# Talk:Heartbreaker (Inna album)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heartbreaker (Inna album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I will start this review today; has been a while since I took one of your articles on! --K. Peake 09:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Replace hlist with bullet points in the infobox
"hlist" and bullet points are exactly the same, I don't see why the latter would be better.
See Template:Infobox album --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Target English to English language
Target Spanish to Spanish language
Why is Alexandru Cotoi listed as a producer when it is only sourced that Inna resided with him while working on the album?
He is one of the record's producers per album credits (Spotify) and yes, he had been residing with her alongside all other writers and producers. They were all maing songs while in the villa.
It has not been directly sourced anywhere in the body that he is a producer, just that he resided with Inna; add sourcing. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no need to source such things as a person's occupation if they have their own article. Technically, I'd have to source that Inna is a singer, too, but that doesn't make any sense since she has her own article which people can access and in which this fact is sourced. The same goes for Alexandru Cotoi. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"on YouTube and SoundCloud" → "to YouTube and SoundCloud"
"on 27 November," → "on 27 November 2020,"
"and for digital download on 4 December 2020 by" → "and released for digital download a week later under"
Target EDM to Electronic dance music
This is mentioned twice in the lead; it's linked the first time.
"dance-pop album, it was preceeded" → "dance-pop release, the album was preceeded" to avoid overusing "it"
"an experimental and gypsy-inspired record. " → "her experimental and gypsy-inspired sixth studio album."
"in the span of three weeks" → "over the course of three weeks"
"where the singer resided with Romanian songwriters and producers" → "where Inna resided with" because the introduction is not needed in the lead for the musicians when it is written in the body
Wikilink Alexandru Cotoi
"the extended play (EP) Dance Queen's House," → "the extended play (EP), Dance Queen's House,"
You do not use this comma when you have "the"; it is was "an EP", then the comma would've been correct.
"the EP was ultimately scrapped following" → "However, the EP was ultimately scrapped after" as a new sentence
"Heartbreaker was not supported" → "The album was not supported"
"on 2 December 2020." → "in December 2020."
You should write about the performance in the creation and release section and move the ref there so it is sourced in the body, though it is fine to still keep the mention here in the lead
I thought about how to write about the performance in the body, but it doesn't fit anywhere. Maybe if she releases music videos and stuff, I'll make a "Promotion" section, but rn I think it's fine for this to stay in the lead. Exceptions like this are allowed.
I was considering the creation and release section, but it's fine being solely in the lead actually. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Background
Retitle to Background and composition, with the comp info being moved here
"Composition and reception" is fine as it is; all the composition info is taken from the two reviews. For another example where such a section exists, see this.
Remove wikilink on Inna
Target Spanish to Spanish language
"took entire creative control over the record" → "took the entirety of creative control over the album"
"She described Yo's material" → "Inna described Yo's material"
"a departure from" → "marking a departure from"
"fourth number-one" → "fourth number one"
Target Airplay 100 to Romanian record charts
"to the genre;" → "to the EDM genre;"
Target singles to Single (music)


