# Talk:Flashbacks (song)

@Anonpediann:@Cold Alex: Hi there! I decided to start this thread and to link you two (since you were the only two active editors on Inna articles that I've noticed). We are currently facing a difficult situation: the classification of "Flashbacks" as a single or promotional single. Although all the label's and the singer's attention seems to be on promoting "Flashbacks", we do not have any (reliable) source confirming that "Flashbacks" is a single. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that it is not enough for a song to be played by the radio to be considered a single. And nor is having a music video released for it. As for now, the status of "Flashbacks" will remain a promotional single, because it was released to stores back then with all Heartbreaker tracks. But again, we don't have any source to confirm it as a single, or that it was officially released to radios. Once we do, the classification will be happily updated. Greets and thank you; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sound good! Cold Alex (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak:@Cold Alex: Well, that makes sense but it has obviously been promoted as a single. A few sources that state it as a single I could find:
https://www.radioimpuls.ro/flashbacks-singura-piesa-a-unui-artist-roman-in-top-5-shazam-romania-20135795 (Cel mai recent
single al INNEI a cucerit topurile din țară, dar și pe cele din întreaga lume.)

https://www.radioimpuls.ro/inna-a-lansat-videoclipul-oficial-al-piesei-flashbacks-20133671 (INNA a lansat videoclipul noului single "Flashbacks", o piesă melancolică ce a depășit deja 100.000 de stream-uri pe Spotify.
https://www.infomusic.ro/videoclip/inna-flashbacks/ (INNA a lansat videoclipul noului single "Flashbacks", o piesă melancolică ce a depășit deja 100.000 de stream-uri pe Spotify.)
https://www.banatfm.ro/inna-revine-cu-o-piesa-melancolica-flashbacks/ (INNA a lansat videoclipul noului single „Flashbacks”, o piesă melancolică ce a depășit deja 100.000 de stream-uri pe Spotify.)
https://www.alistmagazine.ro/inna-imagini-de-la-filmarea-videoclipului-flashbacks-din-palazzo-versace-din-dubai/ (au filmat în Palazzo Versace din Dubai pentru următorul single ”Flashbacks”, piesă de pe albumul ”Heartbreaker”.
https://www.dance-charts.de/2020122313838/inna-flashbacks (Wir wünschen INNA mit ihrer aktuellen Single und dem neuen Album viel Erfolg. Wir behalten sie auf ihrem musikalischen Weg weiterhin im Auge!)
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/inna-flashbacks/ (Inna – “Flashbacks” single)
I don't know what you think about this but I think at least the first two sources are reliable enough (as they come from a reputable Romanian radio; Radio Impuls). Anonpediann (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Anonpediann: Thank you very much for your reasearch! And I do agree with you, we can use the first two sources. However, if you agree, I would like to do the changes to the articles involved. I will come to it either today or tomorrow. Have a great day! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: of course, as you are the one who's been involved in the creation of the article in the first place. Hope you have a great day too, and hit me up if you need anything!  Anonpediann (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak:@Cold Alex: As the single doesn't has an accurate release date I would suggest adding the music video release date (26 February 2021), as it's when media started acknowledging its status as a proper single. Anonpediann (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anonpediann: I think that is a bit of a reach. We agreed on the fact that it is a single and that it was very probably serviced as one in February, but to give an exact date just based on the video release would be WP:OR. Also reminder that a music video is not an indication whether a song is a single or not. I think that "February 2021" is the best solution for now unless we find a source that specifically gives a date. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flashbacks (Inna song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start this review today, marking my first one since the GAN backlog ended! --K. Peake 06:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Add November 2020 in the recorded parameter per the body
WP:OVERLINK of Inna under songwriter(s)
I only linked Inna there because she is mentioned under her real name, which the reader may not be familiar with. This is common partice in music articles. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is common practice to link separately when it is someone who's not a performer listed as a songwriter and producer under different names, but not when it is the lead artist. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Since this is a single infobox not a track listing, the producers should not be listed under their surnames
"recorded by Romanian singer Inna," → "recorded by Romanian singer Inna for her seventh studio album, Heartbreaker (2020)." plus move the release info to being the sentence after writing/production
"It was written by" → "The song was written by"
Marco & Seba should only be piped to in prose for the first member, plus are you sure they aren't credited under the duo name for production?
I think it's useful to link both of them because they're both part of the duo and because the article tells something about both. Otherwise, the reader may assume there is only an article about one of them, which would be incorrect. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This should be fine then since it prevents the linking from being misleading. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The next sentence should be something like: "In February 2021, the song was released as the lead single from the album."
"Musically described as an electropop and" → "An electropop and" for appropriate lead description
""Flashbacks" is driven by" → "it is driven by"
Pipe loop to Loop (music)
"lyricaly talking about" → "Lyrically, the song talks about" as a new sentence because the current one is a bit of a run-on
There are only two reviews of the song, meaning a critical overview can't be given; either add more reviews or merely mentioning one critic singling the song out
I do think we can include the fact that the reviews were positive; I've added "Two music critics" to make things clearer. I've further shortened the info about the critical reception in the lead because we only have two reviews. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This is much better, you can keep things as they are here! --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikilink music video
The Shazam chart info should be written out in the body too since everything in the lead has to be, plus move the ref solely there
I thought about this, and I've removed the Shazam thing here because it may be too detailed for the lead. I have added it in the article's body, though. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It did lack focus kind of here, so being solely in the body is definitely reasonable. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
""Flashbacks" experienced commercial success" → "the song experienced commercial success"
All of the chart positions need to be written in prose in the body as well as sourced in the table; I will give further instructions


