Talk:Love or Loved Part.1/GA1

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.

---

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

Initial assessment

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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):

   Copy edited during my review and fixed a few minor typos / style issues.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead  Failed – fails MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL because it primarily discusses the artist's interpretation and does not summarize other important parts of the article; Layout  Passed; word choice  Passed (found some MOS:PEACOCK and MOS:SAID issues during my copy edit and fixed them); fiction  Not Applicable; lists  Passed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I added some inline citations to quotes that I could verify, and otherwise added some {{citation needed}} tags for quotes that still require inline citations. There are also some references to YouTube and Twitter, which are usually not considered to be reliable; for tweets of announcements, it would be better to cite to an RS. Additionally, I will be asking for a second opinion from someone who can read Korean to verify that Korean sources are reliable.

   c. (OR):

   I found at least one instances of WP:SYNTH, which I tagged. I will be asking for a second opinion from someone someone who can read Korean to cite check Korean sources, check any translations in the article, and check for potential synth from Korean sources.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Checked using Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The "Critical reception" section is insufficiently broad in its coverage because it only summarizes two reviews of the E.P., as opposed to individual songs from the E.P.

   b. (focused):

   The article is largely devoted to individual songs on the E.P. and requires much more discussion of the E.P. itself.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See above comment under 1.b RE word choice.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edits since May 2023 and edits prior to that were collaborative.

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):

   Checked fair use rationales for infobox cover art.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are no images in the article other than the cover art. An image of a live performance to support the E.P.'s release might be appropriate if there is a free use image available. Please let me know if there is not an appropriate image and I will pass this. 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Discussion after initial assessment

I'm creating this section for general discussion, but please feel free to reply to individual items above. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@voorts Thank you for the review! Regardless of the final decision, it will help a lot with improving the article.

I've started to make some adjustments, mostly in consideration of your comments about the lead section (1.b), missing references (2.b) and improper synthesis (2.c). I will continue to do so in the next few days.

However the fact that the Critical reception section only talks about "BTBT" will be hard to solve, as neither the album nor any song other than "BTBT" was reviewed by a reliable source. They weren't included in any notable selection of songs or albums either. And we can't even write this (or explain that "BTBT" overshadowed the rest of the album), because no reliable source has stated so until now. Do you have any suggestion?

- DriftingLill (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, maybe having a critical reception section doesn't make sense for this article and that stuff could be forked into a separate article about "BTBT", which is definitely independently notable.

Also, should this be considered a joint GA nomination between yourself and @Bostonite01310? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: Thank you for tagging me. Yes, please consider it a joint GA nomination. DriftingLill authored majority of the article. Bostonite01310 ^talk 02:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article about "BTBT" would be more appropriate. But writing a new article and adjusting this one might take some time. For how long are you willing to keep the review on hold? - DriftingLill (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@DriftingLill However long you want to keep it on hold. We're also still waiting on a second reviewer who can read Korean. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@voorts Thank you! I have copied most of the detailed content that was specifically about "BTBT" in the BTBT (song) redirect page, which is now a true article. I'll remove it from this article (or replace it) as soon as possible.

About 2.b, I have added the missing references and removed all the references to social media platforms that only provided additional and rather insignificant details. I couldn't find more reliable sources mentioning these details, that's the reason why Tweeter and Instagram posts were used in the first place.

I'm not sure if the changes I've made are enough..?

There are three references to social media platforms left:

• one for the list of promotional contents (131's official Tweeter account),
• one for the peak position on the RIM's chart (RIM's official Facebook account),
• one for the description of the versions of the physical album (131's official Facebook account).

There wasn't any article about the first one, and I'm not aware of any alternative for the second one either. The WP pages about the chart use Facebook posts as well. For the third one, it might be possible to use a retailer's website as source instead. WP:RELEASEHISTORY doesn't say anything about it, but I've seen this on several featured articles (1, 2). Would it be any better?

Or is it acceptable to keep these three references since the article doesn't rely too much on such sources?

