Talk:Super Bass/GA1

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

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * I have copyedited the lead a bit myself. There were a few issues.
 * There are a few things missing from the lead:
 * How did the song do internationally? The US isn't the only place in the world.


 * What happens in the music video?

Background
✅ merged ✅ merged. Would you like it to be its own section separate from under "Reception" or keep it as it is?
 * This section really is not background information. Background information would be what happens before the production of the song.
 * The second paragraph would be more appropriate in Chart performance, which should be re-titled as commercial performance. Her rapping the song basically is the reason why it blew up.
 * Hmm. I'm not completely sure. Maybe you could set it up like Jai_Ho, for example. Sort of a similar introduction. Statυs  (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Development and composition
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * "Super Bass" was written by Minaj, along with Dean and Daniel Johnson. Production of the song was done by Kane Beatz & JMIKE. --> JMIKE isn't mentioned in the lead or infobox. Should state full name of Dean. Should also note that Daniel is actually Kane Beatz.
 * MTV -- MTV News
 * Before a full quotation, colons are used.
 * Hip hop is a cultural movement. Hip hop music is what you want.
 * often dirty --> Dirty? Like mud?
 * "... money" as she states "He pops bottles and he’s got the right kind of build…. He’s always in the air/ But he never flies coach". --> "... money" as she states: "He pops bottles and he’s got the right kind of build…. He’s always in the air / But he never flies coach".
 * Charley Rogulewski of AOL's The Boombox says, "The uber-catchy 'boom, badoom, boom, boom' chorus makes 'Super Bass' the most pop-friendly Minaj song released to radio [sic] yet". --> Charley Rogulewski of AOL's The Boombox stated that "the uber-catchy 'boom, badoom, boom, boom' chorus makes 'Super Bass' the most pop-friendly Minaj song released to radio [sic] yet".

Critical reception
✅ ✅ ✅
 * very positive review --> very positive?
 * He compared the song to the rest of Pink Friday stating that it is much more potent. --> Potent compared to the rest of the album?
 * Make sure all the colon issues as stated above are fixed through the article. I will not point out each each time.

Commercial performance
✅ ✅ ✅
 * singer/songwriter --> American singer-songwriter
 * During an interview with Nashville’s 107.5, The River, --> During an interview with Nashville’s 107.5 The River
 * Minaj's --> What other version would she request?

Music video

 * Three images as one is not allowed.
 * It isn't three separate images, it was uploaded as 1 image?
 * Yes. That is what I'm saying. Three images together are not permitted. Statυs  (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅ Note: it's peek. Peak refers to the elevation of something or the maximum it achieves, peek refers to seeing something at a glance.
 * On March 10, 2011, Minaj revealed during an interview with MTV News that she was shooting a video for "Super Bass" with director Sanaa Hamri, she explained the video's concept, stating that she wanted the video to be full of eye candy and that she wanted it to be colorful. --> Two different sentences.
 * revealed a sneak peek --> revealed? peek? it's peak.
 * My mistake. Statυs  (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅
 * Originally the video was set to premiere on the same show as where the preview was premiered on April 27, 2011, Minaj took to Twitter to reveal that the music video has been pulled from the show and would not be premiering that date for unknown reasons, tweeting "Super Bass is no longer coming out tmrw" --> Two long of a sentence. Twitter quote shows nothing. She simply said it's not coming out on the day it was supposed to.
 * At the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards, Minaj's video for "Super Bass" was nominated under the Best Female Video and Best Hip-Hop Video categories, winning the latter and gaining Minaj her first moonman. --> Unsourced

Live performances
✅ ✅ ✅
 * "Super Bass" was performed for the first time in May 2011 on national television live at the 2011 Billboard Music Awards --> "Super Bass" was performed live for the first time during the 2011 Billboard Music Awards in May 22, 2011. Also link to the 2011 Billboard Awards.
 * Minaj performed this song alongside David Guetta at the American Music Awards of 2011 on November 20, 2011, and also performed her other song "Turn Me On". --> This song? Why was she alongside Guetta? Her other song? It's his song, not hers.
 * Minaj also performed the song on Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve with Ryan Seacrest and on the 2011 Victoria's Secret Fashion Show which aired on November 29, 2011 on CBS .The song is now one of the most viewed videos on youtube with a large majority of likes and close to 250 million views. --> Unsourced. And the last part, what does that have to do with live performances?

Track listing
✅
 * Source?

Reminder about references

 * If the reference issues are not fixed by the 5th of July, I will have to fail this article.
 * I'm confused as to what issues you mean? Is it the redirects? Because I fixed those, or it at least it said I did. But there is no official rule for formatting refs for GA status.


