Talk:View (Shinee song)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this. On first reading, it appears well written and doesn't need much work. I usually review section by section and am not in a hurry. Hope this works for you. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• Shinee seems to have a visual presence, but there are no images in the article. If there is no single cover, maybe add a promo photo that was used announcing the release or similar (here or later in the article).

• added an image later in the "Promotion" section. Let me know if that works for you.

• If much of the song is in Korean, maybe add |language=Korean or Korean, English (chorus) if appropriate.

• added "Korean" under the language parameter in the infobox.

• FYI only: |released= usually uses {{Start date}}; the 1st |length= doesn't need {{Duration}}; |chronology=,|header=, and |type= are already auto generated.

• fixed

Lead

Resolved

• Linking should be used sparingly in the lead, especially in the first sentence (MOS:LEADLINK). Unless there is a particular need, familiar terms like Korean language, lead single, music critics, music video, and similar links are unnecessary.

• unlinked common terms

• Jong-hyun penned the lyrics: Might help to identify him as the lead singer or at least as a band member. Also, if the lyricist is identified, the composer of the music should be as well.

• introduced him

• featuring a stripped-down instrumentation: I'm used to seeing this as featuring stripped-down instrumentation without the "a".

• removed "a"

• Commercially, the song reached: I'm not sure that "Commercially" adds anything (most readers would probably assume that Gaon is a commercial chart).

• revised

• going on an adventure with female fans: Maybe add a little more to this, since the video is the subject of an entire section.

• revised

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Background and composition

Resolved

• Most of the first paragraph: This deals with the song's release, which comes after the songwriting and recording. As I mentioned in the "Mic Drop" PR, I prefer a more chronological layout. Consider moving to later in the article (up to you).

• moved it later.

• produced by LDN Noise ...: Maybe just a little more on who these people are and how they are related to the group. Also I don't see that the songwriting or production is mentioned in the ref.

• introduced the team and added the supporting ref.

• The song has a length of ...: It looks like Musicstax is a self-published source. Does Luke meet WP:SPS, i.e., a recognized expert, etc.?

• I've used it for other GAs, such as "Blood Sweat & Tears" and "Fake Love". Please let me know if you would still like me to remove it.

• While I'd like to see more musical information in WP articles, there is not much of it in reliable sources for pop music. WP:GACR criterion #2a. includes "all inline citations are from reliable sources". Sheet music publishers like Alfred or Hal Leonard often show this, but I didn't see any in a quick online search.[1] If you think Musicstax meets the SPS expert exception, OK. Otherwise, the article may have to do without.

• Removed.

• Listen box: The extra commentary "a deep house and pop song with stripped-down instrumentation" isn't really needed (MOS:CAPSUCCINCT). Also, |format= is no longer used.

• removed

• stripped-down instrumentation: Would it be possible to describe this, e.g., "with only keyboards, drums (machine?), bass (synth?) provided by SM studio musicians" or whatever is the case.

• unfortunately that's not available, so I'm keeping it as "stripped-down".

• "View" retains the ...: This and the next sentence are too close to the wording in Billboard (WP:PARAPHRASE).

• revised

• Having a sensual sound ...: I don't seethese points mentioned in the ref.

• added a ref.

• In the lyrics ...: Any info on why the English word "View" is used as the title for a Korean song and other English words/phrases are occasionally used?

• again, unfortunately that's not mentioned.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ojorojo, thank you for the comments. I've implemented the changes and replied above. Please let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

So far, so good. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception

Resolved

• Linking a major city like New York may be MOS:OVERLINK; perhaps something like LGBT culture in New York City would be more useful.

• linked

• Removed link to NYC

• Accolades table: I can't read the Korean sources, but do the awards have names, e.g., "Song of the Year", "Best Video by a – ...", etc.? For extra credit, the table can be made access friendly.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• the major awards- Song of the Year and Best Dance Performance – Male Group have been already linked to the corresponding articles Mnet Asian Music Award for Song of the Year and Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Dance Performance. Since both awards are from the same awarding body, I have written it down in prose. Music show wins are awarded to the song on a weekly basis, these aren't major awards. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe the table caption could indicate something like "Weekly music program winner" if the awards aren't named.

• added

• Added scope= for col and row (WP:ACCESS)

Charts & Release history

Resolved

• The info in both of these sections is already included in the "Release and commercial performance" section and doesn't appear to need repeating. See also MOS:TABLES "[Tables] should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list" and MOS:NO-TABLES includes "If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read."

• removed.

Except for a review of the citations, that's about it. If there are a few stragglers, shall I fix them or list them here? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ojorojo. Please feel free to fix any inconsistencies and let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• The citations look good; I'm assuming good faith that the Korean-language sources meet RS. I made some miscellaneous fixes, including as noted under the previous sections. I removed the "Credits and personnel" section, because they just duplicate what is already mentioned and referenced. Please feel free to change as you see fit. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the fixes. I am fine without the personnel section since that's indeed a repetition. And, all Korean sources that have been used in the article comply with WP:KO/RS. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Points discussed above.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good work, Ashley. It's a pass. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 14:34, 25 May 2021 (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.