Talk:Heavy Crown (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I shall be giving this a go. From a quick skim through, I feel like it lacks somewhat in comprehensiveness, particularly the composition. But I shall get to all that with my full review in due course!  Cool Marc  16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

General comments
I feel like not enough research has gone into this, it's lacking in being comprehensiveness. For example, I by chance read the New York Daily News article cited, and came across that Farber writes: “Heavy Crown” has a tribal rock beat and a cocky cameo vocal from Ellie Goulding.

One new verse from Iggy addresses a recent, and light-hearted, beef. “Get rid of the makeup/let’s be just who you is,” Azalea raps at one point, alluding to a series of tit-for-tat spats in October with Snoop Dogg. First, the elder rapper made fun of pix of the Igster without her usual war paint. The star responded by proudly parading around in front of the paparazzi au naturel and looking good. Why is this not used/mentioned in the article's one-line composition section?


 * ✅ Added a composition section.

It's still lacking in comprehensiveness, such a tiny article borderlines on fringing WP:NSONGS. Per WP:GAC a good article should be broad in its coverage, and this is not the case here so far. There's so much that can be added. Like for example, Azalea suggested that she wanted a collaboration already in June 2013 when they sang at Chime for Change. The length of the preview used in the trailer, it featured on the film's soundtrack and in the film too. What did Goulding say about the collab, the fact the song was untitled between the time of its usage in the trailer and the release of Reclassified. Azalea was forced to explain why Trouble was chosen over Heavy Crown as the 2nd single. The background section could say who wrote and produced the song, where it was recorded etc etc... Dig a little deeper!

Re-read your sources to expand on the composition! That's a KEY section for any song article as it's the section that explicitly and directly tells you about what the song is and how it sounds, what are the lyrics about. It's so important...

I did a bit of quick skim through Google and already found these bunch of sources you could use to expand on, many of which discuss the track's beat, Goulding and Azalea's delivery:
 * http://www.idolator.com/7573769/iggy-azalea-confirms-britney-spears-duet-trouble-next-single-follows-selena-gomez
 * http://www.idolator.com/7563998/iggy-azalea-ellie-goulding-collab-preview-listen
 * http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/digital-audience-ratings-dracula-and-annabelle-bring-fear-to-top-5-kingsman-trends-thanks-to-gotham-1201318700/
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/1939618/kingsman-secret-service-trailer-iggy-azalea/
 * http://theboombox.com/iggy-azalea-ellie-goulding-song-kingsman-trailer/
 * http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/09/iggy-azalea-and-ellie-goulding-preview-new-song-in-trailer-for-kingsman-the-secret-service-listen/
 * http://www.musictimes.com/articles/10648/20140923/watch-iggy-azalea-ellie-goulding-new-song-kingsman-the-secret-service-trailer.htm
 * http://www.allmusic.com/album/reclassified-mw0002784796

Infobox

 * The song was not released, the album was; the release date and labels field are hence redundant.


 * I'd suggest using a ";" instead of a "–" in the recorded field, the latter is used as a bridge between dates or numbers. Sarm West Coast can be linked to Sarm West Studios. Grove Studios can be linked to British Grove Studios. London should be in brackets and linked.


 * Do we have a source for hip hop?
 * The Fuse reference refers to it as a "hip hop/pop" track, added pop.


 * "Amethyst Kelly" is credited in the writer field, but "Iggy Azalea" in the Credits and personnel section. It should be "Iggy Azalea" as that's how she is credited in the album liner.

Lead

 * with most finding it to be a standout cut from Reclassified. I actually remember when expanding "Beg for It" that most critics called that the standout cut too. Only two critics critics (in this article) call "Heavy Crown" that, so I'd suggest removing this bit altogether. The reviews used in the article don't give much insight as to why they were positive about the song, bar Time who commends Azalea's delivery...


 * Use before "the 2014 film" Kingsman: The Secret Service for reader understanding.