Most of the sources from YouTube are:

• interviews in video format published by a newspaper, magazine or culture website on its official YouTube channel ;
• official content (end credits of the MV, documentary film) published by B.I's label on its official YouTube channel.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think that the fact that these sources were published on YouTube makes them less reliable than an interview published by the same magazine on its website, the liner notes of the album, or a documentary released on DVD. Or does it?

The "recap" of the guerrilla showcase published by the organizer of the event (Peach) might be the less reliable source - I wish there was a reliable secondary source about this. But it seems reliable enough, even though it's a primary source, since the point is merely to confirm that the performance did happen and it's shown in the video?

- DriftingLill (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take another look tomorrow. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I have finished cleaning up the article after the split and correcting it according to your remarks, except for the one discussed above. I'll be waiting for your update - DriftingLill (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made some additional copy edits and have a few questions/comments:

• I changed the times per MOS:TIME.
• "Keep Me Up" is described as the "title track", but that's not the EP's title. Could you please clarify?
• The remaining references to social media seem fine to me, but I'm going to request some feedback on RSN just to be safe.
• I agree that the remaining YouTube cites are fine.
• I think the recap cite is fine if you can't find a secondary source. I think it's notable that that was the first public performance and it's only being used to show when the performance occurred.

voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your edits! That's really helpful and I'm learning a lot as well.

Would it be possible to use 24-hour clock times for this article? MOS:TIME seems to allow it, and many events happened at "midnight". It would be difficult to clarify that it's the start of the day for each of them. Or would it be more appropriate to add a note at the first occurrence to explain it once and for all?

I may have misinterpreted MOS:THEMUSIC, but I don't think the article "the" in "the Stereotypes" should be capitalized mid-sentence?

"title track" (the English words, it's not translated) is commonly used in South Korea to describe one or two songs from an album that will be promoted after the release. It's similar to "single", except that it's a track from an album, not a stand-alone release with up to three tracks. In the case of Love or Loved Part.1, "Keep Me Up" is officially the sole "title track". I agree that it's confusing, since everywhere else a "title track" would be expected to have the same title as the release, which is not always the case here. It might indeed be better to avoid this expression. "Keep Me Up" was also described as a "lead single" in the introduction, but I'm not sure if this works either. Shouldn't "BTBT" be the lead single or are they both lead singles..?

- DriftingLill (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Feel free to convert to 24-hour clock.
• You're correct RE THEMUSIC. My mistake.
• Maybe drop an endnote with an RS explaining what a "title track" is in Korean music.

Still waiting on someone to do a spot check for the other Korean sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I like your idea of a note explaining what a "title track" is in this context, but I couldn't find a reliable source about this. So I simply replaced "title track" with "single" or "promoted single" (I had to change the lead section a bit). - DriftingLill (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

I am requesting a second opinion (really a second reviewer) because several of the sources are in Korean. Please see my initial review above for the assistance that's needed. Thanks in advance! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. 6b should be marked as either y or ? as pictures aren't necessary to the passing of a GA. Cherrell410 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I meant to do ?. The n was my mistake. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not an GA reviewer, but I'll give it a go.

A music video for "BTBT" was released on May 13, 2022, at 0 AM KST, prior to the release of the single. The latter became available on digital music and streaming platforms on the same day at 1 PM KST. - cited to BizEnter

No synthesis found Y

BizEnter has a place to place corrections, has an editorial team, and a code of ethics. It's probably reliable.

----

In February 2022, B.I's talent agency in the U.S., Wasserman Music, hinted B.I's upcoming single and global EP on their website. - cited to Xports News

The relevant bit in question is "와서맨 측은 공식 홈페이지 아티스트 리스트에 비아이의 이름을 추가하며 적극적인 지원사격을 펼치고 있다.". Translated, it means "For Wasserman Music, they added B.I.'s name on their official website to promote B.I."

I feel like meaning changed a little bit between these two sentences.

