Talk:Stereo Love/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

This will be reviewed from today–tomorrow; I remember working together during my early days as a reviewer! --K. Peake 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and leda

Wikilink techno to itself instead
The ref is not needed for Cat when this is backed up in the body
"and Moldovan-Romanian musician Vika Jigulina." → "that features a guest appearance from Moldovan-Romanian musician Vika Jigulina."

I think "featuring" is enough. Modified it accordingly.

Add a comma after debut studio album and make this the sentence after the writing/uncredited contribution sentences

Comma added, but I disagree with the second part. What album a song is part of is usually covered in the first two sentences of the lead. I don't see any reason why this should come later in the lead.

""Stereo Love" was" → "The song was"
""Stereo Love" is a" → "It is a"

Disagree here. In the previous sentence we talk about "Bayatılar" and the contract. It is helpful to keep "Stereo Love" for the reader to precisely know what we are referring to

Wikilink techno to itself
The lovesickness part does not seem to be backed up; maybe re-word to something like "a love interest" per the body?

The source says "It's mournful, [...] pierced through by Vika's icy sobs. She's sad and wants her loved one to know about it". This is basically what lovesickness is. It's just another way of saying what I wrote in the composition section.

"around the track's release. It prominently" → "around the time of release. The song prominently"
"noting its universal appeal." → "noting the universal appeal."
I don't think Portugal should be listed with the other number ones as this was on a Digital Songs chart, also why is Switzerland not listed?

I think Portugal is justified since this is the only chart for Portugal that we have available for that time period. Switzerland is not included because the song only hit number one on the Romandy chart, which only represents a small region in Switzerland that speaks (I believe) French.

"It was a number-one in" → "The song was a number-one in"
"Maya is alleged not" → "Maya was alleged not"
"An accompanying music video for "Stereo Love" was" → "An accompanying music video was"
Remove overly obvious wikilink on Americas
Per this being an award, move the Top Dance Song to the sentence after reception in the above para

Background

Merge with the below section and retitle to Background and release
Remove introduction to who Edward Maya is, as that is sufficient in the lead
"scene in 2006 while being a student at the National University of Music Bucharest, contributing" → "scene in 2006, when he was a student at the National University of Music Bucharest and contributed"

Release

Make these the second/third paras of the above section
Move the album release to being the last one of the first para for chronological order

This wouldn't help the chornological order either since the last paragraph begins with "In 2009, Spinnin' Records...". I think it fits nicely to state what album the song is part of right after naming its initial release, regardless if the album was released years later.

"Digital Dog, Michael Mind Project,[15]" → "Digital Dog, the Michael Mind Project,[15]"
"released CDs in" → "released CDs for "Stereo Love" in"
"distributed in the United Kingdom" → "distributed in the UK"

This could be done, however the article already writes out every instance of United States (except for the US Billboard Hot 100, as it's referred to like this) and United Kingdom (except for the UK singles chart, as it's referred to like this). I would keep it "United Kingdom" for consistency. Judging by the MoS, both the abbreviated and written out versions are allowed.

Composition

Wikilink techno to itself instead

Interpolation dispute

I would suggest aligning the image to the left since the next one is on the right
Prose is good

Critical reception and accolades

Remove speech marks around polarizing as this is not a direct quote from the source
Remove wikilink on North America per WP:OVERLINK
"New York Daily News reported" → "The staff of the New York Daily News reported"
"borders on parody"." → "borders on parody."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
Last para looks good!

Commercial performance

Img looks good!
First para looks good too!
"to the United Kingdom and" → "to the UK and"

See my remark above.

Initial success in 2009

Pipe Nielsen Music Control to Luminate (company)
"It ended up as" → "The track ended up as"

Commercial success in 2010 and 2011

"It was a number-one hit" → "The track was a number-one hit"
Mention the bodies that issued each certification as well as the countries they were in

Every mention of a certification already also mention the name of the certifiying body. It is superfluous to mention the country when it's already in the name of the body. For Italy and Spain, the body mentions the name of the country in Italian and Spanish, respectively, but it is obvious from the context of the sentence that we are talking about Italy and Spain.

"where it peaked at" → "where the track peaked at"
Mention that the RIAA certification was in the US

I think the is obvious since there is "America" in the name of the certifying body.

Promotion

Where is it directly sourced that the music video was removed from YouTube?

The source gives the link to the music video, which is not available anymore if you try to access it.

Remove overly obvious wikilink on Americas

Mia Martina remix

Looks good!

Label disputes

"for two million euro" → "for two million euros"

Other usage

Good

Track listings

Good, love the addition of extra track lists too!

Charts

Weekly charts

Shouldn't the Canadian charts subsection of Billboard charts only be wikilinked for Canada AC since the rest constitute overlinks?

Everything should be linked in that table since it is sortable.

Wikilink Euro Digital Song Sales per MOS:LINKSECT for consistency

Sadly the link comes from a template that I cannot change.

Should France download be included when France already is?

I don't see any mention of this at WP:GOODCHARTS. Digital Songs are also included alongside the US Billboard Hot 100, so I assume including the France download chart is allowed.

Overlinking of TopHit after the first table
Rest of charts section is good!

Certifications

Good

Release history

Should unknown release dates really be listed here?

I don't think this is a problem. I have done this in several other GAs.

Notes

Good

References

Copyvio will not work, but this looks clean!
Cite a work/publisher for refs 3, 93, 96
Pipe Complex to Complex (magazine) on ref 28
Pipe Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique to SNEP on ref 61
After ref 101, why are some refs citing YouTube as via and others as publisher? One only for consistency makes sense.

For ref 113 I wouldn't leave YouTube as the publisher, since the publisher isn't an "official channel". It is a fan account (but the video still shows that Grupo Extra did a cover of the song). Otherwise I solved the issues.

Wikilink Monitor Latino on ref 133
Does ref 184 have MOS:CAPS issues or is that how it is stylized?

"MAHASZ" is the short version for Magyar Hanglemezkiadók Szövetsége, the Hungarian name of the Association of Hungarian Record Companies.

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; sorry for the slight delay! --K. Peake 20:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thank you for your review! Will get to this in the next few days. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Hello again. I have solved all your comments except for where I left comments. Feel free to respond if you don't agree. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Nice job again, although I believe in the lead you should only use the song's title once per para and also do not use "the track" since it is either this or "the song" and you clearly preferred for the latter. The Portuguese Digital Songs position needs to be written out in the body, techno should be wikilinked to itself and change "where it peaked at" to using the track instead. Another suggestion that is not fully required for this to be GA-quality; I would prefer if you named the United States at the RIAA certification because America could refer to anything from a collection of those countries to the uninformed reader. --K. Peake 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thank you for your response! I do not believe in the song title and "track" argument. Several articles shown as reference articles at the Songs MoS, including "What You Waiting For?" and "S&M" use the song's title more than once in paragraphs and use "song" and "track" at the same time. The other issues I have all fixed. Let me know what you think. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass now, I understand our disagreements but edited out the song's title from twice in the first para since that becomes redundant to me. --K. Peake 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]