 * All references in Wikipedia are supposed to be correct, whether a stub or a good article. I think you are confusing this with the issue of including works or not. You can include works in articles, or you can not. You cannot do both. Publishers are also necessary. With everything else, they most be correctly formatted. Websites URLs are not works, and British Phonographic Industry, for example, is not a magazine and should not be italicized. There are also many date formatting issues, you can use either 2000-01-01, or January 1, 2000, but not both. Additionally, a lot of references are missing access dates. I thought I made it clear that there were various issues with the references. You may want to take a look here and here. Actually looking back, I see that I actually didn't make it clear that there were more issues than I said "for example". For that reason, I will place an extension on this nomination. Statυs  (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stepping into make a comment. GA articles have to have formatted references which include

"" If using liner notes this is normally required: "" For news: ""

These all had to be done on Sparks Fly (song) before it could be GA'd (see Talk:Sparks Fly (song)/GA1). I hope this helps. Swifty *  talk  06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * References like this one ""

Not a good format. Hope this helps. Swifty *  talk  06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Swifty, this is not correct for Good Article nominations, based on the actual criteria. The cite template is not required; what is required is that the information in the article can be found and verified based on what is included in the reference citation, however it's done. There is a requirement that parenthetical references and footnotes not be mixed in a single article, but that doesn't apply here since the former is not used. Featured Article citation rules are far more rigorous; they are significantly less strict for GAs, which is surprising to some people. This is frequently discussed on the Good Article nomination talk page; the latest discussion is here. I've never heard of the requirement for either access dates or publishers for GAs, for example—the former can be useful in terms of link rot and finding the information later on a web archive, which is another reason why it's desirable—and the cite web template documentation actually says the publisher field is "not normally included for periodicals", so I don't see how omitting it in that case could be grounds for failure. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the refs okay then? Because they either have a publisher and works, or they have one of the two? But none are bare.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the publisher and work fields can be pretty tricky. It can be explained as this: A souce of information goes in the  field of it has a greater company who owns it or distribute it, like Billboard and Nielsen Business Media, or MTV and Viacom International, where Billboard and MTV goes on , and Nielsen Business Media and Viacom International goes on  . When a source has no apparent owner or the name of the owner matches the name of the source, then that source must go on   instead of  , such as Amazon or Rap-Up. — Hahc  21  05:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * About the references, consistency with dates are needed. Publishers and works depends on the availability and usefulness, but the dates must follow a pattern. Also, i spotted some back titles, like "Unsupported Browser or Operating System" which needs to be fixed. The music and lyrics section is kind of confusing, specially when explaining the composition of the song. Also, "The song utilizes" is not correct. You may say "The producers utilized". Cheers! — Hahc 21  05:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple GA's have passed with saying "the song utilizes", thats a personal preference, not a requirement.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles use that wording, doesn't mean it's correct. It isn't. Statυs  (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya' know what, maybe you should just fail this article. Like BlueBoonset said, GA's aren't as strict in terms of citations, just along as you can verify the information. All of the refs have works and none are just bare URL's. If you want to fail this article for something that is not required for GA status, then so be it, but this is just becoming to much of a he said/ she said game now. I'm sorry if I wasted your time Status, but this is your call, because even I don't know what to do now. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The works must be accurate. I gave you a few issues that were present with them. Just because something is in the work field doesn't mean that they are correct. I've given you plenty of time to fix the issues, but you have refused to do so. My first comment on the review was about the references. Statυs  (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I will give you a few specific examples of the problems I see: Statυs (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 - MTV News should not be in italics, as it is not a published source. Only published sources are to be in italics. To remove in front the work parameter, change it to 'MTV News' (exactly how it is shown, I am not putting MTV News in quotes). Both the publisher and work should also be linked.
 * Ref 5 - Work should be The Guardian, while its publisher should be Guardian Media Group.
 * Ref 6 - Again, websites aren't works. The work should be Metro and the publisher should be ACP Magazines.
 * Ref 59 - The British Phonographic Industry is not a published source, and should therefore not be in italics.
 * Ref 64 - Has no content what-so-ever.

Since you clearly don't seem to want to respond to the issues I address, I am going to ask for a second opinion. I wouldn't feel comfortable just failing the article, as it is very close to GA status. Statυs (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the refs that you showed me? I've just been trying to clear a few other things up on other articles before I fully devote my time to doing the restructure of all the refs.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd Opinion
Ok, i will read the article and leave my comments here. — Hahc 21  03:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The lead seems not to have the information well distributed (but thats a personal preference)
 * "who was complimented its memorable hook, lyrical context and for its chorus." — Bad prose. I think it should say "who complimented its memorable hook, lyrical content and chorus"?
 * "The song peaked at number three on the US Billboard Hot 100, and reached number three in New Zealand," Why not merge them to be like "The song peaked at number three on both the Billboard Hot 100 and New Zealand, and ..."
 * ""Super Bass" has been certified quadruple-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and has sold more than four million digital copies as of May 2012, becoming one of the best-selling singles in the United States." Should be on 2nd paragraph, not third.


