Wikipedia:Peer review/Tyla (album)/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for Peer Review because I think it has the potential to become a Featured Article. dxneo (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Review comments
|
---|
Hello! I have some general comments first which will hopefully help get things started here.
|
- Hello MaranoFan, I have tried to address the issues raised here with assistance from GOCE. My only worry is the Composition and lyrics section since you said it's far from meeting the FAC standard, we worked on it, and trimmed the article. I swear the article lost lots of calories than Gunna sweating after snitching haha. Please look at it and give me the feedback. I only left out Critical reception for later since (only the prose) wasn't written by me and it doesn't seem to carry a lot of work. I'm really tapped out sheesh. I also addressed the lead single issues and so on Thank you for taking this review mate, you the best. dxneo (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I must say I am a bit disappointed after reading this discussion. If "slavishly obeying" the suggestions downgrades the article's quality then there is no need to accept them. I had recommended 1989 as an example so that the Singles section could be accommodated into the Release and promotion section for better flow, and nowhere was it suggested that it is a "one size fits all". This has not been done... Anyways, I no longer feel comfortable proceeding with FAC mentorship for this article but I wish you well.--NØ 15:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- MaranoFan bro please wait, I have addressed your requests as the nominator. I actually think you are good at this stuff that's why I came to you first. I was trying to be polite and mostly undid GOCE edits while trimming down the article. I politely brought up your suggestions into that conversation just so the other editor can see where we are heading but it seems like they didn't care and they also thought we are working towards GA which was also wrong. Please help me out, I really really need your help. dxneo (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay mate, tell you what, as part of my apology, I'm willing to review "Hands on Me" but it's gonna take me at least three nights (UTC+2). Please help me, and please don't go soft on me, I'm willing to work on it until you feel like it's ready for FAC. I really want this to work. dxneo (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You do not have to apologize as it is really not about me. It is important to understand that FAC is a community-driven process. It would be open for everybody to comment in, and most people are actually less lenient than me when it comes to scrutinizing. Me going "hard" or "soft" would not determine the outcome of the FAC. In fact, since FAC is time-bound unlike a peer review, you would have a harder time addressing things when people bring them up there compared to here. The article is still a long distance away from being ready, and you have not even implemented the three sentence suggestions which had to be pasted in the Background and release section verbatim... I suggest you work with somebody else. Although every comment that is already here should be addressed before nominating, since unaddressed PR comments usually spell doom for an FAC. Thanks.--NØ 17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK. dxneo (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You do not have to apologize as it is really not about me. It is important to understand that FAC is a community-driven process. It would be open for everybody to comment in, and most people are actually less lenient than me when it comes to scrutinizing. Me going "hard" or "soft" would not determine the outcome of the FAC. In fact, since FAC is time-bound unlike a peer review, you would have a harder time addressing things when people bring them up there compared to here. The article is still a long distance away from being ready, and you have not even implemented the three sentence suggestions which had to be pasted in the Background and release section verbatim... I suggest you work with somebody else. Although every comment that is already here should be addressed before nominating, since unaddressed PR comments usually spell doom for an FAC. Thanks.--NØ 17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay mate, tell you what, as part of my apology, I'm willing to review "Hands on Me" but it's gonna take me at least three nights (UTC+2). Please help me, and please don't go soft on me, I'm willing to work on it until you feel like it's ready for FAC. I really want this to work. dxneo (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- MaranoFan bro please wait, I have addressed your requests as the nominator. I actually think you are good at this stuff that's why I came to you first. I was trying to be polite and mostly undid GOCE edits while trimming down the article. I politely brought up your suggestions into that conversation just so the other editor can see where we are heading but it seems like they didn't care and they also thought we are working towards GA which was also wrong. Please help me out, I really really need your help. dxneo (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I must say I am a bit disappointed after reading this discussion. If "slavishly obeying" the suggestions downgrades the article's quality then there is no need to accept them. I had recommended 1989 as an example so that the Singles section could be accommodated into the Release and promotion section for better flow, and nowhere was it suggested that it is a "one size fits all". This has not been done... Anyways, I no longer feel comfortable proceeding with FAC mentorship for this article but I wish you well.--NØ 15:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MaranoFan, I have tried to address the issues raised here with assistance from GOCE. My only worry is the Composition and lyrics section since you said it's far from meeting the FAC standard, we worked on it, and trimmed the article. I swear the article lost lots of calories than Gunna sweating after snitching haha. Please look at it and give me the feedback. I only left out Critical reception for later since (only the prose) wasn't written by me and it doesn't seem to carry a lot of work. I'm really tapped out sheesh. I also addressed the lead single issues and so on Thank you for taking this review mate, you the best. dxneo (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I have added this article to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Dxneo: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated to FAC? Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Z1720, please give me at least 3–5 more days to double check and I'll let you know if it is ready or not. Thank you! dxneo (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Z1720 for giving me time to tidy the article. I believe that it is ready now. dxneo (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Z1720, please give me at least 3–5 more days to double check and I'll let you know if it is ready or not. Thank you! dxneo (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dxneo: If this is ready to be closed, please follow the instructions at WP:PRG to close this. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)