Talk:P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)/GA2

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

This doesn't appear to satisfy WP:Good article criteria. I'm opening up a reassessment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

 * The file source for File:P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing).jpg gives me an error, so the link should be replaced or fixed.
 * I didn't find any support in the article text for this being recorded in 1982 outside of demos, but something from Los Angeles Times used for location does talk about the album recording process, so that can be used for the year
 * Having text appear smaller than it naturally would (like the infobox currently does for recording location) is frowned upon per MOS:FONTSIZE, especially for places like infoboxes. It needlessly makes things harder on viewers' eyes for no good reason.

Lead

 * "American recording artist"..... singer is a more concise and recognizable term
 * "the penultimate single from Thriller" sounds better for the Thriller article, and the lead already says this was the album's sixth single anyway
 * Component charts aren't nearly as important as primary charts when the former type doesn't represent overall popularity within a nation unlike the latter, so just focus on main charts for territories
 * "no. 46" and "no. 6" should both spell out the word "number".
 * Starting three consecutive sentences with "the" (as the lead's second paragraph currently does) feels repetitive
 * No mention of Ireland when it reached number 4 there and that actually was its highest charting?
 * Nothing in the article body substantiates how this wasn't performed live or that its demo was sung on a tour

Recording

 * Nothing on the lyrics or what inspired them?
 * In here, I would recommend including the time it was recorded. If a specific month is known, then that would be a welcome addition.
 * Remove the extra space between ref#6 and "is in the key of B minor".

Release and reception

 * See above comments on the use of "no." for number
 * Charts for Australia and Ireland are missing
 * This actually reached number 17 in Canada
 * There's 13 for one Dutch chart, and 14 for another. I'm not sure which to go with here when (as far as I know) both are official for the country.
 * Five reviews alone aren't a sufficient basis for determining "Response to 'P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)' was mixed to positive". Unless somebody provides a citaiton specifically noting overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews, any text making overall assessments of critical reception is a violation of WP:SYNTH. I also am sure more comments from critics than this can be added, preferably from pieces that specifically focus on the individual track as opposed to album reviews.
 * The use of "hit" from "what made Thriller such a hit" isn't very professional tone.
 * Are any specific sales figures known? I wouldn't rely on certifications alone for such figures when those include streaming-equivalent units, but it still would be nice to implement.

P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing) 2008

 * No sources given to support any release date or recording time for this remix
 * Any other reviews? Again, I would recommend adding something that isn't just from an album assessment.

Personnel

 * Everything except backing vocals are uncited, and Page Six is a subpar source to begin with. I'd opt for something stronger.

Track listing

 * This is completely unsourced!

Official versions

 * Also no citations at all, which is definitely a problem

Weekly charts

 * AllMusic doesn't give any chartings for this track
 * Only peaks for the original version are given in these links
 * Don't think Zobbel is a good thing to use, especially when we can replace it with the UK's authoratative publication for its charts, Official Charts Company

Year-end charts

 * Thankfully no issues here

Certifications

 * Flawless!

Cover versions and references to the song

 * This entire section (including the "sampling" subsection) is presented in list form when it instead would be better to write the entries in paragraph form. Try not to just give one sentence alone for each entry.
 * There are three dead links
 * What makes these links trustworthy?
 * I don't see the John Gibbons cover listed here, and it only seems to have reached number 85 in Scotland

Overall

 * Prose: Needs some copyediting, and the "Cover versions and references to the song" needs to be reworked big time
 * Referencing: Unsupported text should be cited, and having multiple sections entirely missing references is an automatic fail for GA assessments. Citations also need publication names and authors when known.
 * Coverage: Another huge problem. There's no discussion of the song's lyrics or themes (a glaring omission), critical reception should be expanded, and it would be nice to elaborate on why Michael didn't perform this live and instead sung a demo version (assuming this claim is true).
 * Neutrality: No bias detected
 * Stability: Seems A-OK to me
 * Media: The cover art's file source needs a new and/or fixed URL
 * Overall: Extensive work will be needed to get this article up to par, so I'm boldly delisting it when that doesn't seem likely to be achieved anytime soon. Feel free to renominate after working on my above concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)