Talk:Homecoming (Kanye West song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) This one might take me awhile but based off first glance this looks like a really impressive article. 03:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"The track was focused on West's hometown of Chicago; the term "Wendy" in its original title referred to the city's nickname of Windy City." Theres a couple times where this article says "Wendy" when I think it may mean "Windy". It looks like an IP user made these changes here: Special:Diff/1242838384 so I would suggest going over the article and making sure Windy is used when it should be. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See prose review below. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I accidentally marked this as on hold earlier but I'm not sure why I did that. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I am going to be breaking this down by section to make it more manageable. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Lead: Based off what I've read from the article it seems that all the content in the lead is sourced elsewhere in the article. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Background: Wasn't able to access all the sources but the ones I could verify what was written. No plagiarism issues. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Writing and development:Wasn't able to access all sources (paywalls) but the ones that I could verify what was written. No plagiarism. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Recording: "around the same time the rapper was in the studios recording "Impossible" to accompany the 2006 film Mission: Impossible III." Unless I'm missing here it does not appear that any of your sources back up this claim. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Removed --K. Peake 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Done[reply] "Martin singing into a Neumann U 47" Source does not appear to back this up however the video wasn't loading on the one source so that could be why. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it is sourced from the video here. --K. Peake 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't able to access some of the sources used here (just a heads up [1] is now a dead link but I'll check if I can find an archived version). The sources I could access verified what was written aside from the sections I mentioned above. No plagiarism issues. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Composition and lyrics: [2] currently takes me to a porn site but I'll see if I can find an archived version. [3] is also dead. Because of that parts of "The track is a gospel-inflected jam, featuring an anthemic stadium beat and elements of pub rock." are not verified by source but I'll see if I can find archives. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I now realize that you did archive all the links (thank you), however, quite a few of them are dead now. I started to edit the URL status of some of these links but didn't finish. If you want to you can but it's obviously not required. I did spot-check a couple of refs in this section but I'm going to call it quits for the night and resume my review tomorrow. I'm really impressed with this article so far and look forward to continuing my review. Please point out if I made any mistakes or missed anything while reviewing. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Promotion and release: Spot checks verified all sources. No plagiarism CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Critical reception: Spot checks all verified sources. No plagiarism. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Music video: "The accompanying music video was shot by the acclaimed director Hype Williams and filmed on location in Chicago on November 6, 2007" The date of filming is supported by the source however there is a video that won't load so that might account for that. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] "It stood among the long history of collaborations between Williams and West, as the two had previously worked together in the past on several music videos, including for those of fellow album tracks "Can't Tell Me Nothing" and "Stronger"." None of this is supported by the source. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] This supported by the original URL rather than the archive, which is dead so I've now replaced both links! --K. Peake 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] "The music video features a monochromatic montage of West rapping in a truck and him wandering throughout the many different areas of Chicago, with slow-motion shots and angles highlighting the streets, buildings, monuments and citizens." The one archived source isn't loading for this but assuming you're just describing the music video I think that's fine. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spot checks supported content, except for the areas highlighted above. No plagiarism. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Commercial performance: There was again some issues with the sources not supporting the exact position that the article said but I do think this is just a reflection of when the source was checked. No plagiarism. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Live performances: There is a permanent deal link here but I don't believe that disqualifies this article from GA status. I am however wondering if you could find an alternative source for that info as it seems like it should be easy to find alternative sources. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Appearances in media: Passed. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Track listing: verified. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) Credits and personnel: I couldn't access the source used but all of it seems plausible and in line with what else has been said. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Charts: The Australian Urban didn't match up but I think this is just a reflection of when the link was archived. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Release history: Passed. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Passed Copyvio check. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"Despite receiving mixed reviews, "Homecoming" appeared on several retrospective lists of West's best songs. In 2016, Complex listed both the song and the original version "Home" at number 38 among West's 100 best songs." I wasn't sure whether to put this under 3a or 3b but is there a reason you included the ranking of Home but not Homecoming seeing as the page is about Homecoming? This just seems a bit odd to me. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The source says "Homecoming"/"Home" making this a joint ranking; are you suggesting the prose should be re-worded? --K. Peake 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Kyle Peake: Just for clarification purposes I would suggest that you reword it to reflect that it is a joint ranking. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I do believe this passes but I would like to note that I don't have a ton of experience with song articles. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Tone is neutral. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged appropriately. Great use of images throughout the article! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this but your caption on the background image ("The façade of Abbey Road Studios, where the song was also recorded as well as West and Martin first met by chance.") doesn't read very smoothly. Something about using "was also" "as well as" and "by chance" all in one sentence seems a bit awkward. Is there some way you could reword this? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Otherwise all photos are relevant and have suitable captions. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Re-worded the caption to be suitable now. --K. Peake 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until @Kyle Peake: addresses the prose review below and clarifies the Wendy vs. Windy thing. Just a note that I am doing a joint review with @Asilvering:. She is helping me out with the prose review. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'll get back to it once the nom has had a chance to do another edit pass on the prose (or decide not to) and gives me the go-ahead. -- asilvering (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that @Asilvering: may be dropping by to help out with reviewing the prose. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering comments

Signatures at the end for your convenience in replying. Feel free to push back against anything you disagree with - very few, if any, of the things I'll mention will individually be worth a GA fail on their own. Any changes too minor to bother you with, I'll just do directly in the article - but feel free to revert or question any of those as well.

