Talk:Lollipop (Param Pam Pam)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chasewc91 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet notability criteria for songs. The referencing here is weak. The majority of sources seem to be about the artist herself, and only contain passing mentions of this song. (Indeed, the majority of the "Background" section is about Stan, not the song.) NSONG says that The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment. Three sources are only YouTube and iTunes links to the song, and do not count as coverage.

There is one video that appears to be an interview about the song (iffy to use as as a source since there is no transcript, captioning, or any other way for English-speaking readers to verify the content being sourced). Regardless, NSONG says: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Because this appears to not meet notability criteria, this could reasonably be tagged with the cleanup banner. The GA quick-fail criteria include [having], or [needing], cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. Because this assessment could be questioned, I am going to ask for a second opinion instead of immediately failing this. In the meantime, here's how the article stands up to the main GA criteria to assist with improving what's already here:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * See comments below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage is lacking greatly. While the GA criteria allows for shorter articles, this likely stems from the fact that this song may not meet notability standards.
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The audio sample fails WP:NFCC. Its omission would not decrease a reader's understanding of the song, particularly since the caption is apparently here for readers to observe the "funny lyrics" (lyrics do not require an audio sample). The music video screen capture fails NFCC-8 as well, in addition to WP:NFCC (way too large).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like a second opinion regarding the song's notability. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like a second opinion regarding the song's notability. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Criterion 1 comments
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Lead
 * The track was written by both Marcel Prodan and Andrei Nemirschi, while produced by Prodan. "both" is unnecessary. replace "while" with "and."
 * It was released in 2009 in Romania, and re-released in Canada, United Kingdom and the United States in 2011 through Ultra Records following the international success of her single, "Mr. Saxobeat" (2010). This is a run-on sentence and needs to be broken up. Consider something along the lines of: Ultra Records first released it in Romania in 2009. Following the international success of her 2010 single "Mr. Saxobeat", (comma before "Mr. Saxobeat" isn't needed) "Lollipop" was re-released in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2011.
 * The official music video for "Lollipop (Param Pam Pam)" featured – should be "features"; works of art exist in an eternal present tense.
 * being engaged with a lollipop – "engaging with a lollipop," but it's better if you specify how they engage with the lollipop.

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Background
 * Commercially, the single was successful, with it peaking at number 18 on native Romanian Top 100. "with it" is not needed. "Stan's" needs to be added before "native." (And as noted below, you need to rephrase or remove the part about the song being successful.)
 * Show Me The Way
 * Romanian TV show "Acces Direct" italicize the name of the show and remove the quotation marks.
 * after she arrived from a club in a night. "one night"
 * Stan confessed that the track was "club-friendly", with it featuring "funny lyrics" change "confessed" to "said"; the former implies guilt. change "with it featuring" to "and features".

✅ ❌ the time-part: they didn't provide any period. ✅
 * Impact and promotion
 * Following the release of the song, it reached number 18 on native Romanian Top 100 Drop the bolded part and start with The song reached... It is generally implied that a song charts after its release.
 * its music video garnered 25 million views on YouTube in short time. Should be "in a short time," but you either need to specify what that timeframe was (2 days? 2 weeks?), or say that it did so quickly.
 * licking seductively other way around

Criterion 2 comments

 * Are Klatsch-Tratsch, Showbiz, and Urban.ro reliable sources? I'm not very familiar with European media. What publishers are they associated with? Could you provide more information?
 * Well, I have promoted several Good Articles through time containing sources like these, and I had no problems with it. Klatsch-Tratsch is powered by SEVAL media. It acts as an showbiz-magazine, being very successful in Germany, the country I live. Showbiz is like the same, however in Romanian, being powered by Okidoki.ro. Finally, Urban.ro is really reliable. I also used it frequently in FL Inna discography. It reports about nerly all the new releases in Romania and aboard, so if you search for citations for improving articles, you'll always find such here.


 * The statement Commercially, the single was successful is an unsourced interpretation of sourced content and needs to be removed or rephrased. In fact, Showbiz says that the song was not successful.
 * ✅ Removed it.


 * As noted above, it would be helpful (but not necessarily required) to source a transcript of the interview with Stan so English speakers can verify its content.
 * ❌ I don't know how to do this. Can you further explain it to me?


 * Stan herself described the song as "club-friendly" and as featuring "funny lyrics". Even though these are cited in the body of the article, you need to cite these quotes in the lead as well. WP:A says that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation.


 * The clip was not received well by the audience. Not supported by the source. Here's what the source actually says (translated by Google): Moreover, the video, which appears in provocative poses Alexandra, langand gesture a lollipop, created an image of the young woman mild that impresses more than the physical or vocal qualities. Feel free to let me know if I overlooked something.
 * It says one sentence before your quoting: "Unfortunately, although it was excessively aired on radio, the song, accompanied by a video created with low, has not enjoyed much success among the public."


 * Thanks for your review! I have responded to all your comments.
 * I will give you a second opinion after the nominator abandons my GA review, which is something he intends to do due to lack of time, I don't want to sounds bias. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

2nd opinion from MarioSoulTruthFan
Since the nominator is no longer reviewing any of my articles I will give my opinion. From where I stand, the reference section is indeed weak, with YouTube (that can be used, but should be avoid at any costs), perhaps subtitles in English would do the trick along with transcription? Not sure. The European references questioned above are fine. After a more careful read, the background is about Stan (most of it), at least it should explain how she went from being "discovered" to recording her debut single.

The sample should be used in a a section regarding its composition and lyrics, not the case so "Its omission would not decrease a reader's understanding of the song" is met. However, what strikes me the most is Notability, not because the song is unknown but because there is little to no independent coverage regarding this track. All in all, there are some issues here that can be addressed and easily amended but with no sources there is so much a person can do and for this article is not a clear work to stand up to GA criteria (yet). I'm truly deeply sorry, I'm sure this is not the outcome you were expecting since you put a lot of effort into this. I should remind that the final decision is up to the first reviewer and this is just an opinion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Final comments from Chasewc91
Thank you for your comments,. Due to notability concerns, I cannot pass this for GA. Needing cleanup tags (such as is grounds for automatic quick failure before any of the GA criteria are addressed. Furthermore, the lack of sourcing pertaining specifically to the subject causes the article to fail on the grounds of not being broad in coverage. There's obviously a lot of work that has gone into this article, and it is well written, but there is currently not much demonstration that this song meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I would encourage the nominator to seek out more sources, and if this is not possible, to consider merging with Alexandra Stan, Saxobeats, or another related article. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)