Talk:Exo/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: CodexJustin (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review for this 2018 nominated article which may take a day or two to prepare. As preliminary comments, please check that all the citations which currently appear in the lead section are all represented in the main body of the article on a one-by-one basis. Once you confirm that they are all in the main body of the article, you can then remove the citations from the lead section as already covered in the main article. Once done there should be no cites in the lead section which duplicate cites in the main article. Also, in the Olympics section, there was a great deal made of one of the women figure skaters with a medal being a large fan of EXO with an "International" press conference meeting with the Olympics medal winner with the EXO group members, see Evgenia Medvedeva and here [1]. Have you heard of this and can something about it be brought into the "Olympics" section of the article? More in a day or two. CodexJustin (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Only 2 non-duplicate sources remain in the lead. NicklausAU 00:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those were nice edits last night by you. The article is in fairly good condition and I'm not sure why someone has not picked it up sooner for review. Regarding the other remaining footnotes and cites in the lead section, cite number 2 can be moved to the Tour section of the article which lists the tours one by one, and then removed from the lead section. For cite number 1 in the lead section, this genre identification is to me completely unobjectionable and does not need this footnote in the lead section. Put it into the main body of the article, and then remove it from the lead section. The footnote for the lawsuit regarding dissolving the group member contract is already fully covered in the Lawsuit section and is not really needed in the lead section. Check the wording in your lawsuit section, make any additions needed, and then remove the footnote from the lead section. One new comment would be to ask if the article might benefit from a Pre-debut section as one finds in the Apink article, or, possibly a Background section as a new first section for the article. For example, many boy band groups are formed to fill in a gap between already existing rival boy band groups when there is the perception that all genre types are not be adequately addressed by the other groups or already existing solo acts. Some comment on the major competing acts, groups or solo artists in K-pop, might be interesting to see in such a possible Background section or Pre-debut section. I'll plan to do another read through of this article later today or tonight. CodexJustin (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tour citation moved into history text, as most musician FL don't contain text to cite in Tour section.

Genre citation moved to Musicality subsection

Footnote information was already present in legal issues section, so I deleted it. NicklausAU 01:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the extra section, I beleive the content that would be covered in a "Pre-debut" section is included in the "Formation and Debut" subsection of History. There is some brief information included about when/why Lee Soo Man from SM Entertainment wanted to create EXO, but I am unable to find anything referring to other groups. NicklausAU 02:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did see that. The full review is below and I'll make some more comments there. It might have been nice to see the separate section to mention a little more about the prevailing rival bands at the time of the group's formation, not only the boy bands, but the rival girl bands and rival K-pop solo acts at the time of Exo formation. That is, who was the top competition when they were being formed. More below. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full review[edit]

The lead section is looking pretty good now with the extra footnotes now merged into the main article. For paragraph 2 of the current lead section, it would be nice to see a first sentence which states something like, "The band performs as a complete ensemble XYZ% of the time." I do not know if it is 90% of the time or 50% of the time, or even less. It would be nice to know what per cent of their time is spent in solo acts, in Exo-K acts, and in Exo-M acts. The reader should be told something about this up front in this paragraph if this information is available. I believe for most of their videos they appear as a full ensemble. Paragraph 3 in the current lead section seems a little long and a little too detailed, maybe tell the reader about their debut release and the top performing release after that, and finish that paragraph with that alone. Giving the reader a short preview of each and every one of their releases in sequence is a bit much for the lead section. Let the main body of the article tell the full details and try to shorten the long paragraph by a third or something like that.

