Talk:Sacrifice (Bebe Rexha song)

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:Sacrifice (Bebe Rexha song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will make minor edits to the article as I go, please feel free to revert if they don't seem to be an improvement. In comments below, anything that isn't strictly relevant to the GAN criteria/won't prevent me from passing the article I'll preface with "nit".

Okay, placing on hold to address the below comments, but overall everything looks good and I don't expect any issues. Thanks for your work on the article!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars or talk page issues in the past year.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Would be good to get a short clip of the song itself, perhaps the chorus? But that's an aside.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• "explores the desire to live a love and the pursuit of a man's attention" I don't understand what this means.

Background and composition

• [nit] I'd work in that Rexha is queer herself
• Sentence implies Lenov is her stylist, which I don't see in the sources

• "The song is inspired by Rexha’s best friend and stylist Wilford Lenov," Iaof2017 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [nit] You mention the futuristic/matrix style of the cover art but don't describe it at all beyond that. I'd summarize it in 1-2 sentences, both to call out the important features and make sure anyone unable to see the image can still get an idea of what it looked like.
• "Harmonising" is editorializing, different sources just call it different genres.
• "desire to live a love" down here too
• The last sentence of this section is kind of weird. Is there any commentary on the lyrics in the sources that this could be replaced by? Otherwise I think it'd be best to delete it.

Reception

• Are there any negative or mixed reviews anywhere? If not that's fine, but this section is a long list of praise and it would be good to counterbalance it if such exists.

• Unfortunately, I couldn't find additional reviews beyond what's included in the section. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music video and promotion

• [nit] The entire description of the music video is kind of awkwardly written. I may take a stab at fixing it later, I realize this is not particularly useful feedback.

Track listing, charts, certifications, release history

• [nit] There's a lot of information here, especially under charts, and my eyes started to glaze over very quickly. Can it be cut down and/or incorporated into prose? Compare e.g. Speechless (Lady Gaga song) (randomly chosen song FA). I would cut the entire track listing section, since that's already in the prose, and mention the release history elsewhere and cut that section as well. Then reduce the number of charts somewhat.

General

• Ideally I'd like to see some discussion/analysis of the lyrics somewhere, but if there aren't any sources on it then there aren't any sources.

Source spotcheck

Looked over some sources as I was reading and everything looked okay, grabbing a couple at random now:

1. Gay Times Y

3. Papelpop Y

9. The Forty-Five Y (for "eurodance" only in first use)

19. Hungarian charts Y

24. tophit - I don't see anywhere on this page that this is the CIS chart.

• See Template:Single chart. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

32. Rolling Stone - I don't see "April 22" in this source; it was published on the 23rd and doesn't specify when the performance was. "During the performance, the singer, adorned in a black latex suit and gloves, was joined by her band and two dancers" feels like a rather close paraphrase, can the sentence structure be changed?

• Better now? Iaof2017 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii, will you be returning to this review soon? Or are you awaiting further changes from the nominator before continuing? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the nominator to address all my comments not marked as nits. @Iaof2017 do you expect you'll get to this soon, or should I close the nomination and you can try again once you have more time? Rusalkii (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite close but I'm going to close this now; feel free to renominate and ping me for the review any time. Rusalkii (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2024 (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.