Talk:Heartbreak Anthem/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 12:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Hi, I will be reviewing this for you! I will review and comment section by section below this message and will update the above checklist as items are addressed. I do on occasion make slight copyedits as I go (no sense in me wasting your time with spelling or grammar concerns!). Typically this is an iterative process between the nominator and the reviewer, so feel free to ask questions. Grk1011 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

 * Per MOS:LEAD, references are typically not included in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, so everything in these few paragraphs should also be included somewhere in the article body with the appropriate refs. Refs 5 through 9 are only used in the lead, so that's an indication to me that the article might be missing information in the body.
 * Add a year or date for the performance on the Confetti Tour for context. ✅
 * The genres are only sourced in the infobox. Is there a way to incorporate some of that into the background and release section to help provide additional context?

Background and release

 * Add the missing info from the lead here. ✅
 * Per WP:METRO, the Metro ref will need an alternative. ✅
 * The song appearing on the Little Mix album is missing a ref. ✅

Critical reception

 * Add a summary/intro sentence to start this section. Was all the reception positive or does this article only include positive reviews? Check since cherry-picking reviews is somewhat common. ✅

Accolades

 * Add a couple summary sentences to introduce this section. Include any discussion about the song's inclusion in these award shows
 * The Brit Awards link is dead. ✅

Commercial performance

 * WP:SONGS lists this section as "Chart performance" instead ✅
 * I'd suggest regrouping the first two paragraphs a bit. Have one focus solely on the UK. You opened with performance in several countries but then only focused on UK and then only on the UK in the second paragraph.
 * Wikilink Mediabase. Check the others in this sentence for wikipedia articles as well.
 * "at numbers four and six, respectively". ✅
 * Clarify the last sentence of the first paragraph. I was confused about how the tenth week meant 100 weeks. The ref says across all of their releases.
 * I believe the year-end list table should instead be in the chart section.

Music video

 * The Youtube views bit does not have a reference, but overall, figures like this that require constant updating should be avoided. (remove it) ✅
 * Was there any media reception to the video? ✅

Track listing

 * The release history also has 2 other versions. Where are those? ✅

Personnel

 * Start this section with Credits adapted from... with a ref (typically this is from Tidal, the liner notes, etc). ✅
 * Wikilink first mention of each role if applicable ✅

Release history

 * Can you make it clear that these were "various"? Typically this is done with a summary ref that includes a sampling of different countries. See S&M (song) for an example. (I typically see 4 countries per summary ref as a rule of thumb)

General comments

 * Be consistent with number format, i.e. ten and 10.
 * Check all refs for missing authors (I noticed a couple that do have listed authors, but they're not included in the ref).
 * Be consistent with ref formatting. There are instances of "www.officialcharts.com" and "Official Charts Company" between individual refs even though these are the same source. Also make sure you are italicizing or not when appropriate. I advocate for every ref having the wikilink to the source's article (if applicable) as a courtesy for the reader.
 * Copyright detector only flagged the quote, so that's good!
 * We only spot check refs (and especially when it's a "claim" is being made), so please check the remaining refs to ensure they are all working. I did identify one dead link, noted above. You can also use the "fix dead links" button, which you can find by clicking on "view history" and then it's listed above the revisions amongst other external tools.
 * And that's all for now. Please take a look at these items and let me know if you have any questions! Grk1011 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Remaining comments
I can't tell if you're waiting on me or still working on edits, but I've read through the article again and have the following remaining comments: Could look through all the comments above for both reviews and add ✅ as you complete them (or alternatively if you object and have comments back to me!) Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd combine the composition section as the opening for "Background and release". A standalone section with one sentence feels incomplete. This still feels relevant there.
 * What was the website for the teaser link? helloitsmeyourex.com? The ref only backs up Little Mix's posting of it, not all three.
 * Still missing the ref for ''Between Us". Should be easy to track down. ✅
 * Intro sentence still needed for Critical Reception section. ✅
 * Hi : will you be able to finish this by the end of the weekend? Grk1011 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. Sorry. I've been busy with personal situations. But yes I should. Jack Reynolds (talk to me &#124; email me) 03:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi : checking in. Grk1011 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi : checking in again. This GA review process usually takes about a week and it's now been over a month. I think you're very close though! Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi : I've gone through and made some minor edits to get this to GA status given your disappearance. It was already close enough. Grk1011 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)