Talk:Weak (AJR 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: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koopastar: I will review this for you over the next few days. Expect both specific and general comments below. Grk1011 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koopastar: sorry for the delay in starting this! For my reviews, I typically go section by section and also have some general comments. For now, please take a look at the general discussion section as I'd like to see that addressed and incorporated before revisiting other sections.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Updated as items are addressed

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox and lead

• cover art is properly licensed
• external videos are to official channels
• add "(2017)" after The Click
• There shouldn't be a need for any references in the lead, so make sure Ref 3 moves somewhere in the article's body. Likely Background or Composition and production, depending on what you're using it for.
• wikilink music video
• The article body talks about the techno version going viral, not the song (or the music video which is what I thought you were talking about initially based on the sentence flow). Clarify what went viral both here and in the article body.
• It looks like there are fewer than 25 countries represented in the "charts" section (since some countries have multiple charts).

Background

• The first two sentences are a bit hard to follow. Maybe it's missing some context that states that it served as an inspiration? Like was that moment when they decided to write the song? Ref 4 does not fully back up this experience though, with the specific chorus lyrics part not mentioned in it.
• This whole section might actually be better combined with the following section. Suggest "Background and composition" with "production" as a sub section?

Composition and production

• Try to incorporate the first paragraph into something larger. You should avoid creating one sentence paragraphs
• the tempo is also described as 100bpm
• remove the stylization from Fun
• Add additional cites of the ref immediately following any quotations
• The references for the last paragraph aren't quite correct. It appears that most of this information comes from Ref 11, but Ref 4 (which is a short blurb) is before that. Similar to the above comment, make sure that the refs for the info come at the end of the sentence. When there are several sentences that only use that one ref, it can be placed after the last sentence (not every sentence).

Music videos

• Remove the bit about the number of views for the videos unless it was reported elsewhere where it's importance was noted (don't just look at the count on the video itself and add it). This is important because not only is it difficult to keep up to date, but there's no context about whether these amounts are notable or not. For example, is 9 million a lot for a lyric video? 82 million for the regular video is more than that, but is that a lot? Is it a lot for a band of this genre, or a group overall? You get what I'm saying?
• Where did "a month later" and "October 20, 2016" come from? That does not appear to be part of Ref 12
• Aside from the lead, the music video section is where being a single for the two releases is first mentioned. It would make more sentence to talk about being a single earlier in the article. When thinking about the article overall, imagine the lead not existing. It's not an intro, it's a summary for the main takeaways.

Commercial performance

• It seems "hit song" is being measured by appearing on the Hot 100, so make that clarification so that it doesn't come off as a subjective take.
• I mentioned this in the lead comments, but the "25 countries" is a bit weird since there is a section later on that lists the countries, but they don't amount to 25. Some charts (which ABC doesn't list), might not meet WP:CHARTS, so think about this a bit and potentially adjust how you talk about it.
• The April radio release is missing from the release history
• The entire certification paragraph needs refs

Remixes

• I'm not seeing October 24 or May 26 included in Ref 31, nor "viral". I remember seeing viral mentioned in other refs though, so look through them again to find the right backup for each fact.

Live performances

• Missing ref for the The Click tour performances
• I think some of the performance locations need "the" before them to sound more natural in the sentence
• Neotheater needs a ref

Personnel, charts, certifications, release history

• Radio release is inconsistent with what was mentioned earlier in the article
• Make sure to include the personnel from the other releases (remix, etc.)

References, images

• images are good
• Earwigs copy vio is unlikely violation at 9.1%

General discussion

• You should remove all additional infoboxes for the other releases. These are just various versions of the song featuring additional acts, etc. not covers. The track listing at Heartbreaker (Mariah Carey song) is similar to what we would expect. All of the background information about these releases should be included in the prior sections. Charts, personnel, etc., can be merged into the relevant sections with proper identification.
• In my experience, the additional album covers do not meet non-free image criteria. Unless there was some sort of discussion specifically about the importance of each cover, only one of them is necessary to identify the work. Grk1011 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koopastar: checking in. Once you address the above concerns, I can continue with the rest of the review. I saw that someone had also added the non-free image issues tag to the article, so you'll want to get that addressed ASAP. Grk1011 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the other album covers and re-formatted the remixes to the style of the good article supplied @Grk1011, thank you for notifying me of this. Koopastar (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Koopastar:. I've reviewed the rest. Let me know if you need any clarification! I see that this is your first GA experience, so I'm here to help. Grk1011 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth review @Grk1011, I have followed the advice you've given and believe that the article is now complete. Koopastar (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Koopastar: Thank you! This is very close, but my above comments need a bit of a reset now that some things have changed as the review has progressed:

• "well-known" needs some sort of back up.
• what are "alternate" versions? Do you mean was released in different formats?
• I removed the streams tally since it wasn't referenced. I also had a brief explanation about including things like that in my comments above.
• You have track listing for the European CD single, but it's not in the release history. If you can't find a ref for that release date, I would recommend removing it and replacing it with "Digital download" and the 1 track. There doesn't appear to be any difference between domestic and international versions of the song itself (including track length)
• I swapped the paragraph order in "background and composition". (this is optional for GA, but I thought it helped). My original concern was that it talked about the lyrics of the song before it established that the song existed? I added an intro sentence to the now second paragraph, but since I don't know the band members, I wrote "they explained" (if you could change that to the actual band member, that would be ideal).
• You should change "Worldwide" to "Various" since we can't be too sure that it was released everywhere
• I removed the total sales because that appeared to be original research. Not all charts calculate sales the same way, so it's not as easy as adding up certifications. If there is a specific ref for worldwide sales, then please add back.
• I think the Belarus chart might be radio-station specific. It's not included at WP:CHARTS and when you view the site it says "Unistar 99.5". Per guidelines, the charts should cover sales or streams from multiple representative sources.

I also did a quick copyedit for small things. Let me know if you have any questions! Grk1011 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced "well-known" with the more factual "highest charting" as it's shown later in the article, and replaced "alternate versions" with "live recordings" as that is what they referred to. The other points have also been followed, let me know if there's anything else @Grk1011. Koopastar (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

All set! Passing now. Great job! Grk1011 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 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.