### Background and release
Would suggest retitling to Background and composition then adding comp info after background, as you can split that from reception by moving the descriptive parts and not the opinion focused ones
I'm going to comment on all your sections-related comments here. Personally, I do think the way the article stands now is fine; first of all, I have never seen a "Release and composition" section and it feels somehow strange to me since these things don't quite go hand in hand. What goes hand in hand, though, is the info about the composition and the reception because here, (almost) all the info we get about the composition is from sources that also give some sort of thoughts/review about the track. I also used this section type on another article of mine, Unlocked. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The new order you have switched to is fine, but I was initially requesting a background and composition section like I often see in song articles; same applies for the release and reception comments. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, pipe to Marco & Seba should only be on the first member in prose
See earlier comment. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"seventh studio album, Heartbreaker," → "seventh studio album Heartbreaker," but the song's presence is not sourced
The mansion being in Bucharest, the recording studios being two and these producers/writers being who she was with are unsourced
Move the release info to the following section as the first para, like I will further instruct soon
"was released along the album" → "was released as part of the album"
Mention both digital download and streaming since Apple Music backs both up with modern releases
What exactly do you mean here? I am stating that the album was released on both digital download and streaming formats. If you mean for me to add the formats the promotional singles were released on, then I think that'd be way too detailed here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the part about it being issued a week later than the first release, but you are right this is too much detail due to streaming already being mentioned prior. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"and was issued to" → "while being issued to"
Remove pipe on remixes


### Composition and critical reception
Retitle to Release and reception, adding the commercial info after critical plus comp info can be repeated in critical commentary if you are showing how a reviewer felt about the element(s)
Regarding my above comment, keep the info here from Manuel Probst except the highlight part, as that is an opinion
Pipe loop to Loop (music)
Only keep the "tuneful melodies" and tale/lyrics parts from Zangba Thomson, but move the intriguing description to reception
"described it as a" → "described the song as featuring"
"tune" is a synonym of "song"; I don't see any sense in saying that he saw "Flashbacks" as "featuring a 'heartfelt song'". Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I misinterpreted this as meaning that a tune was included in the song initially, so only change to "described the song". --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"and wrote it told an" → "while saying it tells a"
"who she is miles apart" → "that she is miles apart"
"break the silence"." → "break the silence."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences


