Talk:BBD (song)/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am Carbrera, and I'll be reviewing this article for possible good article submission.

Full review coming very soon. Carbrera (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * You could probably describe the photo itself in the alt
 * Done.  Azealia 911  talk


 * You should remove the promotional singles chronology; I've never seen this before in an infobox
 * Not done, I don't really think this is a strong reasoning for removing the chronology. Regular singles have chronology so why not promotional ones? I got the idea from Lily Allen's articles, such as "Sheezus".  Azealia 911  talk
 * But both of Allen's promotional singles that have that chronology box are not GA articles. Personally, this looks very unflattering to me. But if you feel this would truly benefit the article than I have no reason to argue with you. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * Remove the source from the first sentence; sources aren't needed in the lead
 * Not done. Per WP:CITELEAD, sources are only not needed in the lead if the text they are sourcing is later referenced within the article. The references in the lead back up two pieces of information that are not mentioned or sourced later in the article (The fact that "BBD" stands for 'bad bitches do it' and that it isn't an official single).


 * I don't necessarily like the inclusion of the last sentence in the lead, but if you want it to remain I'm fine with that

Paragraph 1

 * Instead of saying "It was confirmed to be apart...", could you say "The track was confirmed to be apart..."? I think this wording sounds better (In my opinion...)
 * Done.  Azealia 911  talk


 * Add a source for when the label didn't like "BBD"; this sentence does not contain a source
 * Done.  Azealia 911  talk


 * Add a source for when Banks left Interscope and Polydor; this sentence also does not contain a source
 * Done.  Azealia 911  talk

Paragraph 2

 * The first paragraph is quite large compared to this one; it's not necessary that this one be expanded, but could it be? Perhaps?
 * Not done. I don't see how I can milk a 2-minute YouTube video any more.  Azealia 911  talk
 * Good. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Composition

 * Capitalize 'Twitter' and provide a link to it where it's mentioned
 * Capitalised but not sourced. It's someone's own words so it doesn't need to be sourced, plus she's now deleted her account.


 * The sentence with the above suggestion is a bit long; however, it probably doesn't need to be condensed

Critical reception

 * After reading the reviews from critics; I'd go as far as saying "BBD" received acclaim. There is no mention of a negative review, so...?
 * Done.  Azealia 911  talk


 * Other than what I mentioned this a very good section :)

Live performances
Nothing to add here.

Credits and personnel

 * The 'Personnel' section could be condensed to:
 * Azealia Banks - Vocals, songwriting
 * Sup Doodle - Co-production
 * Jonathan Harris - Songwriting
 * Kevin James - Songwriting
 * Rick McRae - Co-production, engineering, recording, mixing
 * What do you think of that? [^] I feel like this would be better, but I don't have too much of a problem with what you currently have included in the article
 * I'm not too over-the-moon about completely omitting the samples and recording locations, they weren't included in the infobox so that it wouldn't look too clunky.
 * I wasn't saying eliminate the samples and recording locations, just condensing the 'personnel' section. Otherwise it's fine. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Release history
Nothing to add here... again! ;)

End of GA Review:
Another great article for Azealia! I'll put it on hold until the nominator can look over my suggestions. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressed all comments, thankyou for reviewing.  Azealia 911  talk  16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, definitely a good article. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)