Talk:It's You (Zayn song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, my name is CaliforniaDreamsFan, and I'll be reviewing your article! Full review coming soon, so stay tuned!

Infobox

 * You can just remove the cover, caption, and recording logs if they aren't necessary to the infobox (if there is a recording location, however, add it in the recording spot).


 * Unlink Malik's name in the writing credits, since you've already linked him in the artist spot.

Lead section

 * "with production being done by Malay." — "whilst production was handled by Malay."


 * "features in its instrumentation organ-like keyboards, pulsating beats and sparingly employed strings, piano, and electric guitar" — features organ-like keyboards, pulsating beats and sparingly employed strings, piano, and electric guitar through its instrumentation."


 * Why did you identify the critics analysis on Zayn's relationship with Perrie Edwards (that's fine), but didn't identify the overall reception? Positive? Negative? and reasoning? Add it here.

Background and release

 * Add "British–Irish band" before "One Direction".


 * "Zayn started working on his debut solo studio album" — I think this would need a reference to verify this action.


 * "Later, Ho heard "Pillowtalk" and "Fool for You" before signing on to produce for the album, and thought Malik's voice was incredible and agreed in producing." — "Later, Ho heard "Pillowtalk" and "Fool for You" before signing on to produce the record, and thought Malik's voice was incredible and agreed to work with him."


 * Also, is "incredible" a comment from Ho? If so, use quotation marks.


 * "It was stated that the song shared similarities with Ocean’s "Bad Religion"" — By who?


 * Change "stating" after Ho with "saying" or "mentioning"; repetition.

Composition

 * Change "Zayn Malik" to Malik, "James Ho" to Ho, and unlink them; you've already used and linked them at the start of the article, and doesn't need to be repeated.


 * "Playing" — "played the"


 * Replace "played" after Violins with "performed" or "incorporated"; repetition

Critical reception

 * Add a general consensus of the reception; "It's You" received positive reviews from music critics."


 * Unlink Malay; just add "producer" before Malay (in its first mention here) to re-iterate his involvement in the track.


 * The reviews are good, but you repeat the introduction of a new sentence with "[Someone] from [Somewhere]" a lot. Try change it up with "[Someone], writing for [Somewhere]" or "[Somewhere]'s [Someone]"

Credits and personnel

 * Divide the personnel section into two columns.

Live performances

 * Not being nerdy, but I found another performance by a verified YouTube account; here.

Other additional notes

 * Why isn't there any information in the article about its charting performance? Because the track has charted, it needs a chart sub-section in order for me to see whether it passes the GA (point 3. for WP:GA criteria).


 * Also, you need to mention its commercial success in the lead.


 * Change 1 link in the article.
 * ✅ In the article it appears all fine and well but for some reasons it shows up this way in the link...? Weird Carbrera (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall GA conclusion
A really good article! On hold for 7 days for additional editing. Please ping me for any inquires or when you have finished! Good luck CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk &middot;&#32;contribs}
 * All done! Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are issues with formatting in some of the references, inconsistency with formatting and linking in the Credits section and the Critical reception is a WP:QUOTEFARM. — Calvin999  17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to very politely ask you to follow WP:HOUND. You are word for word exercising its definition of "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Not only are your purposely looking for errors on my behalf, but you are purposely singling me out amongst all of the editors involved in the GA Review process on Wikipedia. Additionally, this entire situation is making me extremely uncomfortable. Please refrain from your negativity with my work and my edits; it is extremely unnecessary. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC).
 * To be honest, my comment isn't wholly really directed at you. I'm not being negative, I'm just picking up on what's going on here. Surely you would want any advice on how to improve the article, not push it away? — Calvin999  08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pass the article because it does follow all signs of the criteria, but in support of Calvin999, please be consistent with the formatting of references (you might want to also change it here, my sincere apologise for not picking it up on both you and Calvin999). CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk &middot;&#32;contribs} 09:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So it's been passed with outstanding issues? The critical reception section is a problem. — Calvin999  09:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said; I have informed to adjust these referencing formats immediately, even if majority of the presentation of the article is fine (may not be an excuse, but still pretty viable). I'm not too sure about your pointing out of the reception, as I see everything is in line, but if you have an issue with parts of my review, than it's absolutely okay to identify it and try and help with the review. No issues, just making the review as critical as possible to my ability. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk &middot;&#32;contribs} 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For your future reference, Critical reception section should not be largely made up of quotations from reviews. There should be a good degree of paraphrasing and original words. — Calvin999  08:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)