# Talk:All My Love (Major Lazer song)

This review is transcluded from Talk:All My Love (Major Lazer song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hadger (talk · contribs) 09:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This is my first Good article review in probably about a decade, so it should be treated as my first GA review. So, once I'm finished with my initial comments, I'll ask a GA mentor for input. I think I have a pretty good idea of what the GA criteria are (and are not) and what a GA review looks like, but please don't hesitate to let me know if I'm breaking basic protocol or doing something wrong.
I'll be starting the review shortly. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
The lead should have information on the song's critical reception and chart performance since those are included in the body of the article. I recommend adding a sentence essentially restating the topic sentence. As for chart performance, there should be a mention of the song's performance on Belgium's charts, since that best establishes the song's notability. I would also mention the song's performance on the year-end Billboard Dance/Electronic charts since that's notable as well.
The remix is mentioned in the lead of the article, yet the only place it's mentioned in the body is in the "Charts" section. It should be discussed elsewhere somewhere in the body of the article, ideally in a section dedicated to it.


### Background
Source for the songwriters?
Mention the producers and give a source for them.
There should be a source for the release date.
The bandmine source appears to be a direct copy-paste from an Idolator article; use the Idolator article as the source instead. That being said, if there's a stronger source out there, I'd recommend using that. There seems to be some consensus based on a WP:RSN search that Idolator is reliable, so this change isn't absolutely necessary, but a source with a more solid reputation for reliability would be ideal here.
Put the source for the tweet after the last sentence of the first paragraph, since that sentence needs to be sourced and is supported by that source.
Remove the word "quickly" before "deleted", since the source doesn't clearly support the notion that the tweet was deleted quickly.
Change "When the official track list" --> "When the album's official track list" for clarity.
"Lorde, who curated the film's soundtrack, revealed on Twitter to say that" - This is unclear. Change "revealed on Twitter to say that" to "said on Twitter that"; following that change, "but that it was" will have to be changed to "but because it was".
The Variance source in the second paragraph links to something completely different from what it's supposed to link to. Here's the correct link: [1]
The first part of the quote from the Lorde tweet isn't explicitly mentioned in the Variance article, so it can't be used. To make things easier, you could source the Lorde tweet using the MTV source at the end of the sentence starting "A week later" ([2]); this source mentions all parts of the tweet quoted in the Wikipedia article.
The sentence beginning "She described the song as"... flows well with the first part of the quote, but not the second part; it wouldn't make sense to say "She described the song as 'It's very different'". Perhaps change it to something like, "She described the song as 'very different' and 'very interesting'".
You should mention that Lorde revealed the title of the track via Twitter.
I was unclear here; I meant to emphasize the Lorde part rather than the Twitter part. I've made the change.
The last part of the first sentence in the third paragraph is a bit too close to what Diplo says; I would reword it entirely, since I can't think of a way to simply reword that part without it sounding awkward. Here's something that should work: "Since Lorde wanted 'All My Love' to be included on the film's soundtrack, Diplo rushed to produce the song." Note that this sentence does not include the part saying that Diplo annotated it on Genius; it's enough to say that the events he described happened.
"He revealed that" is unnecessary and somewhat awkward here; the sentence is best with this phrase removed.
"Willing to experiment" is a bit of a leap from Diplo's quote "I'm down to screw around"; it would be best to quote "screw around" in place of "experiment".
Once those last few changes are made, "Diplo also mentioned that" in the last sentence will be awkward; that can be changed to something simple like "Diplo said that".
I would change the structure of this section, since it doesn't really make sense chronologically. A clearer structure would be: Writers and producers' names; Diplo's info on the production of the song from the Genius annotation; "Diplo first mentioned" through "The track's title was announced on 3 November 2014"; and then end it with the date it was released. You should also change this section's name to "Background and release" since it covers both of these.
Overall, this section has a good amount of information, and it does a good job covering the release of the song; it just needs some work. Once these issues are fixed, this section will be GA quality.


