Talk:Happiness Begins

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:Happiness Begins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Artmanha (talk · contribs) 06:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll look the article over some time within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs significant additions before it meets the good article criteria, and I'm closing the review at this time. While it's well-written overall, there are significant gaps in coverage and the article has information that does not correspond to the sources, as well as a few minor problems with the wording. The article can be re-nominated at GAN any time once the comments below are addressed. With that said, thank you for the work you've done on the article so far, and I expect it could be a GA in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

• The record was critically well received, who complimented it for the production values – Unclear what this is saying.
• set to break their decade-long album drought, after not releasing any new material since 2013's LiVe – A decade prior was their last studio album. LiVe was only six years prior.
• so their A&R at Republic Records – Unexplained jargon and abbreviations should be avoided per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
• "Nick describes [album track] 'Hesitate' as Joe's love letter to Sophie, while 'I Believe' is a synth-heavy slow jam that alludes to his own whirlwind romance with Chopra". – Ideally, we should know who Sophie and Chopra are before we get to this point.
• "Complimented" and "complimenting" are used as verbs a few times in a way that doesn't sound right.

Verifiable with no original research

• The fact in the image caption is uncited. It's okay to have uncited captions if the same fact is cited somewhere else in the article, but it is not.
• The reception section is mostly quotations. This can be a tricky one to get right, but too many quotations becomes an issue of using other people's words to write the article. The advice at WP:RECEPTION can help.

I checked the following sources to ensure they supported the content in the article and that they were not plagiarized. I didn't see any plagiarism, but there are some problems with text-source integrity:

• Both Twitter sources – While we can use a tweet to verify that someone said something, it's better to find a source reporting on it. We can leave the one by Kevin if there isn't a better source available, but the "announcement" doesn't actually say anything and we're interpreting it for them, so that one should be swapped out.
• Gottlieb, VideoStatic – Does this confirm that the video was released on March 1 or that it's the lead single?
• Erlewine, AllMusic – Y Both uses are good. The reviews on AllMusic are reliable but the database is not, and this article only uses the review.
• Stavropoulos, uDiscoverMusic – This doesn't support "357,000 were pure sales", and it says "third no. 1 album", not fourth.

Given this trend, it's likely that there are other instances where the article doesn't match the sources, and a thorough evaluation of the sourcing is necessary.

Broad in its coverage

• The background section doesn't say anything about why they broke up, why they reunited, or anything about the actual lead up to the creation of the album.
• The writing and recording section doesn't give the when, where, or how. I'd hope for at least a couple paragraphs about the actual creative process itself. I don't usually recommend using interviews as sources if it can be helped, but they're often really good for this specific type of coverage if any exist.
• There's no section about the composition, lyrics, or meanings of the songs, which is usually the core aspect of an article about an album.
• The release and promotion only covers the promotion, not the release.
• There should be some coverage of the aftermath, how this affected the brothers' careers, and where they went from here.

Neutral

Note that while I won't recommend actively seeking out negative coverage, any significant criticisms of the album should be included in the article if they exist.

There are a few instances where the article itself praises the album, instead of just describing who praised it or how it was praised:

• it captured their mature essence while preserving the charm present since the early years
• the album's production and well-crafted pop sound
• the album's upbeat vibe

Stable

No recent disputes. The information in the article is not going to be outdated in the near future.

Illustrated

All images are relevant. The cover has an adequate non-free use rationale and the other two are appropriately licensed.

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.