Done, with best available information. It's clear that some members spend more time than others doing solo activities, but it's hard to quantify with any certainty and there are certainly no sources for it that I have been able to find. I tried to make the distinction more clearly though. NicklausAU 15:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Shorten all of the section titles. "Formation", "Commercial success", "Critical acclaim", "Worldwide success", and "International recognition" with the years included should do the trick. Keep these section titles short and keep the years in the abridged section titles. Regarding formation and debut, I see your point from above concerning starting an optional new Background section; my own thought would be to keep the personnel assembly in this History section, and move the management and organization sentences to a possible new Background section right after the lead section. It would also allow you to mention who the prevailing rival K-pop acts were at the time of formation, including comments about rival girl groups and solo acts prominent at that time. Your current article does well at telling me about Exo among other boy bands, but gives me little about rival girl groups and solo acts with which Exo were intended to compete for fan loyalty and fan support. You can decide which format works best for this, though more, I think, is needed about general rival groups and not just other boy bands. Psy, for example, is not mentioned anywhere, though Psy's singles and albums were giant successes on the world stage. By the way, your paragraph starting "Speaking at a Sanford University...", would be a strong start for an early Background section if taken from the current Formation section to start things off in a possible new Background section if that is workable. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unfortunately the source containing the information in that Stanford University sentence was dead when I checked it, so I kept as much of it as I could with sources I could find. I also added more about media and other groups at the time and put it all into a new "background" section. NicklausAU 15:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lawsuits sentences which you already have included in two of these History sections, I think they are well done here and should be supplemented with the separate Lawsuits discussion which you currently have in a separate section later in your article. Those lawsuits are fully part of the history of this boy band and should appear fully represented in this History section. Merge the material from your Lawsuits section into the correct subsections of these History sections, and then archive the old Lawsuit section as redundant. The writing is all fine, and it just needs to be merged into the History section in the correct chronological sequence. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lawsuits section has been merged into the history section. I've been meaning to do that for like literally a year, so it was good to finally get around to it :). Will continue on with edits tomorrow. NicklausAU 15:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artistry section

Its not clear to me the best way to incorporate the performance, songwriting, and stage history in the context of readers who might want to see more about how Exo does compared to rival acts not only among other boy bands in K-pop but also compared to rival girl groups and rival solo acts. Psy coming out with "Gangnam style" I think eclipsed nearly everything in the genre, though I learn nothing about it in this article as it currently stands. Also Psy with "Gentleman" was also a mega-hit whose impact might be mentioned. Did Psy singles even dislodge Exo from top 10 lists or something like that. Also there is nothing appreciable in the current article about cover releases of Exo-songs by other K-pop acts or of Exo doing covers of other K-pop artist's songs. Did Exo ever perform a Psy song? Readers might like at least a little information about this and similar information. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure how to include this information to be honest. Where in the section would you like to see information about EXO competing with other artists on the charts? Also, surprisingly EXO and PSY never overlapped in their promotional periods for their music until Christmas 2015, at which point PSY had limited notability relative to other Kpop artists EXO has competed against. They have also never mentioned each other in interviews that I have been able to find. They have been discussed a limited number of times by other Kpop artists, but not in any detailed way (see example). While the rivalries are obviously there, they are almost never really outright discussed in interviews with the artists in Kpop. There are some rivalries in EXO's past however (against Big bang, BTS etc.) that are well documented by the media though. In that the kind of material you would like added? If so, in which section? Or in a new section? NicklausAU 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Let the reader know about any covers they have done of other artists, and if other artists have done cover version of any of Exo hits. Have any such covers been at all successful, for example, as one question to answer. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to covers and such, EXO have performed covers of many other Kpop groups and even The Beatles and a couple of other western artists before, but they were all performances on TV or at concerts and were not officially released for downloading/streaming. Likewise, EXO have been covered many times by other Kpop artists on TV shows and the like, but none were ever officially released as far as I'm aware. Without any official released, and without any significant media coverage, I'm not sure if these covers would be notable enough to warrant inclusion. What are your thoughts on this? NicklausAU 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

Already mentioned above. The lawsuits question is already partially addressed in the current History subsections, and the rest of this discussion should be merged into the existing History subsection in chronological order. The main topics covered here are the 2014 lawsuit issue and the 2016 countersuit issue. It should be simple and straightforward to merge these into the History section, and then to archive the replaceable Lawsuits section as redundant and no longer needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

moved as per above comment NicklausAU 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other ventures and awards

Sections look pretty good and well-written. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NicklausAU 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things going for now, and let me know when you are ready to continue. CodexJustin (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the review so far. I'm looking to get your thoughts on my comments in the Artistry and Legacy sections, and then any further comments you have as part of the review. NicklausAU 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your points about the two unanswered questions are well taken. This is really two different topics. The topic currently missing in this article is that of Industry performance, as opposed to what other bands and fans think of Exo. It might be possible to work this into the new nicely done Background section you now have. The general issue of importance within the music industry is referred to as market share and you can start with taking a quote from Koreaboo here about the stats: [2]. It would be nice if you could add something about the relative standing about BTS and Exo as the top two boy bands in Kpop, you may use your own preferred sources for this. Another useful article is from Forbes magazine which you might pull a quote from here [3]. Its up to you if you prefer to add this into the new Background section, or to make a new section on Industry performance. Significantly, TIME magazine has put BTS in their top 100 of "Most Influential" last week and not Exo which you might look up on the web.

