Talk:Same Thing (EP)

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:Same Thing (EP)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting a placeholder for now; should get to this within the next week or two (if not, please poke me). Giving back for the wonderful source review you did! joeyquism (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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 well-written and engaging, with most of my remarks being on more minute things (primarily spelling). Well done! I have listed my notes for the sake of being thorough: Lead Hoshino wanted to focus on music in a pure sense, disconnected from sales, and found the recording process reminiscent to when he began writing music in middle school. - Shouldn't it be "reminiscent of"? "Superorganism" is misspelled twice as "Supeorganism" in the lead. I'm also seeing a number of misspellings as "Supeorganism" in the body. Seeing as you {{ill}} tag (redlink) Punpee in the background, I feel as if you should also do this in the lead. Background His most comercially successful release... - Should be "commercially" Hoshino, Supeorganism, Punpee, Punpee's frequent collaborator Rascal, and Misch are all credited as songwriters and producers on Same Thing. - I feel like there's a better phrasing when it comes to the adjacent mentions of Punpee. Perhaps something like "Punpee and his frequent collaborator Rascal" would flow better? Composition and songs Wikilink the italicized instance of "fuck"? Hoshino and Punpee discusses in conversation-like verses... - Should be "discuss" rather than "discusses" Release and promotion No major issues. Critical reception praising their song as an impactful track that made her uncounciously smile - Should be "unconsciously" On the other hand should be replaced with something like "Conversely" or "In contrast"; otherwise, it comes off as a violation of MOS:IDIOM. There are some instances of WP:WIKIVOICE and MOS:QUOTE violations. For one, there are a bit too many quotes used in this section; this could benefit from a bit more paraphrasing (though keep in mind not to too closely paraphrase). Additionally, phrases like "Nakamura wrote that the Western rap and pop reminiscent production" are written in a way that implies that the production being seen as "Western rap and pop reminiscent" is fact rather than opinion (though I might just be being overly pedagogic here). I recently received similar critiques for my writing on Windswept Adan; however, I've found that this is rather easy to rectify. Commercial performance No major issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See 1a.
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.	Looks good! Only thing I have to say is that you should indicate that the Japanese sources are written in Japanese. Use the lang parameter for this.
	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).	I haven't really seen the "[1]:(number)" reference styling before, but all sentences with points that could be contested are properly cited and referenced. The quality of sources look good as well - a number of these sources were used on my own Japanese album article, and upon my own research of their credentials, they check out as reliable and verifiable. Spot check: [1], [5], [8], [11], [14], [15], [20], [23], [28], [32], [34-44] All look good, and do not paraphrase too closely upon translation.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing I can see here that resembles this.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returns 21.3% and 20% for the Billboard Japan interview and the Gen Hoshino webpage; however, these are just quotes and lyrics. I will reiterate that some of the quotes in the reception section should be reduced if possible.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article covers the necessary sections of the article within reason (if there is information on the cover artwork, that would be good to add too).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not elaborate excessively on unrelated subject matters.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutrality is maintained throughout the prose.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars here.
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.	Album cover and snippets are all fair use. Image of Superorganism is CC BY 2.0, and image of Hoshino is CC BY-SA 2.0. Looks good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pictures are properly and appropriately captioned with alt text. Audio captions are relevant to the album's composition.
	7. Overall assessment.	Going to put this on hold for now. Most everything else looks great; however, prose issues need to be addressed before proceeding. Once these are covered, I'll read it over a couple more times just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about, concerns with, or dissents to my comments. Thank you for a most wonderful article and read, IanTEB; glad to see some very comprehensive work on Asian music! joeyquism (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyquism: I've fixed all your prose and reference comments (not sure why I wasn't able spell to Superorganism, nor notice the error). I will, however, defend the reception section. I think quotes are minimal enough to satisfy quote guidelines; there are none that span more than a few words and I believe the attribution is clear. I would argue that the Western reminiscent production can be stated in Wikivoice since it is a analysis of the composition by a professional and I haven't had issues getting such claims past GA in the past. For example, at Crazy Crazy / Sakura no Mori with "a light and rhythmic piano intro that reminiscences to older theatrical media like slapstick comedy and silent movies" in an unattributed sentence. If you have any other examples I will give it another look, though. IanTEB (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point; I think I'm just being more of a pedagogue due to my recent experiences at FAC. Everything looks good; I'm feeling good about passing this. Good work! joeyquism (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyquism:} Thank you very much for the review! If you have any music nominations you'd want me to review feel free to reach out since I'm trying to stack up points for the current backlog drive. IanTEB (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2024 (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.