### Creation and release
Img looks good
"in a rented" → "at a rented"
"two recording studios in which" → "two recording studios, in which"
Wikilink Alexandru Cotoi
"during a daily vlog on her YouTube channel which" → "during daily vlogs on her YouTube channel, which"
"The record was initially to" → "The record was initially supposed to"
"an extended play (EP) titled Dance Queen's House and" → "an extended play (EP), titled Dance Queen's House, and"
"The 19 November edition of the vlog" → "Inna's 19 November 2020 vlog"
"Inna and the latter." → "Inna and the singer."
Remove target on studio album
"with over 50 songs to" → "with over 50 songs having been created to"
"held in the 21 November edition of the vlog" → "held during Inna's vlog on 21 November 2020"
"on to be finished and" → "on to be finished as well as"
"in the week to follow." → "the following week."
"of what would later become "Maza Jaja" was uploaded on" → "of what later became "Maza Jaja", was uploaded to"
"on 22 November." → "on 22 November 2020."
Identify the posts as Instagram posts instead since that is the only form of social media that it is sourced of her revealing this
She posted this on Twitter, for example, too. I think "social media" is fine here.
No source mentions Twitter though, so technically this is WP:OR. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"the record was issued for" → "the album was issued for"
Remove wikilink on YouTube
Remove wikilink on SoundCloud
"all ten songs on the album" → "all 10 songs on Heartbreaker"
numbers below 11 should be written out per guidelines.
No, they showcase that 10 should be written as a number. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Critical reception and composition
Retitle to Critical reception after you have moved the composition info; I suggested doing this because comp is supposed to come after background but sections should not only be one para, so you can merge that with the current background section
See my comments above. Such sections can exist if there is a valid reason for it, and there is in this case.
That does hold ground, but the sub-section is jumbled; start with reception then follow with comp info. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be disagreeing again, but I think doing it that way would bring a lot of repetition in the section. As it stands now, the section starts with an 'overall' commentary by Muuse, which is followed by their and InfoMusic's commentary on each track. The composition info comes only from the two reviews, and the section details both their commentary and composition info tracklist-wise, so there is definitely a certain structure. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"Bradley Stern of MuuMuse called" → "Stern called" since this will be the second mention of him in the proposed order
See comment above.
"new body of work" → "new body of work with Heartbreaker"
"by adding the" → "by not adding the" since that is what happened and what the source actually says
Whoops, sorry this was my mistake :)
"further applauded Heartbreaker's" → "further applauded the album's"
"the votes immediately"." → "the votes immediately."" since those are full sentences quoted
Remove wikilink on EDM
"written in both English" → "that are written in both English"
"with Stern commenting" → "with Bradley Stern of MuuMuse commenting" due to this part being set to get moved to comp earlier in the article
See comment above.
"the latter was" → "the latter is"
[29] should be invoked at the end of the sentence
It is (?) But maybe I don't get your comment :/
I was supposed to have put that it should be invoked solely at the end of the sentence. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have put both 25 and 29 at the end of the paragraph. That would be the best way to do it I think. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"is followed by "Heartbreaker"," → "is followed by the title track "Heartbreaker","
The fact he picked it as a highlight belongs in critical reception while the rest should be in comp, but can be mentioned with different wording somewhat in reception to show why/how he praised those things
See comment above.
The "Thicky" opinion should remain in reception and be next to the rest of Stern's review
See comment above.
"and as "a spiritual" → "and "a spiritual"
"don’t move..."." → "don't move...""


### Track listing
Wikilink Inna
The producers are missing any appropriate targets and wikilinks
Heartbreaker → Heartbreaker track listing


### Release history
See MOS:TABLECAPTION


### Notes
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks good at 28.1%
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
iTunes → Apple Music (RO) on ref 2, with the wikilink and citing as publisher
iTunes → Apple Music (US) on ref 3, citing as publisher
Remove All Media Network from ref 4
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 6, 13 and 25
iTunes Store → Apple Music (RO) on ref 8
WP:OVERLINK of YouTube on refs 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 31
I don't agree with this. The user may be clicking on ref 15 first and not ref 14. If YouTube is only linked on firs instance on ref 14, then the user would not have the link on ref 15, which is odd.
Add InfoMusic publisher for refs 16 and 18
Wikilink Playtech on ref 17
Remove Free Listening on SoundCloud from the title of ref 22
WP:OVERLINK of Instagram on ref 24
Remove ref 26 and replace all places where it is invoked with ref 28, as that is a duplicate for "Heartbreaker" and includes the citation listed by song name
I do not get it. Ref 26 is a link to the album itself, an ref 28 to each individual track's "single" release on iTunes. Why would these two refs be the same?
Sorry, I had not read into this properly. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of SoundCloud on ref 27 and remove Free Listening on SoundCloud from the title
Regarding the overlink comment, see my comment on the YouTube issue above.
iTunes Store → Apple Music (AU) on ref 28, also remove the wikilink for the first citation
Apple Music should be linked on first instance as the user may be clicking on ref 28 first without any context and may want to have the link.
Replace ref 30 with the Tidal credits because Spotify is not a reliable source
Are you sure Spotify is not reliable? It's a music service just like Tidal and actually displays the credits for this album; I can't see any credits on Tidal.
From what I have seen, you are advised to cite sources like Tidal and not Spotify for credits. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I may agree, but I technically cannot see any credits on Tidal. Could you possibly check the source yourself? Cause when I click on the three dots next to each track, no credits show up (unlike Spotify). Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This source is fine to be used because it shows the credits when you add that word to the end of the URL; I should've cited the Tidal URL with listen in it instead of browse initially to provide the correct source for usage. I have added the source for you now. --K. Peake 10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold after my first review for you in a while, but I have faith in these issues being fixed very soon! --K. Peake 17:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Hi there and sory for the delay. I hope you had a nice Christmas as well; thank you for your review! I have solved everything except where noted. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the response even though it is somewhat delayed; I am not ready to pass this article yet, though have made comments above where things still need fixing and crossed out any suggestions I made that have been decided on by me as unnecessary. --K. Peake 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I have answered to the comments I haven't solved. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Everything is fine now; the only actual issue remaining was the credits one, which you can see above that I sorted for you after discussion.  Pass time! --K. Peake 10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)