Sorry for the late edits, life has been busy. I renamed the "legacy" section into the "impact" section, to discuss more of this kind of stuff. I added 2 new paragraphs (one about revenue stuff and one about comparisons to BTS stuff) I also reorganised the section to have 2 paragraphs about impact in south korea and then 2 about impact internationally. I used a different source though, as Koreaboo was labelled by Wikiproject Korea as an unreliable source. NicklausAU 02:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to see your new Impact section. Please double-check your statements about the 'number one' assertions made for Exo in this section. Also, I think you would improve this section with at least a small mention of Psy compared to Exo. Some of the members of Exo really seem to look up to Psy, as do many of the other boy bands. This summary may be useful if you could adapt it in some way: "Gangnam Style is a K-pop single by the South Korean musician Psy which was released on July 15, 2012, as the lead single of his sixth studio album Psy 6 (Six Rules), Part 1, and debuted at number one on South Korea's Gaon Chart. On December 21, 2012, Gangnam Style became the first YouTube video to reach one billion views. As of 2019, the song's music video has been viewed over 3.3 billion times on YouTube". How close does Exo come to that level of 'number one' performance and can you include some comment in this new section? CodexJustin (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what you envision comments relating EXO to Psy would look like. YouTube views are not notable unless they break numerous records like Psy's did. As EXO's YouTube views are not especially notable, including them alongside other more notable information would be giving them undue weight - WP:BALASP. There are only a limited number of interactions between Psy and EXO, and none of them are particularly notable: EXO danced with Psy on stage at a weekly music show in 2015 (these shows happen 5 times a week every week); EXO and Psy fought each other and each won several times on weekly music shows in 2015; EXO and Psy briefly fought on the charts in 2015 (Psy #2 and EXO #3 on Gaon Digital Chart, EXO #1 and Psy didn't chart on Gaon album chart); and Exo member Baekhyun broke PSY's record as the highest charting Kpop solo artist on the Billboard top 100 artist chart in 2018. If you are looking for a general comment on the significance of EXO internationally vs the significance of PSY internationally, unfortunately there are very few direct comparisons made like that in Kpop by reliable sources, and none that I can find between EXO and PSY. The closest any reliable sources come to that is discussing how they have both had huge impacts on Kpop - see [4]. NicklausAU 05:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sentence number three in paragraph number two of the lead section is really the top sentence you have there now. I might suggest that it would look good at the very start of paragraph 2 in the lead section. Something like: "Since 2014, Exo has exclusively performed as one group while continuing to release and perform music in multiple languages. Previously in 2012, the band debuted with twelve members separated into two sub-groups: Exo-K (Suho, Baekhyun, Chanyeol, D.O., Kai, and Sehun) and Exo-M (Xiumin, Lay, Chen, and former members Kris, Luhan, and Tao). Exo-K and Exo-M performed music separately in Korean and Mandarin until the release of their third EP Overdose in 2014". Pick the wording which you like best, though the new version of sentence three you have written is the best one in that paragraph now. Let me know when you are ready to continue. CodexJustin (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to restructure the paragraph like that, but see now that leading with the most relevant and current information is the strongest way to do it, so thanks! It has been done. Please let me know what you think of these changes and/or any further review for the article. NicklausAU 02:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of lead section is looking much improved and polished. CodexJustin (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

The current version of the article is much improved and has a shortened and tightly written lead section which is useful. The images check out on Wikicommons and have useful captions. The citations have been all auto-formatted and are easy to read and access. The Korean citations can be accessed through machine translations. The new impact section is very interesting and a little extra research could probably get some numbers of the market share of Exo in the Kpop industry as a whole and in comparison to rivals such as Psy and BTS. Optionally, a further expanded Impact section would be useful if the article is eventually to go for a future FA assessment. Otherwise, the article is well-written overall and in the Wikipedia world of Kpop this article has made it GA before their rival group BTS. CodexJustin (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]