Talk:Animal (Miike Snow song)

Animal (Miike Snow song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 28, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Songs

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

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal (Miike Snow song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking on this review. I hope to have some feedback for you by tomorrow evening if not tonight. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Concerns

I honestly have very little to complain about. This article is well-written, verifiable, with a strong conformity to accepted standards outlined at WP:SONGS. I have no doubts this will be promoted to GA class very soon, just a few issues:

Last sentence under Critical reception: Maybe it is not necessary to touch on a critic's view of the album as a whole, especially considering we have so many quotes already from other critic's. This is debatable, as a connection seems to be made with how the song is interpreted in a similar way to the album. I'd more just like to hear your input, but to be clear, keeping this quote will by no means get in the way of the GA promotion.
I shortened it a bit. Pancake (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music videos section: I see that you're citing MTV as a source for what happens in the music videos. The MTV however appears to just embed the Vevo video from YouTube. Perhaps we could utilize {{cite av media}} and cite the YouTube video itself. It is licensed, so per WP:ELNEVER I don't see an issue with this.
I decided to remove the citations for what happens in the music video as they are not really needed as synopses do not need sources. Pancake (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last three sentences of the Music videos section are not accompanied by an inline citation. We just need to duplicate the corresponding video reference used earlier in the section.

Those are the only issues I see, all very minor. Once addressed I will happily pass this nomination. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the citations. As far as the last three sentences, I'm sensing some OVERCITE and only cited the last sentence. DepressedPer (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Great work! I think featured article criteria (no need for references in plot summary) can certainly apply for good-article criteria :) I hereby am passing this nomination and promoting to good article status. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal (Miike Snow song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]