Talk:Teenage Fever/GA1

GA review

Promoted. MediaKyle (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Dxneo (talk · contribs) 01:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MediaKyle (talk · contribs) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria today. If I make any suggestions that are not related to the good article criteria, I will clearly mark them with (Optional). Please respond to actionable suggestions with a separate inline comment. If you feel any of my suggestions are unreasonable, feel free to push back. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I didn't bother to look at your userpage until I started this, and I see now you may not be active... I just saw the recent edits in your contributions and assumed we were good to go. I'll leave it here for now until you have time to move forward - please ping me when you're ready and I'll move on to assessing the sources. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate, i'm here now. dxneo (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all fixed, except where stated. dxneo (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

it was debuted on the OVO Sound Radio should be it debuted on OVO Sound Radio MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
with his fifth mixtape... is ambiguous, I would reword this as something like as part of his fifth mixtape... MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, was released in tandem with can be changed to was released as part of unless I'm missing something here. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Optional) I would change in the U.S. to in the United States for clarity. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regions were shortened throughout the article, a little trick i learned at FLC and PR. dxneo (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in which portrayed her this appears to be an error, I think you just need to remove "in". MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Teenage Fever" is 3 minutes and 39 seconds long. 3 -> three. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the fourteenth track on More Life and it was produced by... no need for the second "it", can be reworded to something like It is the fourteenth track on More Life, produced by... MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a segment where record producers breakdown how songs' instrumentals came about is a bit too informal, I would reword to something like a segment where record producers analyze the instrumentals of songs. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The instrumental was fully produced in FL Studio and it contains reversed melodies. The phrase "it contains" is redundant, I would reword to something like The instrumental, produced in FL Studio, contains reversed melodies. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decapitator was added to the bassline to give it the extra feel... This will need to be reworded, what does extra feel mean? MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodes piano should be capitalized. MediaKyle (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Optional) Australian Recording Industry Association in Australia ... Recorded Music NZ in New Zealand ... British Phonographic Industry in the United Kingdom. I would remove the "in (country)", as it seems to be redundant. MediaKyle (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better that waysince there are organizations such as the UK's British Phonographic Industry. dxneo (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the chords, he applied gross beat on the Rhodes piano. Decapitator was added to the bassline and the hi-hats were assembled using Effectrix, an audio sequencer. I had to mull over this for a bit, but I think this part of the Composition section will need some adjustment to focus more on the intended audio effect rather than the specific plugins used - very few readers are likely to know what "gross beat" and "decapitator" mean, by my assessment. If the details about the plugins are to be included, this should probably be shifted into an explanatory footnote. MediaKyle (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and this too. I honestly don't see any problem with mentioning the tools used to produce the song. Obviously readers won't know everything they read and that's how we learn. FAs like Speak Now mention (unlinked) tools too, it is just part of the composition. MediaKyle. dxneo (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo: A GA needs to be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" If even most music folks don't know what decapitator and gross beat is, that probably doesn't meet that criterion. The difference with Speak Now is it uses established music terms with Wikilinks, where "gross beat" and "decapitator" are specific to FL Studio. If you think it's important I would shift it into an efn with a brief explanation, or otherwise clarify what gross beat and decapitator are. MediaKyle (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. dxneo (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Writing for Rolling Stone, Rob Sheffield described it as "a near-perfect electro-swoon groove", and went on to praise Drake's brilliance. - if "brilliance" is the word used by the source, it should be in quotes so we're not saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Otherwise, it should be reworded. MediaKyle (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Spot checked as of this diff: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33. Only one discrepancy to note, as explained below. Reference layout is good.
Reference 1: The quote in the article should exactly match as it was said. In this case, the exact words are We'll see if it's on his next album not We will see if it is on his next album. MediaKyle (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Just fixed it. Only reason I stretched it was because I did not wanna trigger Earwig (copyright vio). dxneo (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breadth and scope

Comparing this article to other GAs for 2017 songs, such as Versace on the Floor and Thinking 'Bout You (Dua Lipa song), I can't help but feel like we're missing something. It seems to me that the main thing lacking is a "Reception" section, where you could move the commentary from the Rolling Stone and add any other reviews of the song that might be available. MediaKyle (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very right. However, although this song is fairly notable, it isn't a single and it did not get that much attention compared to the likes of "Passionfruit". I tried to find some with no luck. It was even harder to find the genre, imagine. If you can, please try to find some critics, i failed. dxneo (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some digging, and you're right, you really did exhaust the available sources here. I might contend that the tidbits about reception are a bit misplaced under Composition, but they are there, so I'd say for the purposes of a GA review the article does "address the main aspects of the topic". MediaKyle (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! So are we good to go or we still have more issues to address? dxneo (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Audio review

Appropriate fair use rationale is provided for the included audio at File:Teenage Fever.ogg. No concerns. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No images present in the article at the time of review. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Obligatory Earwig check did not raise any concerns. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a popular Drake song, this article is quite stable. I guess that's a sign you did a good job. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I gave the article another read and nothing else stands out as to hold this back from GA, all concerns raised above have been adequately addressed. The article is well-written, appropriately sourced, broad in its scope while remaining on focus, and is understandable to an appropriately broad audience while providing some extra detail for the more educated reader. The article is in compliance with the relevant manual of style guidelines, and is appropriately complemented by an audio snippet. Thank you for the great article! Take care, MediaKyle (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (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.