# Talk:Do It Again (Pia Mia song)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Do It Again (Pia Mia song). 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/20160124201045/http://www.aria.com.au/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-2015.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-2015.htm
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) 10:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Do It Again (Pia Mia song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Palindromesemordnilap (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I am beginning a review of this article. I will submit my feedback using the format used in {{GAList2}}, and I plan to have the list filled out within the next two hours. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Update: The initial review is done, and the article looks like it is well on its way to "Good" status – nice work! There are some changes to make, so the nomination is currently on hold, but I don't think the changes should be very time-consuming, and I fully expect this article to be able to reach "Good" status. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Palindromesemordnilap:I have made the necessary adjustments to each section although there are some comments that I have regarding the release history, composition, music video, and chart sections. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Angryjoe1111: The changes you made look great. I looked at your questions and read through the article again, and I think the only remaining change is to add that VideoStatic source to show that Colin Tilley directed the music video.
I replied individually to each of your questions below. To summarize, I think the "Release history" and "Chart" sections looked good (I didn't realize how {{singlechart}} worked). I also think the "Composition" section makes it clear which thoughts come from which source in accordance with WP:INTEGRITY, with regard to the sentence with ideas from both Wonderland and the Belfast Telegraph.
For "Music video", adding the Videostatic source seems like a good idea, since no source already in the article seems to indicate that Colin Tilley directed the video (and since it's a WP:RS). Based on a brief survey of some Good articles, I don't think you need to add any more info on who was involved in the music video. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I added the VideoStatic citation into the music video section. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I think everything looks "Good" now. Nice work! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 20:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### General notes
In several places, the phrase "Guam culture" is used. It should be switched to either "Guamanian culture" or "culture of Guam". I think typically "Guamanian culture" is an easier substitute; adjustements might be needed to make "culture of Guam" flow nicely with the rest of the article. (To support this change, see Culture of Guam.)
Substituted phrases to "Guamanian culture" for first two instances and "culture of Guam" in music video section. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Commas should not be used when joining an independent clause with a conjunction (for example, "and) + dependent clause, unless part of a list. Some examples are the following: "Do It Again" peaked at number five on the ARIA Singles Chart in Australia, and at number eight on the... should have the comma removed. The song attained platinum certifications in five countries, and appeared... should also have the comma removed. I will do another check of commas when other edits are done.
Removed commas from independent clause; kept commas on date formats per MOS:DATE. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
In the lead, change A dance challenge uploaded by Noah Schnapp on social media platform TikTok... to include the year in which this occurred. Perhaps "In April 2020, a dance challenge...".
Made suggested change to lead section. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In the lead, became viral should be changed to "went viral".
Fixed grammar. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Background and development
In "Background and development", after being inspired by his concert... should be switched to "after being inspired by J Boog's concert". Otherwise, it seems like the article is talking about a Marc Griffin or Nic Nac concert.
Changed sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Background and development", I suggest a reworking of the following sentences due to some inaccuracies relative to the source. In 2014, after the song finished production, Mia walked into a studio session with Chris Brown and Tyga, when Nic Nac played "Do It Again" for them. Brown and Tyga were impressed and asked to be included, describing it as "super dope". Mia accepted, as she was able to learn from their work ethic in the studio, and was touched by their genuine interest in the song. Several points: (1) There is no indication in the article that "Nic Nac played "Do It Again" for them", only that at some point the song was played by someone. (2) There is no indication that Pia Mia accepted because she wanted to learn from their work ethic. Instead, I suggest changing the wording to something like "Mia was touched by their genuine interest in the song and accepted, and she was able to learn from their work ethic in the studio."
Reworded sentence about song being played for (1), followed recommended sentence structure for (2). — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The Tweet used at this archive link may not be a reliable source for the statement British radio presenter Max first announced on Twitter that Mia had enlisted Brown and Tyga to appear on "Do It Again" in September 2014. Instead, I suggest eliminating the reference to "first" and switching it to something like "In September 2014, British radio presenter Max announced on Twitter that Mia had enlisted Brown and Tyga to appear on "Do It Again"".
