Talk:XXX 88

XXX 88 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: January 2, 2025. (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

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Low‑importance

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

GA Review

Passed. Locust member (talk) 21:27, 2 January 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:XXX 88/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article! Locust member (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Locust member: Thank you :) I'm pleasantly surprised how quickly this article got picked up, so take your time with the review. Leafy46 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well-written

make the E in "Electropop" lowercase in the infobox — Done

work with was electronic group Major Lazer. - "the electronic group Major Lazer", proper per WP:FALSETITLE and reads better — Done

Since "aggro-pop" isn't really a genre, I would remove it from the sentence it is in and add "Lindsay Zoladz from Pitchfork classified it as "aggro-pop." after the sentence ending in "hip-hop" — Removed: I've gotten rid of the genre altogether given that it isn't one, but I've re-purposed the citation to verify "punchy"

unwikilink Los Angeles per MOS:OVERLINKING (Settlements or municipalities) — Done

add "according to Stereogum's Tom Breihan" after the sentence ending in "glam-pop superhero" — Implemented

I'm not sure if the mentions of how many views the music video got is really relevant. For example, the featured article You Belong with Me doesn't include its views. not to WP:OTHERSTUFF but yeah — Removed: I primarily included it so the sentence about it receiving 800,000 views in its first five months doesn't need to stand alone, but I see your point

Michelle Geslani of Consequence wrote that - wikilink Consequence — Done

Jamie Milton of DIY commented that - wikilink DIY — Done

Similarly, in their ranking of Diplo's 15 Best Songs, Billboard placed - wikilink Billboard — Done: Rather embarrassing to make the same mistake thrice...

Factually accurate and verifiable

All sources connect to what they are saying. This is my spotcheck, I read through and checked every source. — Impressive, thanks for going the extra mile!

copyvio looks magnificent, the lowest I've seen in a GA review yet. — :)

I would get rid of the YouTube source [21] since everything that is stated in its sentence is backed by the Stereogum article. — Done: I left it in just to confirm the date, but I definitely see the rationale for removing it (especially since I've also removed the view count)

Broad in its coverage

Both sources state that MO's manager "chased" the collaboration with Diplo. I would maybe write, "leading to her manager pursuing the collaboration. The two artists then met up in Amsterdam and collaborated."? — Done: Not the biggest fan of using "collaborate" twice in a row like this, but I honestly can't think of a better way to put it lol
- Yeah you're right, I didn't even notice that lol. I went ahead and changed it myself to "The two artists then met up in Amsterdam and worked together."

Neutral point of view

Looks good!

Stable

Without a doubt in my mind.

Illustrated

Cover has fair use rationale, and the audio sample is valid because it showcases what the critics were talking about.

Would just add in ALT text to the cover. I recommend something like "A black and white photograph of palm trees is overlaid by stylized text reading: "X8X8X", "Feat. Diplo", and "MØMØMØ" — Done

Overall

Very limited comments on this short and sweet article, nicely done! Ping me once you've handled my critiques and I'll pass this right on!
- @Locust member:Thank you for the very quick review! I've addressed all of the point above, good luck on all of your own GANs :)
- Absolutely! Was a pleasure working with you, and I hope to see you again! ✓ Pass

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.