Lead is too long, imo - three paragraphs would be better. It's not fail-a-GA-over-it too long, so if you've already spent a lot of time tinkering with it and this comment fills you with despair, fine. I don't think all the individual charting positions are necessary, so that's one spot where you could cut quite a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the lead can be four paras due to the excessive information, but I cut down a few parts like the commercial info. --K. Peake 07:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: ok, I went to do my usual basic prose edits and I'm seeing the same thing come up pretty often, where sentences are in here backwards - that is, the concept that continues in the next sentence isn't placed in the final position of the previous sentence. This makes things jump around a lot. Here's an example:

The song features a guest appearance from Chris Martin and he co-wrote it with West and Warryn Campbell, who served as the producers. West and the singer ... I would rewrite this as: It was written by West and Warryn Campbell, who served as the producers, along with Chris Martin, who makes a guest appearance. West and Martin ...

There's also some split sentences, like this one:

West and the singer worked on the song when they met at Abbey Road Studios in February 2006, engaging in a jam session where Martin came up with the concept. Lots of ways to solve this, but one might be: Martin came up with the concept during a jam session with West at Abbey Road Studios in February 2006. Any sentences where you've got two major verbs (eg "worked on", "engaging") or where you've got an "and" in the middle are worth having a second look at.

I'll turn it over to you to have a pass at the prose with this kind of thing in mind. Let me know when you've had a chance to do so and I'll get back to the review. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been quite busy so apologies for the slow response, but I have free time tomorrow so will go through this then! K. Peake 20:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering I have worked on the above issue now, although one thing I would like to clarify is even though West uses the term "Windy", the article is clarifying that this is a slang term for both the Windy City and a girl called Wendy. I did change one of the instances too, is this suitable now from your POV? --K. Peake 07:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my suggestion was that you have a look at the entire article with this kind of issue in mind and see if you could notice and resolve any other backwards or otherwise muddy sentences on your own. Could you give that a try? If you give it an earnest try but you're really getting stuck and can't find anything, that's okay. I don't want you to drive yourself crazy with frustration. But I do think the prose could really use another pass for clarity. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Sorry for the late reply, I have been quite busy outside of Wiki this week – will look at this further later today thanks! --K. Peake 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I have worked on as many of these as I could see; all good now? --K. Peake 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll get back to the review soon and let you know! -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Homecoming" was met with mixed reviews from music critics. So the article says, but the entire paragraph after this is positive. Revise? -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some "who?" tags where I couldn't sort out which "he" you were talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I have fixed the tagged issues, although the mixed reviews part refers to the reviews at large so the reception is ordered to feature positive going into negative ones of the second para to show this. --K. Peake 07:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible way to start a paragraph that involves no apparent mention of mixed reviews. That section is one of the clearer ones, though. The more I look at the top half the more hesitant I am to recommend that @IntentionallyDense pass the article. The first four sections in particular (Background-Composition) are really hard to get through, for the reasons I've described before. This link on known-new might help you revise these. I'll try to give some more concrete examples of what I mean:

"Homecoming" was produced by West and record producer Warryn Campbell, who served as co-writers with Coldplay's lead vocalist Chris Martin. Martin stands along with T-Pain as one of only two major singers to appear on Graduation. On February 13, 2006, Coldplay played a live show for BBC Radio 2 at London's Abbey Road Studios, where West was in attendance. West had wanted an appearance from Martin on "Homecoming" to crossover to working with the member of a mainstream band; they collaborated on the song after the show. The rapper felt them being in the same place showed the collaboration was meant to be and was brought by God, saying he "serve[d] as a vessel".

The transition from sentence 1 to 2 is fine: "Chris Martin --> Martin". But then in the transition from 2 to 3 we have "T-Pain/Graduation --> Coldplay", which doesn't follow the known-new contract. From 4 to 5 we have "the show --> the rapper", which isn't very clear either. Many times in this article (especially in the first half) there are places where some other noun is being used to stand in for a personal name, like "the rapper" for "West", which would be easier to follow if the known-new paradigm was being followed, but is really quite difficult when it isn't. There is a lot of repeated information in these first four sections, and cutting down on that repetition would probably help quite a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Before making any final decisions I'm going to let the nominator reply but just so that everyone is on the same page here are you saying that the article currently fails criteria 1a?

Seeing as I did start this review I will give my input however keep in mind I have not done an in depth prose review. This article is at times very hard to follow and read. It is very long which isn't always a bad thing and it's clear that a lot of effort went into this, however the length does make me question if everything included is relevant and not repeated information. With a GA I like to see an article that reads well, meaning it doesn't take too much mental energy to figure out what you're saying and it's somewhat easy to read for the average person. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's a 1a problem, not a 3b problem - I do think there's a bit too much detail in some places, but I would call that my personal opinion, not something so significant that it's a barrier to GA status. Excessive detail is a problem in the beginning sections I mentioned more as a prose issue than a content issue, I think. Sure, someone could say some of this detail is extraneous, but I think the bigger problem is that the detail is repeated, making it hard to read. It's fine for the article to be long (honestly, I'd expect long on a song that was a collaboration between multiple independently famous artists). That is, while the length in itself isn't a problem, I think the "finished" GA version of this article would be shorter than it is now. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my thoughts as well. I will give the nominator time to respond before making any decisions. Thank you for your help with this! IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]