# Talk:Bass Down Low

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bass Down Low/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I shall be conducting this review. -- Matthew RD 19:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


### Criteria
Well written: See notes below.
Sources:  Pass
Broadness in coverage:  Pass
Neutral:  Pass
Stability: No serious edit conflicts,  Pass
Images: Both non-free images have appropriate tags, licenses and fair use rationales,  Pass


### Comments
"It was written by Dev alongside its producers, The Cataracs, who are also featured on the track." The sentence uses both past and present tense. Shouldn't it be all past tense? Same thing for "British rapper Tinie Tempah is featured on an official remix of "Bass Down Low" that was made for the song's release in the United Kingdom."
Perhaps link Corruption in the debauchery, so that some of the readers (me included) who don't know what the work means, know what it means. Or link to the Wiktionary page like later on in the article, even better
"Six months later, the first song the they made together," the "the" could be removed.
You mentioned Niles Hollowell-Dhar and David Singer-Vine as the due that composed of The Cataracs in the writing and release section, but The Cataracs were mentioned before in the background. Couldn't you move the names there?
Unlink Far East Movement in critical reception section, I don't think we need to repeat link stuff.
I'll place the article on hold for seven days. -- Matthew RD 21:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All done. Pancake (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a pass. -- Matthew RD 17:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm replacing electro from the genre to change it with electropop. Looking more specifically at the genre here, this song does not really seem to fit into the definition, or these other songs created by electro artists. In the article, they refer to it as electropop as well and I think that is far more appropriate. Are there any comments/suggestions before this change is made? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been over 5 days and there has been no further discussion. I will go forward by removing the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk)
Read WP:VNT. This is pure WP:OR. We go after the sources, not what you consider electro music. Pancake (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
VNT is an essay, and WP:OR is not me proclaiming, I've provided citations that are applied to wikipedia. If we articles contradicting each other (which we do with this label), than we have problems. Did you read the electro article? or just copy+paste some rules here? I'm not replacing the genre, I just think it will be stamped with an contradiction label. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, here's a source referring to the track as Electropop: "“Bass Down Low.” The electro pop track, which received remixes from 50 Cent and Flo Rida, is currently a Top 5 Greatest Gainer (and recently most added) at Top 40 radio, moving to #18, as well as impressively gaining traction at Rhythmic." Business Wire Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So you think a press release is better than a journalist's article from AOL? Besides, calling this an electro song doesn't contradict Electro (music) in any way. There's only one sentence mentioning the genre: "'Bass Down Low' is an electro song with skittering synths and a pulsating electropop groove." How does that contradict Electro (music)? It's an electro song, and it includes skittering synths and an electropop groove. Pancake (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What makes either more viable than the other? Are there any rules for that? It's the sound of the song the violates the other article, as the description in electro the genre does not match the sound of this song. Also, yes I do my article is more prominent as it was used by several sources including Universal Music. (which is down currently...). Electro is primarily a 1980s genre and it's sound is related to this song. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's a press release by her label, so it's a primary source. And of course it was used by Universal Music as they wrote it. That the "sound of the song" violates the other article is your own opinion, so we're back to WP:OR. There's a thing called Contemporary electro music which would suit this better. Pancake (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no citations at all on that contemporary electro section so it shouldn't be considered. And they never said anything about contemporary electro in the article. Please don't edit the genre discussion in the article until this has been resolved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Other sources refer to this as "pop" [1] as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
If the song was also electro, why didn't it chart on the dance charts on Billboard? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention here Dev refers to it as " it’s pop music but with rap roots": http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dev-g6-fame-keha-59328 Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
1. That's seriously not even a source. For a genre we need some kind of review. 2. Because Billboard's dance chart is not a genre chart, it measures the most popular songs in clubs. 3. She is talking about her music in general, not the song. Besides, electro has rap/hip-hop roots, while electropop has not. Pancake (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's still a better source from a journalist who's music background knowledge is questionable. As far as I'm concerned, we should leave it blank for now as we can't come to any fair consensus on how to handle this. Journalists would use any genre without caring to much because it's not very serious critical study and would rather use a term for how it flows within a sentence. I've provided several sources and you've all considered them "not sources" without showing me any rules to back this up of how they aren't notable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't use a source that only says "pop" to consider the song "electropop". That would be WP:SYN. Arizona Republic only refers to the groove. The primary source should be used with heavy care, and Wikipedia generally considers secondary sources more reliable and reputable. Therefore I'd say it's simply electro and if there's enough sources saying its electropop and not just some pop and some electro, we can change. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]  17:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Penguins, electro and and electropop have no similarities outside their name. That's a very crude way to cite genres and if there isn't a strong enough consensus than it shouldn't be in. And  My last source of "pop" wasn't trying to having it labeled electro-pop, but simply pop which may not be specific, but far more appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is--as you say--leave it and wait for consensus. One source most likely does not establish the genre of the song, so be it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]  18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you agree! Glad this didn't erupt into a huge edit war Penguin! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My intention is not to conflict. :-) My only concern is if there will ever be an absolute genre for the song. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]  18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps give this song some more time and more info about it will come out. :) To be fair, this is a well written article with a good description of the sound and a music sample. I'm sure whoever reads it will understand they are about to hear without getting bogged down by labels and genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bass Down Low. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313211501/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bass Down Low. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719212138/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/thenewnow/17170/pop-rap-newcomer-dev-feels-so-fly-like-a-g6 to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/thenewnow/17170/pop-rap-newcomer-dev-feels-so-fly-like-a-g6/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)