Talk:New Girl (Finneas song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll review this within 7 days :) ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 10:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

 * Release date is listed as "August 12, 2016" for its first release but this isn't mentioned in the Tidal source.

Background and composition

 * "New Girl" was written and solely produced by Finneas.[1] It was released for digital download through his record label OYOY on August 12, 2016 and was later re-released on February 4, 2019.[2] - this isn't supported by the sources. Tidal doesn't list any credits for the song. The second source (iTunes) only mentions the second release date.
 * The itunes source mentions that it was both released in 2016 and 2019
 * iTunes only says © 2019 unless I'm missing something. You're going to need a different reliable source for the 2019 release date to pass GA status. Citing "© 2019" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-


 * Neither source (streaming or digital) have the original cover art in them. Where did this come from?
 * It was the original cover art when it was released. I got it from Genius and the other wiki for the song.
 * , Genius.com is not a reliable source as it is user generated content. This is going to need further clarification especially as iTunes claims the earlier release date with the newer cover. I'm not sure what "other wiki" you are referring to, but one wiki isn't sourced by another. This needs addressing too. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-

✅ ✅
 * Shelby Reitman of Billboard called the visual "dark" and "seductive".[5] - isn't in source 5 (Ones to Watch)
 * If it was re-released again in 2019 in needs to be in the category 2019 singles too ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 13:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

 * The credits are sourced to Tidal but Tidal doesn't provide any. The Billboard source does so that needs changing.
 * The whole issue of when the song was released needs addressing.
 * The issue with the cover arts needs addressing too
 * The cover art is missing alt text (WP:ALT) which is a requirement under MOS:ACCESS
 * The references need archiving. There is a tool built into the history of the page here which can help!
 * It is also available to stream (original 2016 date according to Spotify) here which is missing from the infobox and release history. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

user:Lil-unique1 I am confused on what you mean. The cover arts were released in different times. I remember the 2016 cover art was used in spotify and itunes. But then when it was re-released, the cover art changed to the 2019 one. I can't find a reliable source anywhere for the original 2016 cover. DarklyShadows (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ones to Watch
A discussion was started here due to the reliability of the source I mentioned above. On top of that, I'm concerned with the "broad coverage" of this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about the broad coverage thing. I've been trying to balance up with articles have been well-written and include all of the information available on a particular subject. If the GA process is about how well articles are written and adhere to MOS etc then this could be a good GA candidate. I suppose the judgement is, are we saying that the topic isn't broad enough so it can never be a GA? Not all articles will have the level of coverage as say Despacito. The guidance isn't massively clear. If we're judging against WP:SONG then yes, the coverage isn't necessarily broad. Happy to take a view and direction from others on this if I'm honest. ≫  Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 09:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a point but unreleated to the broad coverage, its not all about how well written the article is and therefore there is criteria, because not every article can become a GA at any given point, henceforth there might not be sufficient coverage on the issue. Despacito is in a diferent side of the spectrum, there are smaller articles that are GA. I start to wonder if this article should even exhist as per Notability, "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." As far as I'm aware multiple means more than one, and besides the "one to watch" (under scrutinum currently) only Billboard seems the reliable one as Atwood Magazine is an interview with the artist and doesn't come off as indepedent ("other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work"). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)