For its reliability, Xports News is listed as 'reliable' at Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you mind also doing a spot check just to see that some of the other sources line up with the propositions they're being cited for? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ca @voorts I've removed the sentence about Wasserman Music. The source was indeed misused and I couldn't find any reliable source that mentions the single and/or EP explicitly. - DriftingLill (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting on someone else to spot check more of the cites in the Korean sources. I will post a request at WikiProject Korea. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the majority of the sources reference YouTube videos, one from Facebook, and another from Twitter. I would suggest adding better sources rather than using primary sources. I'll make a list of what's good and not good to use regarding the Korean sources.

Korean sources:

1) BizEnter -questionable

2) Osen -reliable

3) Herald Pop -reliable

4) Single List -questionable

5) Metro Seoul –reliable

6) Hankook Ilbo -reliable

7) Star News -reliable

8) News 1 -reliable

9) Top Star News -reliable

10) Maeil Business Star Today -reliable

11) Sports Khan -questionable

12) Sports Kyunghyang -reliable

13) The Korea Economic Daily -reliable Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! We discussed the Facebook and Twitter cites above and I got a second opinion at RSN confirming that they're okay. Many of the YouTube links are to interviews in reliable sources (e.g. The Korea Herald).

@DriftingLill: can you replace the questionable sources with reliable ones?

@Btspurplegalaxy: would you mind briefly looking at a few of the claims in the article and confirming that the sources say what the article claims they do? @Ca already uncovered one instance of improper synth. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So you want me to look at the Korean sources and make sure the claims are true, correct? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes; not for all of them, just for a few randomly selected throughout the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

From what I looked at, everything matched up. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a bunch! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@voorts I'm not aware of any reliability issue with Single List and BizEnter, especially for simple statements of facts about entertainment. Nonetheless, I have replaced most of the references in question (n°2, 8, 11, 36, 43, 49, 50, 54) using sources listed in WP:KO/RS#R: Sports Kyunghyang (Kyunghyang Shinmun), Star News, News 1, Newsen and Osen. (I made a few adjustments in the fifth paragraph of the Release and promotion section)

"Sports Khan" is actually Sports Kyunghyang. I fixed the name.

For the last two references (n°44 and 51), I couldn't find any article sufficiently detailed from the sources listed in WP:KO/RS#R. So I used articles published on Naver News, even though I'm not very familiar with the original newspapers or websites (TV Report and Star 1). Since this portal itself is listed in WP:KO/RS#R, their standards are probably strict enough to assume that the articles are reliable sources, at least for statements that are not likely to be challenged?

While reviewing the article, @Btspurplegalaxy removed all of B.I's occupations from the lead section, except for "rapper". But "South Korean rapper B.I" could be misleading - readers are likely to assume that Love or Loved Part.1 is hip hop music. I understand that five occupations was a lot (singer, rapper, songwriter, record producer and dancer), but there is some information regarding each of these aspects in the article. All of them seem relevant in the context of Love or Loved Part.1, maybe - as discussed in the Production section - even more than "rapper".

Would it be possible to add them back?

- DriftingLill (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think whether those descriptions should be included is outside of the scope of this GA review. I would follow BRD, so you can revert that edit, and then start a discussion with @Btspurplegalaxy in a separate talk page thread to try to reach consensus; you might need to compromise on some of the descriptors to reach consensus.

I will take a look at the edits you've made shortly. Hopefully we can get this closed out today. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DriftingLill once you address the questionable sources, I'll do another assessment and see if this is ready to be passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Final assessment

Following a few rounds of edits by DriftingLill and feedback from other editors (thanks to Ca and Btspurplegalaxy for their assistance), the issues identified in my initial assessment and by the other editors have been corrected. Although there is a dispute over the inclusion of descriptors for B.I in the lede, I am confident that DriftingLill and Btspurplegalaxy can reach consensus, and their dispute doesn't reach the level of an edit war such that this article can't pass GA. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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.