Reworded to recommended sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think these two statements are WP:OR: It was also sent to contemporary hit radio stations in the United Kingdom on September 4, 2015, and in Italy on October 16, 2015. The associated sources, though they mention "Do It Again", offer no indication that this is when it was sent to contemporary hit radio stations in these countries.
Changed wording of UK radio station sentence to specify rotation on BBC Radio 1, Italian radio date is mentioned on top of the website along with the publisher. The website is also owned by Radio Italia TV which may potentially be reliable as a national radio network. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Composition and critical reception
In "Composition and critical reception" ...for allowing people to sing along, while dancing... should have the comma removed.
Removed comma. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Commercial performance", It was certified platinum by Recorded Music NZ (RMNZ), after sales of 15,000 equivalent-units. should have the comma removed.
Removed comma in "Commercial performance" section. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Composition and critical reception", it says ...the song, such as mentioning Two Lovers Point in the first verse. I did not see a mention of "in the first verse" in the source, and some sources seem to say the "Two Lovers Point" part is the second verse, so I think "in the first verse" should be removed.
Removed instance of first verse. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Composition and critical reception", Tehrene Firman stated that the song is "fun and catchy" is inaccurate; she stated that it was "fun, catchy, and perfect for summer", so "fun [and] catchy" would be more accurate.
Added square brackets. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In the statement She denied rumors that it was about a one-night stand, I suggest changing it to "She denied that it was about a one-night stand", as there is no indication that there were "rumors".
Removed word. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A few parts of the first paragraph in "Composition and critical reception" appear to be WP:PARAPHRASE. For example, in "Do It Again" opens with crescendoing synthesizers, the source also says "crescendoing synths". Similarly, the article says She undulates with sultry and controlled vocals throughout the track and the source says "the sultry controlled vocals undulating throughout...". In both cases, either say in-line that the source said this (and use the quotation) or change it.
Used "Do It Again" opens with synthesizers that utilize a crescendo as a replacement for the first sentence, used Her voice was consistently undulated to sound "sultry [and] controlled" for the second sentence. I'm not sure how to reword the Wonderland-cited sentence while it is combined with information from the Belfast Telegraph since it would affect WP:INTEGRITY. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You're referring to this sentence, right? Her voice was consistently undulated to sound "sultry [and] controlled"[1], over a club-infused instrumental.[2] I think that the way it's done, with [1] corresponding to the Wonderland citation and [2] corresponding to the Belfast Telegraph makes it clear which thoughts come from which source, since the Wonderland article mentions how she undulated her voice to sound "sultry [and] controlled", and since the Belfast Telegraph article mentions the club-infused instrumentals. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 18:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Commercial performance
In "Commercial performance", for the statement "Do It Again" debuted at number 67 on the UK Singles Chart dated August 20, 2015, this source should be included in-line.
Fixed chart template error resulting in page redirect. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Commercial performance", for the statement The song was ranked at number 60 on the 2015 year-end chart, I recommend switching the source to this link for easier verification.
Fixed chart template error resulting in page redirect. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Commercial performance", the statement and certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) for selling 600,000 units on January 27, 2017. should include a link to this source.
Fixed certification template error resulting in page redirect. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Music video
In "Music video", The video is animated and inspired by Guam culture, such as references to artwork and Mia's ancestry to the Chamorro people. should be changed to "...inspired by Guam culture, with references..."
Fixed sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Music video", It consists of latte stones and talaya throwing sounds awkward. I recommend "It includes latte stones and talaya throwing."
Reworded sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Music video", add a comma after "California" in An accompanying music video was filmed in Malibu, California on June 3, 2015, per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
Added comma. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Music video", update the statement As of May 2020, the music video has over 448 million views on YouTube to be more current
Updated view count sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to confirm that it was directed by Colin Tilley. (See The video was directed by Colin Tilley in "Music video".) None of the in-line citations in the area appeared to list a director.