### Composition
The first sentence should be sourced. Michelle Geslani's review (for Consequence of Sound) includes all of the information mentioned in that sentence, so that can be used as a source here.
The comparison to "Break Free" should be attributed: "Stereogum's Tom Breihan compared it to Grande's previous single..."
The Stereogum source mentions a leak of the song occurring "today" (November 13, 2014). A Spin article also mentions the leak. I'm not 100% sure about this, but since it's covered in multiple sources, I think it should be included in the "Background" section; I'll bring this point up specifically when I contact a GA mentor.
I think that mentioning this leak would be useful for resolving the inconsistent release dates in different parts of the article.
The paraphrasing for the sentence regarding the lyrics is waaaay too close to the source. Either quote the source directly, or reword it so it's not so close to the original. This issue will also have to be fixed in the lead section where the lyrics are mentioned. Also, "plight" is used incorrectly here.
Is hot975fm.com a reliable source? If so, why?
The Idolator quote needs to be sourced.
That last sentence is worded awkwardly. "According to Pitchfork writer Claire Lobenfield, the song ... was noted for its" doesn't make sense, since it's Lobenfield who's saying the quote. To fix this, change "was noted for its" to "has a".
Add a closing quote to Lobenfield's quote and remove the word "rhythm" since that isn't what Lobenfield said.
Make the information on Matt Medved's comment its own sentence; the paragraph flows much better that way.
For Matt Medved's comment, instead of saying that he labeled it as "soca" and "house", say that he labeled it as a "soca/house mash"; it's more accurate to what he said.
I'm heading off to bed; I'll post the rest of my comments later.

Be sure to distinguish comments about the remix of the song from comments about the original version of the song. Lobenfield's and Medved's comments are both about the album version of the song; this should be made clear in the article. If you end up creating a section on the remix of the song, those comments would fit best there.
"Ariana's vocals" --> "Grande's vocals"
Attribute the Stereogum quote at the end of the section to Tom Breihan.


### Reception
"Sharing similar sentiment" - sounds awkward, might constitute original research. I would say remove it.
"were juxtaposes with" -> "were juxtaposed with"
Strictly speaking, Alex Hudson didn't note that the two were juxtaposed; rather, he noted that the juxtaposition builds a "rather tame pop foundation". It should be worded as such: "Hudson said that the juxtaposition of the song's 'freaky beats' with Grande's vocals build a 'rather tame pop foundation'". That being said, this sentence is more appropriate for the "Composition" section and should be moved there.
There appears to be a typo: "the In their soundtrack review, ..."
Change "In their soundtrack review, NME stated..." to "In a review of the soundtrack, Nick Levine of NME stated..." That way, the quote is properly attributed to its author.
"Other reviews were not very positive" - This doesn't really function as a lead-in here, since it's followed by a single review, and besides, "not very positive" is vague and unencyclopedic language. I would recommend removing this sentence. You can begin the next sentence with "In a mixed review of the soundtrack, Jim Farber of the New York Daily News..." to maintain the transition.
Farber didn't call the song a "commercial move"; he called Grande's inclusion on the song a "commercial move".
The sentence beginning "Despite 'All My Love' not charting in many countries" has an issue with original research. Are there any reliable sources that draw the connection between the two clauses—"All My Love" not charting in many countries and "All My Love" charting in Belgium? If not, the first clause should be removed.
"peaked within the top 40" reads better as "peaked in the top 40".
"in both the north and south chart components"—This would be clearer as "in both Flanders and Wallonia".
We shouldn't be making a judgment call as to what "bottom-tier" is. I would recommend being specific about it: say that the song peaked at 87 on Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 chart.
Be sure to source statements regarding chart performance.


### Charts
No issues here.


### Images
No issues here.

Non-free song artwork satisfies criterion 6a, as it is tagged as a copyrighted work and it has a valid fair use rationale.
Picture of Ariana Grande in "Background" section is licensed under Creative Commons and therefore satisfies criterion 6a.
Both pictures are relevant to the song and comply with WP:CAPTION.
The images in this article satisfy criteria 6a and 6b.


