hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip hop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip hop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip hop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip hop musicWomen in hip hop music articles
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked
are unassessed
Inspiring to see you nominating so many articles; I will review this one soon! --K. Peake 09:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox and lead
I don't think Atlantic needs to be bracketed under labels in the infobox, as it is only a distributor
Done Not sure why that was even there in the first place. I don't think I added that, but maybe I did and just forgot. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead single part should be the third sentence of the lead, while making writing/production the second; make the former start as "It was released..."
"2020 through 1501 Certified Entertainment and 300 Entertainment as the lead single" → "2020, through 1501 Certified Entertainment and 300 Entertainment as the album's lead single." with the wikilink
"was written by Megan, Bobby Sessions, Ilyah Fraser, and Scott Storch with" → "The song was written by Megan Thee Stallion, Bobby Sessions, Ilyah Fraser, and Scott Storch, with" plus all of the credited songwriters should be mentioned here unless you can find a source that states they were credited due to the sampled work and the writers need to be written out in the body's prose
"The song was praised by critics for repurposing" → "The song received positive reviews from music critics, some of whom praised it for repurposing" but move this to being the first sentence of the second para instead
"as, according to her, she and Eazy's other children were barred from recreating or sampling" → "since, according to her, she and his other children were barred from allowing recreation or sampling of"
Benmite This is her stage name, so should be used to refer to her on any occasion... also, the areas where I just left Megan as a suggestion were mistakes and I've altered those on the review page. --K. Peake 06:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with a pink fuzzy hood and hoop earrings which read" → "with a fuzzy hood and hoop earrings, which read" per the source
"by black female artists." → "by black female artists; Megan Thee Stallion boasted that she "can't wait for y'all to see it"." per the source
Done, but that sentence seems awkward with the quote. The "can't" seems like it should be rewritten in the past tense, and, with the way it's written, it sounds like the "y'all" is addressed to readers of the article, which goes against
"pictures and videos of Megan." → "pictures, videos, and animations of Megan the Stallion, including the rapper flexing her body." with the wikilink; per the source
Done, but adding a link for "animation" seems like
WP:OVERCITE. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I see this done throughout articles and have even been told to do so myself, so it is reasonable. --K. Peake 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
Merge with the above section as the second para, retitling to Background and composition
"Megan riding an ATV and wearing feathers." → "Megan Thee Stallion accompanied by off-road vehicles and a black power first background." per the sources
Changed the ATV part, but hesitant to add the black power fist part since the fist only shows up during the performance of "Savage".
You needn't do this, with me having the information now in mind. --K. Peake 07:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but make sure you check things have been implemented properly as you go through! --K. Peake 07:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite The performances section should be titled live performances instead plus before I have a read-through, I'd like to ask have you tried to implement everything to the best of your ability yet? --K. Peake 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake: Hi, I retitled the section since the BET Awards performance was pretaped. I have done basically almost everything listed; I also added some stuff from other sources, so if you want to go over that as well and make sure it's up to par, that would be good. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite The commercial info should be in a separate section titled commercial performance inbetween reception and performances, plus retitle the latter to promotion, change all instance of Megan not in quotes to Megan Thee Stallion for complying with name guidelines and use The Guardian as a source for the sampled track being gangsta rap, not the song per the wording... I will take another look tomorrow, I'm tired right now after a long day at work. --K. Peake 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite I did some copy editing in areas where the issues were not ones that you forgot to respond to, while I left comments above where things have not been done. --K. Peake 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite✓Pass now, good to see you have done everything that had initially not been completed! --K. Peake 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nominator searched a lot for this song. This seems like a quick job, the first page of links in google and done. I have posted several links above on the talk page that can be used for critical reception, two even cover some controversy the song caused, and such it's not even mentioned in the article. Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioSoulTruthFan I did notice the lack of broadness during the review and the sources posted by you on the talk page, hence me mentioning The Guardian. I hadn't looked at all of them, but the stuff could easily be used to expand reception and the EW ref should be utilized regarding Eazy-E's children commenting on the song. You may have quick failed another nom by this user, though do you believe this one is not down at that level necessarily? --K. Peake 17:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
personal comments and are actually constructive. You also said that there's no mention of the controversy involving Eazy-E's children in the article, but it's right there in the background section and has been since long before you made this comment. I also just wanted to mention that the reason I didn't include the reviews of Good News that you listed is because when I made my original edits back in October, the album hadn't even come out yet. It was my mistake not to include them before nominating the article, but suggesting that I didn't care enough to actually find sources about the song, especially when only two of the articles you linked were from that time and about the song on its own (and both of them contained information already present in the article, with the exception of Eazy's other daughter's involvement), is hurtful. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Kyle Peake: It's not at that level but it could really use the expansion, I do believe those sources will be enough to give it more broadness, we are not talking of a song released by an underground artist in the reception and composition. Benmite if you did do that, why was able to find 12 sources regarding the topic that are not in the article? Ok, so once the album came out, why didn't you look for more reviews/comments/synopsis? Sure, a portion of the reception should come from independent reviews, but album reviews will also help. It's not hurtful if I'm drawing your attention towards something that will help you in future reviews. Nevertheless, use them (the links) to give the article more scope and address the comments made by K. Peake. I do not have anything else to add. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...if you did do that, why was able to find 12 sources regarding the topic that are not in the article?"
"I also just wanted to mention that the reason I didn't include the reviews of Good News that you listed is because when I made my original edits back in October, the album hadn't even come out yet...only two of the articles you linked were from that time and about the song on its own (and both of them contained information already present in the article, with the exception of Eazy's other daughter's involvement)..."
Also, side note, the Vibe article was already in the article, contrary to what you said about it not being there, which also happened when you gave suggestions for sources to use for "Mood".
Just always keep improving the articles if you happen to come across new sources. 11 sources then, my point still stands. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ok, so once the album came out, why didn't you look for more reviews/comments/synopsis?"
"It was my mistake not to include them before nominating the article..."
Always look out for album reviews, they usually mention the singles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not hurtful if I'm drawing your attention towards something that will help you in future reviews."
"There is a clear difference between saying, "The article isn't broad enough in scope," and "It seems like the nominator only used the first page of Google results to improve this article."...suggesting that I didn't care enough to actually find sources about the song...is hurtful.
Might I reiterate that there is a stark difference between being constructive ("You should include more sources to increase the article's broadness,") and accusatory ("You only used the first page on Google, you didn't search very hard to find sources.") When I say that something is hurtful because it insinuates something that simply isn't true and undermines the work I did trying to find sources, that should be held as legitimate. Telling me that it's not hurtful for whatever reason doesn't make sense, it hurt me so it was hurtful to me. While I understand that your intentions were probably to be constructive, being conscious of your wording in discussions like this can make the difference between someone taking something valuable from them and using that for future reference and that person simply feeling alienated. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad wording, I do apologize for it. My heart and mind are at the right place. In the meantime I will remove the sources as you include them on the article. It will make it easier for everyone involved. Cheers. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite I'm adding more information on the article regarding the song, feel free to change the wording and that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Not sure why that was even there in the first place. I don't think I added that, but maybe I did and just forgot. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done --K. Peake 07:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but make sure you check things have been implemented properly as you go through! --K. Peake 07:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)