 * I'd remove the "Hot Rap Digital Songs" from the article altogether seeing "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs" (its parent chart) is already used.
 * I disagree. They are odd charts, but the only rules regarding urban charts is that if a song enters the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, then most charts can't be added. The two charts used in this article aren't directly linked or affected by the guideline.
 * The user who replied to you on Wikipedia talk:Record charts provided the explanation I would have also given. I don't know if you have BIZ, but there are such things like Rap Streaming Songs and Rap Airplay, those two combined with Rap Digital make up Rap Songs which makes up R&B/Hip-Hop, it's the same methodology like all the other Billboard charts and a very clear component...

Background

 * The (pictured) in the Ellie Goulding image is redundant.


 * In October 2014, while giving an interview with Radio.com backstage at the CBS Radio 'We Can Survive' concert, Azalea mentioned her longtime desire to work with Goulding, and after meeting several times she was approached by her about a song that would become "Heavy Crown", recalling "she played it for me and I was in love with it and just felt it was so kind of appropriate for this to be our collaboration", because it "brings out something different in both artists that you don't usually see. - this needs some rewriting and trimming, I also don't think the "Radio.com backstage at the CBS Radio" part is particularly beneficial.


 * HypeTrack are not a reliable source.
 * On what basis? Nothing comes up while searching archives of the RSN. Plus it seems like a reputable source, having a magazine with Kendrick Lamar on this months cover.
 * Oh gosh haha I never knew they became a magazine. For years, they used to be a site for music blogs which anyone could sign up to. That's their first magazine. The source used is still part of their blog with no signs of the writer being a professional (WP:NEWSBLOG). I don't think the usage of it in the article is substantial either.

Critical reception

 * , with critics regarding the song as a standout cut from Reclassified should be removed per above. This section reads as fork of the album, a bit too much of Reclassified this, album review that.
 * ✅ Swithced the section up so it reads better.


 * When Mike Wass of Idolator reviewed the album, he stated "there isn't a dud track" and that "of the other new cuts, "Heavy Crown" stands out as another future hit" → Idolator's Mike Wass said that of the new material on Reclassified, it "[stood] out as another future hit".


 * During his review of Reclassified, Jim Farber of the New York Daily News praised the new tracks, which included "Heavy Crown" → The track was also well received by Jim Farber of the New York Daily News.


 * Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS the " used for "Heavy Crown" inside Nolan Feeney of Time's quote should be '. The full stop should also be outside the quote as its a fragmented sentence.


 * The highly positive and declared read a little fancrufty. Maybe omit "In a highly positive review" altogether? Each sentence in this section seems to begin with "In a positive/mixed/review/of the album". "Declared" could simply be "said/commented/opined/"...


 * Daryl Nelson from The Boombox concurred where is his view "concurred" in the article?
 * ✅ It's just me trying to not rely on "said" or "commented".

Credits and personnel

 * This should read as a list and not a list of sentences. See "Work" or "Not Afraid" for better examples.

Sorry if I sound a bit picky but those are my concerns! For such a short article, it is quite much, so I hope you don't feel discouraged!  Cool Marc  18:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize at all! Thankyou for the very thorough review, I'd rather that than an undeserving easy pass. I'll start addressing your comments shortly.  Azealia 911  talk  18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While I feel like this is a strong start. It's missing a key criteria for GA, that being broad in coverage. I feel like the subject was hardly researched or not enough interest or insight was shown during the article's writing. It's very brief and stub-like, doesn't really tell the reader much. I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion as it is. I've given a few tips above so unless you're able to substantially expand this within 7 days, I'll have to fail this. Please let me know or if you feel discouraged I'm more than happy to help expand the article with you and then you could re-nominate it later.  Cool Marc  07:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have this done within the seven day period, don't worry.  Azealia 911  talk  10:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, ping me when you've finished, good luck!  Cool  Marc  12:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , on second thoughts, it's back to college week so I'm going to be insanely busy, and an article re-write just doesn't look to be easy at all. I think the best cause of action is to fail this, so I can work on it at my own pace, and then probably renominate in a month or two once everything's settled down. Thankyou for the thorough review and all of your comments, especially the array of links you've left to help me expand the article. Best,  Azealia 911  talk  17:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)