 * Music and lyrics
 * Question: "It uses a busy beat that is interspersed with digital rain drop sound effects and strong bass. Minaj's vocals in the song have been described as "breathy"." is al covered by ref #8?
 * ""Super Bass" is written in the key of B major with a moderate tempo of 128 beats per minute." You should add "Acording to music notes..."
 * "[sic]" wikilink "sic" with
 * "Described as a lighter side to Minaj by Jessica Sinclair of Long Island Press, the song gets more in-depth with a little more pop and an upbeat hook that "really sticks"; however, Minaj still assists the song's pop edge with "crazy rapping skills"." I still cannot find the concrete issue, but the way it is written causes confusion. Better if you rewrite it starting with "Jessica Sinclair of..."


 * Critical reception
 * "and added that in doing so Minaj created a success". Mentioned "Minaj" a couple of word before, better if you write "she".
 * "Sinclair additionally commented on the song as a lighter side to Minaj, and complimented the hook as upbeat and added that it "really sticks"."
 * Here, the phrase i picked up before is way better. Why don't you just copy-paste it above?


 * "Bill Lamb from About.com was positive in his review on the song" I think it should say "of the song", not "on the song".
 * "Along with the chorus the song's rapped verses were highlighted", A comma goes after "chorus".
 * "for vocal "power" writing" >> "for her vocal "power" writing"
 * "Minaj's "eccentric rapping style" was praised in the review with Corner writing" >> "He also praised her "eccentric rapping style" writing..." remember that phrases are better written if put first who is saying X and then X, not backwards.


 * Commercial performance
 * The first paragraph does not belong here. I recommend it to be moved into "live performances" and remaed that section to "live performances and media appearances".This will also help that section, which is pretty short.
 * ""Super Bass"-rap" why "-rap" attached to the song's name? Beter if you write "On the same das as Swift's performance of "Super Bass"..." or similar.
 * "took to her official YouTube account to rap to Minaj's song". The song is already a rap song, you do not need to reaffirm that. Just say "account and uploaded a video os herself performing the song".
 * Now, the second paragraph: "In Canada, "Super Bass" premiered on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 92.[26]" Move this phrase after the 4 million statement of ther song. Where it is now, it breaks the US-centric frist phrase to Canada and then back to US, which is odd.
 * We have here two sentences which may eventually be the same. The first says the song sold 4 million and the second says it was certified 4x platinum having sold 4 million. So, i think they must be merged to avoid redundancy on text.


 * Music video: background
 * "Minaj premiered a sneak peek of the music video on BET's" BET does not go italicized.
 * "Originally the video was set to premiere on the same show as where the preview was premiered on April 27, 2011" Redundant and, if i could say, awful wording. Better of wrote: "Originally, the video was set to be premiered on the same show where the preview was"


 * MV: Critical
 * "comparing it to "Judas" stating," >> "and stating"


 * References
 * FN#3 says "New Yorks Times Company", the s is not correct.
 * General: I'm seeing different date formats, from DMY to MYD to MDY.
 * FN#9 "Unsupported Browser or Operating System" this is not a proper title.
 * FN#10 says "Music-mix.ew.com", better if put as The Musix Mix. Entertainment Weekly.
 * FN#19 and 33 says "Idolator.com". Beter of put as "Idolator. Buzzmedia."
 * FN#21 and 22 are unverifiable. When clicked, they show the recent Hot 100 chart and not what you are intended to show. Change it with the chart history of Minaj.
 * FN#25 "Nicki Minaj - Super Bass - Billboard.com", Billboard.com is needless on the title.
 * FN#27 goes to the main G&P page of the RIAA. 2 options, or change the link with a personalized one for Minaj, or write a note saying how the user can verify the information.
 * Some references says "MTV Networks (Viacom)" and some "MTV Networks". Needs consistency.
 * FN#34 "Mtv.co.uk."? Might that be "MTV Networks UK (Viacom)"?
 * FN#35 "Nicki Minaj gets fluorescent | The Sun |Showbiz|Bizarre" leave only "Nicki Minaj gets fluorescent"
 * FN#36 and 40 same as 19 and 33 and the note above for MTV. (might say "MTV News. MTV Networks (Viacom)")
 * FN#37 delete [video] from the title. It damages the title.
 * FN#38 and 39. That's the way Idolator might go.
 * General: Some accessdates are missing.
 * FN#57 "Ariacharts.com.au." >> "ARIA Charts. Australian Recording Industry Association."
 * FN#68 "Gfa.radioandrecords.com" >> "GFA. Radio and Records" or just "Radio and Records".

Finished second opinion. As of what i've seen. The article does not meet criteria 1(a). Also, the cover is tagged as non-free reduce, which must be adressed before passing. Cheers! — Hahc 21  04:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With the above issues, I am sorry; but I will have to fail the article. When they are all addressed, the article can be renominated. The best of luck to you! Statυs  (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)