### Other notes
As someone who wasn't really aware of exactly what Major Lazer was, I was unaware that Diplo was part of Major Lazer, and there's nowhere in the article where this is explicitly stated. This fact should be made clear in the lead. My recommendation is to change " produced by Diplo, Boaz van de Beatz and Jr Blender" to "produced by Boaz van de Beatz, Jr Blender and Diplo, a member of Major Lazer."
As mentioned earlier, there should be a section on the song's remix (to comply with Good article criterion 3a). There's some information in the article that can be moved to that section: Lobenfeld's and Medved's comments in the "Composition" section, and the chart performance of the remix mentioned in the "Reception" section. I found some information from reviews of the album Peace Is the Mission: the song is mentioned in the Rolling Stones review and the Billboard review. There aren't a whole lot of sources on the remix, so don't worry about making the section particularly long.
Those are all the comments I have. I'll be placing this review on hold for two weeks to give you time to make the changes; after that time period (on 12 September), I'll check back and see how much progress has been made. I'll also be contacting a GA mentor to check on this review. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: Hello, I just took a look at your comments. I am surprised at how much needs fixing. However, this was one of the articles that I did not tweak as much so it was to be expected. Most of my attention was directed at Lorde's entire discography for months and this song happened to overlap with her (songwriting credits). By the way, it is pretty cool to know that I am your first review in over a decade. You are definitely thorough in explaining where something meets or does not meet the criteria in your comments. Perhaps the only one that has ever done that, which is insanely helpful. De88 (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Hadger left a note on my talk page asking if I could look at this review as he has started reviewing again after a long break (I am listed as a GA mentor). In particular they wanted my opinion on the Remix addition. First I want to say that I am very impressed with the detail of this review. A lot of work and effort has gone into this and it is one of the better reviews I have seen. To be honest it is probably better than most of my reviews so I am not sure how much help I will be as a mentor. Anyway as far as broadness goes it is really up to what you two agree on what is appropriate. The criteria specifically says it doesn't have to be comprehensive, just cover the main aspects. If it was me I would say that the mentions of the remix cover the main aspect part of the criteria, but I haven't gone through the sources anywhere near the detail Hadger has. Saying that mentioning the remix in its own section would not fail the focus criteria. The beauty of the criteria is that it allows some interpretation and flexibility. Sorry I don't have a definitive answer to the question, but if you two reach an impasse on this or any other area I am happy to add a second opinion. The final decision will rest with the reviewers though. Again very impressed with the review. AIRcorn (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at the review! I really appreciate the feedback. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hadger: @Aircorn: I went ahead and added the missing "Remix" section. I also took care of the majority, if not, all the comments regarding the article. I think the quality improved drastically. Does it still need more room for improvement, though? De88 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Nice work! It's looking much better now, and it's very close to GA status. There are just a few issues that should be resolved before I promote it:
The New York Times source in the lead doesn't explicitly say that the album version is used; is there a source that says this? Also, I would move that sentence into the "Remix" section.
The lead says the release date is 17 November, while the "Background and release" section says it's 13 November. This should be resolved along with a source for the release date. I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that some sources appeared to describe the leak as a release of the song. (See the non-striked comment I added to the "Composition" section above; it would probably be more clear for the leak to be mentioned specifically.)
The word "exclusively" in the sentence "He annotated several of the song's lyrics exclusively on Genius" sounds promotional and should be removed. Also, it appears that Diplo didn't annotate the lyrics themselves; those were annotated by users. My recommendation is to word the next sentence something like this: "In an annotation posted to Genius that Diplo wrote, he mentioned that he was on vacation..."
Nice job with the remix section! I went ahead and made some minor changes to a sentence in the section. The only question I have is regarding the release date: is this included in the media notes for the album as well? If not, I think it should have its own separate source (to be honest, I'm not completely sure how strict the inline citations policy is regarding release dates; feel free to let me know if I'm wrong here).
Could you shrink the image of the remix artwork to a lower size so that it complies with Wikipedia's policy on low-resolution non-free images? From what I've seen, the standard size for non-free album covers is about 300x300 pixels. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hadger: Regarding the release date for the remix, I did some further research and found out that the song was actually released 6 months before the album. I went ahead and fixed that. For the most part, I think I covered every comment on here but let me know if they are still anything else to fix. De88 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@De88: Just one last issue: The New York Times source at the end of the first paragraph at "Remix" section doesn't mention which version of the song Grande performed during the Honeymoon Tour. If another source that makes this clear could be found, that would resolve the issue; otherwise, the best course of action would probably be to remove that sentence. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hadger: Just took care of that. Several sources I found for the set list do not mention what version it is. Safe to say, I won't be able to find it, given that she stopped performing the song as her tour progressed. De88 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@De88: Now that that's been fixed, all of the issues have been resolved. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Nice work here! Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)