Should I include VideoStatic as a citation? I asked about the website here, which was seen by other music editors as reliable. If so, is it necessary to include a music video credits subsection within the main section? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I would definitely include the videostatic source, since other sources don't list a director and this one does, and since other editors also see this as a reliable source. I don't think it's necessary to include a music video credits subsection within the main section. I don't know a policy for this, and I wasn't able to find one at WP:SONGS, but I looked at other good articles (just clicked through some at WP:WikiProject Songs#Assessment), and none of the Good articles that mentioned a music video consistently named anyone aside from the director. I looked at Poker Face (Lady Gaga song)#Music video, Alejandro (song), Fantastic Baby, Fantasy (Mariah Carey song), and Baby (Justin Bieber song). Not sure if there's a better way to ascertain the norms. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Live performances and dance challenge
In "Live performances and dance challenge", I think ...Mia invited Jenner onto the stage to perform the song with Tyga should say "Kylie Jenner" since she has not yet been mentioned in this section.
Added extra word. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Live performances and dance challenge", I think American actor Noah Schnapp uploaded a dance challenge of "Do It Again" on social media platform TikTok in April 2020 should be "In April 2020, American actor Noah Schnapp uploaded a dance challenge of "Do It Again" on social media platform TikTok" because everything so far has been from around 2015, so leading with the date change seems to make sense.
Rearranged sentence. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In "Live performances and dance challenge", in Mia acknowledged that the challenge was a "resurgence" for the song, and stated that she felt proud that everyone was embracing one of her "most special songs", the comma should be removed.
Removed comma. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Track listing
### Credits and personnel
I think Chris "Tek" O'Ryan – vocal producer, sound engineer should be removed from "Credits and personnel" because he is not listed in the source. All other credited individuals are listed in the source.
Removed Chris "Tek" O'Ryan, used spaced en dash template instead of symbols — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Charts
In "Weekly chart performance for "Do It Again"", the reference for "Czech Republic (Singles Digitál Top 100)" should be changed to this source.
The chart template is built-in and frequently used by editors from WP:CHARTS. The note in the parameter stating how to access the specific chart is built-in from several parameters. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's good then. I didn't realize how {{singlechart}} worked! Thanks for letting me know. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 18:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### Certifications
### Release history
In "Release history", I am not sure if I am missing something. The references for the UK and for Italy, as mentioned in the feedback for "Background and development", though they list "Do It Again" do not seem to support the claim that this is necessarily when it was released in these locations. If there is not really evidence that the UK and Italy release history information is correct, I suggest removing those two rows from the table.
I altered the UK release history sentence to only indicate that it is from BBC Radio 1, the Italian release history is from a national radio network indicated above and is generally seen as reliable among other GA music editors. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think it's good how you have it then. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


### References
Changes that should be made to references are noted in the sections above as they appeared in-line in the article.


### GA list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall, the article is great and will definitely be able to be classified as "Good" if the changes above are completed. I don't think any of the changes above should be too time-intensive either. Overall, great work, and I look forward to continuing to help you through this review!
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
There are just a few commas to fix and some minor issues with how some sentences are phrased.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
There is one instance of a missing MOS:GEOCOMMA. Aside from that, it's good.
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: 
Aside from the VideoStatic source, I don't believe any additional sources are needed (though a few claims are made that are not quite supported by sources, and should thus be removed). All necessary sources are now provided and reliable.
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: 
There appears to be some WP:OR. It's noted, and as long as the wording is adjusted accordingly (and, in some cases, as long as the claims are removed), it should be in good shape.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
There is perhaps one copy violation in "Composition and critical reception" that appears to be a case of WP:PARAPHRASE.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Fantastic overview of the song!
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Despite the detailed overview of many aspects of the song, it is very focused on the song itself!
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Nice job here!
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No evidence of any edit warring.
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: 
Done.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Done.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
There are some changes that should be made, but this article should be well on its way to "good" status! After revisions according to the feedback above, the article now fully meets the "Good article" criteria.
palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 06:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Made some updates to the chart above. I think it'll be good to go once the VideoStatic source is added to verify the director of the music video. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 18:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The article now meets all "Good article" criteria. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 20:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)