### Music video
"An accompanying music video for" → "A music video for" with the wikilink
Pipe director of photography to Cinematographer
"hair and styling were" → "hair and outfits were" to accurately represent the source as well as avoid using styling close to RDStyling
"switches up between color and" → "switches between color and"
Pipe sepia to Sepia tone per MOS:LINK2SECT
"shows her wearing" → "shows Inna wearing"


### Track listing
Should Nomad be piped to Nomad (band) or are they not the ones who handled the remix?
I don't think it's them (or rather I'm not sure). But it states "Nomad Digital" and not "Nomad", so I really don't think it's them? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Do not link then, as this would not make proper sense if you're unsure. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


### Charts
Remove pipe on CIS
I see this being done a lot on other articles, and I do agree. "CIS" is not a term the usual reader would know (me neither). It is not a country, but an 'association' of multiple. I think this should stay. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Even though linking to areas in chart tables is uncommon, I believe this can be acceptable. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Pipe Romania Radio Airplay to List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2020s in Romania
This is auto-generated by a template that is used for the Romanian radio peaks. I have tried to contact the one that created that template in the past, but they sadly did not answer. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Silly me, should've checked the template! --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


### Release history
Remove this section because it is only the promotional release, which does not warrant a full table


### Notes
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks fairly good at 29.1%!
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
Strangely, the tool does not work for me right now. Does it work for you? If so, could you handle the process of archiving the sources? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Work/publisher is missing from refs 1, 3 and 4, plus fix MOS:QWQ issues with the former
WP:OVERLINK of Apple Music on ref 8's first citation and I don't think you need to note which song each ref is for when the titles show this; you did comment that overlinking is fine on Heartbreaker, but if you followed this again then why is Apple Music linked on only one of these citations?
There were indeed some issues that I fixed, but I usually defend my linking style as follows (let's take the example of "Apple Music"): Apple Music should be linked on every instance (every reference) because — let's say its first appearance is in reference 1 — if the reader was to click on reference 2 first, then it is not linked (and they don't know it is linked on reference 1 in case they wanted to read the article of "Apple Music"). The reference 9 of this "Flashbacks" article is an exception here though because there are multiple reference in one reference; if that is the case, then only the very first instance should be linked since the user sees all the sources at once and sees that "Apple Music" is linked on first instance. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; they are grouped together so only one wikilink is understandable. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't A List Magazine be cited as work/website instead for ref 9?
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 11, 12 and 15
Cite YouTube as publisher instead for ref 14
WP:OVERLINK of Apple Music on refs 16 and 17
See above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK of Tophit on refs 26 and 27
See above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed, after a quick review! --K. Peake 09:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: Hi there and thank you very much for your review! I have solved your comments except there were I have added my own thoughts and comments. Have a great day and greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the quicker response than what happened with Heartbreaker; I have left comments above in the relevant areas, also you did not fix the Heartbreak prose in the opening section or the first sentence of music video as instructed. --K. Peake 15:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I have addressed your remaining comments. So I can let the sections stand as they are right now? And also, I'm sorry, I do not get what you mean by "also you did not fix the Heartbreak prose in the opening section or the first sentence of music video as instructed." Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Cartoon network freak Thank you for the response, even if it is provided on the following day. You can let the sections remain as current and also, I was referring to fixing the prose of the opening section where you mention Heartbreak as her seventh studio album accordingly and the first point of my suggestions for the music video section. --K. Peake 08:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I fixed the music video section, but sadly I'm too dumb to understand what you mean is wrong with the lead *insert clown emojo here*. Is there any possibility you can fix that for me? Thank you :) Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I have made the fix for you now, plus the issue was in background not the lead; me writing opening section referred to that of the article, not the review page.  Pass now, well-deserved despite you going through some confusion. --K. Peake 09:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)