Wikipedia talk:Peer review/NDA (song)/archive1

Source review
Starting this. Ref numbers refer to this version of the article. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍  ‍ 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 07:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

 * Ref 140 is misspelled as Billboardd
 * Be consistent with when you wikilink source names (e.g. ref 27 has Billboard wikilinked but 106 and 111 don't)
 * Wikilink HotNewHipHop

📝see my work 00:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * E! should be E! Online, though wikilinking to the E! article would be fine
 * The Daily Telegraph sources are |url-access=subscription
 * Fixed. And about linking consistency - earlier there were much more links in sources, but hence they were removed per Talk:NDA (song)/GA1. inf sai  ( talkie?  UwU) 16:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Infsai - Criteria 2c of our featured article criteria states that citations must be consistently formatted. I see that the reviewer cited WP:OVERLINK (what I presume should be WP:DUPLINK given the context) for that. However, in that very same linking guideline, DUPLINK says that "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g.." It'd be fine to wikilink, say, Billboard or NME in virtually every citation. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍  ‍ 💬reach out to me


 * Please be consistent with spelling source names. I've seen Hotpress also spelled as Hot Press, The Forty-Five spelled as Fourty-Five, and The New York Times spelled as New York Times; scrupulously search the article for more of these
 * The MTV Australia source [96] is not yet dead, so it should be |url-status=live

High-quality?
Ref [40] is just a nested source containing refs 37-39, so it hasn't been included here. Ref [60] has been removed by the nom (diff).


 * Billboard: has been covering the music industry for quite a while and has an extensive editorial team. Charts are reliable.
 * Refs from this source: [27], [72], [103], [104], [105], [106], [109], [110], [111], [122], [123], [140], [151], [152], [165], [166], [167], [168], [170]
 * Rolling Stone: is pretty much a household name wrt pop music just like Billboard. Editorial team here.
 * Refs from this source: [24], [42], [45], [121], [134], [138], [142], [169]
 * [98] is from Rolling Stone India; the publication is run by different folks compared to the "regular" Rolling Stone, but this line at their contact page "For editorial queries, mail editor@rollingstone-india.com" suggests they have editorial oversight, which is good for me. Opinions in the article which are cited to this source are clearly attributed and distinguished from the regular Rolling Stone, so there are no glaring concerns wrt use
 * The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph - newspapers of record; needs no explanation
 * Refs from these sources: [4] (Telegraph). [6] (LAT). [37] (IrishTimes). [54], [67] (NYT). [58] (SMH). [63] (WaPo).
 * Insider - has an extensive editorial team. Per this RS/P entry, we can rely on them for culture-related topics. Seeing as the article is about a song, which is entertainment/culture, this should be fine
 * Refs from this source: [73], [95]
 * Gay Times - one of the oldest magazines in Europe that publishes about queer topics; used in the article to cite allegations of "queerbaiting", so this should be appropriate.
 * Refs from this source: [9]
 * NRJ - radio station; assuming good faith that they're doing due diligence here.
 * Refs from this source: [15]
 * New Statesman - editorial policy and team here. A newspaper that's been around for a while.
 * Refs from this source: [1]
 * E! Online - online version of E!, a pretty big cable channel.
 * Refs from this source: [2], [93], [129]
 * HotNewHipHop - evidence of editorial oversight through staff page.
 * Refs from this source: [7]
 * Elle - magazine with entertainment as one of its primary topics. Ref 11 is an interview with Eilish herself, and is used to cite a statement she said about herself. Editorial team can be found here.
 * Refs from this source: [11], [28]
 * The A.V. Club - Editorial oversight evinced here. Used to describe the song for an album review, so this is appropriate.
 * Refs from this source: [52]
 * Teen Vogue - Under Conde Nast, and is a sister magazine to Vogue which makes me trust them wrt culture topics. This and this suggest editorial oversight.
 * Refs from this source: [47]
 * Seventeen - This shows their editorial team and lets us know we can contact them, probably for corrections. Indicates oversight.
 * Refs from this source: [74]
 * Entertainment Weekly - entertainment magazine; WP:RSP greenlit.
 * Refs from this source: [76]
 * Dazed, DIY - British magazines that focus on music, with print and online versions. Editorial teams from Dazed and DIY.
 * Refs from this source: [10], [135] (Dazed), [50], [55], [59] (DIY)
 * NME - ditto with Dazed and DIY. Can't find a copy of its editorial team online, but I'm AGF they obviously do. They've been around for a while. It's also used in a shit ton of album/song FAs if that counts for something.
 * Refs from this source: [14], [51], [100], [132], [139], [143]
 * The Line of Best Fit - like the above three, also a British magazine that focuses on music. Editorial team and ways to contact for errors are listed here.
 * Refs from this source: [16], [78]
 * Uproxx - their editorial team and guidelines can be seen here.
 * Refs from this source: [97]
 * Complex - they've been covered by Billboard in this article. The company that runs Complex seems to be a pretty big brand, and the article mentions that an editor-in-chief oversees all the company's editorial operations.
 * Refs from this source: [17], [128]
 * MTV, MTV Australia - pretty big cable channels; needs no other explanation.
 * Refs from these sources: [49],

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[25]

[26]

[29]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[36]

[39]

[44]

[46]

[48]

[53]

[56]

[57]

[61]

[62]

[64]

[66]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[75]

[77]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[94]

[99]

[101]

[102]

[107]

[108]

[112]

[113]

[114]

[115]

[116]

[117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

[124]

[125]

[126]

[127]

[130]

[131]

[133]

[137]

[141]

[144]

[145]

[146]

[147]

[148]

[149]

[150]

[153]

[154]

[155]

[156]

[157]

[158]

[159]

[160]

[161]

[162]

[163]

[164]

Unsure What makes these high-quality sources? If we can't verify editorial oversight or the author's journalism experiences, we might want to replace these with other more reliable sources - though make sure they're citing the same information.
 * Hypebeast - [3]
 * Hotpress - [5]
 * Vox Atl - [8]
 * MassLive - [13]
 * Removed/replaced [3], [5], [8], and [13] so far. inf sai  ( talkie?  UwU) 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More Hot Press over at [86], [136]. @Infsai, if you removed [5], please remove these as well
 * FarOut - [23], [35]
 * Young Hollywood - [30], [43]
 * Jenesaispop - [34], [38]
 * The Fourty-Five / Forty-Five - [65], [68], [85]

Replace/remove
 * The News International - [12]. Not so much concerned about its editorial oversight - they have a writing team and a way to contact them for editorial concerns. My concern is with the use: see spot checks section below.
 * Musicnotes.com - [41]. This only shows how to play the song as described in the sheet music, but not necessarily how other folks widely perceive the song. See these prior discussions (1) (2)

Spot checks
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

[101]

[102]

[103]

[104]

[105]

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

[112]

[113]

[114]

[115]

[116]

[117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

[121]

[122]

[123]

[124]

[125]

[126]

[127]

[128]

[129]

[130]

[131]

[132]

[133]

[134]

[135]

[136]

[137]

[138]

[139]

[140]

[141]

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145]

[146]

[147]

[148]

[149]

[150]

[151]

[152]

[153]

[154]

[155]

[156]

[157]

[158]

[159]

[160]

[161]

[162]

[163]

[164]

[165]

[166]

[167]

[168]

[169]

[170]

[12] - TNI does not give the date of when Eilish posted the announcement on Insta. I think this could be replaced with a Billboard source. Billboard says the song and MV were announced on 7/2, not 7/1.

Misc
TBA