

edit
  • Good

Certifications

edit
  • Should it be just "Certification" in the section title and caption since it's a single certification?

References

edit
  • Yeezus should be italicized in the titles of refs 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 50, 73 and 79 in this revision.
edit
  • Should it be just "External link" since it's a single link?

Final comments and verdict

edit
  • Putting this   On hold. Overall, this is a very impressive article and you have done a great job with it. Amazing amount of critical commentary considering this is an album track!--NØ 16:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • You are most welcome. I have replied to one point regarding the lead section but it is not a very important issue so the GAN ✓ Passes.--NØ 19:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Slaves&oldid=1237848728"