# Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fate ((G)I-dle song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Lililolol (talk · contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
I will run through this article today! --K. Peake 13:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
The studio needs to be sourced in the body, also change to only Cube here since the word studio is not used when the parameter is titled as such
The information stating it was released as the sixth track does not need to be noted in the lead, furthermore you need to write this out fully in the body since it is not sourced as part of the album currently
"written and produced by" → "The song was written and produced by" as a new sentence and like above, these credits need to be written out in prose
""Fate" is a" → "It is a" and move this sentence with the following one to the first paragraph, which is too short currently, remove 2000s as that is not sourced in music and lyrics
"It features guitars and" → "The song features guitars and" remove the word jaunty since quotes like this are non-notable in the lead
Merge the third para with the second one as this is too short on its own
"praised its lyricism," → "praised the song's lyricism," and remove the duplicated wikilink on J-pop in the reception sentence
The acknowledgment of popularity is not sourced
The awards need to be written out in prose too


### Music and lyrics
Write the songwriting and composer credits out in prose at the start
The sources cite pop-rock and punk as genres; I see no mention of funk
Re-invoke [4] at the end of the sentence with direct quoting
behind the lyrics. Via → behind the lyrics, via – remove the speech marks around The Korea Times and the ref here too
"fateful encounter," which captures" → "fateful encounter", which captures"
The quote in prose does not show as "resonates with listeners" in the source
"like 'This morning" → "like "This morning" and make sure this matches the source also
"I'm so tired.'" → "I'm so tired"." per MOS:QUOTE
"Jun-hwan highlights the" → "Jun-hwan highlighted the"


### Live video
The netizens are not mentioned by the source
"youth movie, leaving a deep lingering impression."" → "youth movie", which left "a deep lingering impression"." as these quotes are ordered separately in the source
"with 3,6 million views." → "with 3.6 million views."


### Reception
Retitle to Release and reception, adding an opening sentence about the song's release as the sixth track on 2 with a source
Remove the commas from inside song titles
Start a new para at the critical reception
"lauds "Fate" as a" → "lauded "Fate" as a"
Remove wikilink on lyricism
Remove links on intuitive and plot twists
"Reporter Lee Deok-haeng of IZE magazine praises" → "Reporter Lee Deok-haeng of IZE magazine praised"
The source says punk, not funk-based
"OST material," and" → "OST material", and"
Remove the comma from inside "Super Lady" title
"left a "lasting impression,"" → "left a "lasting impression","
Re-invoke [14] at the end the sentence using the "like water" quote
"He noted its resurgence through" → "He noted the song's resurgence through"
Online users is not appropriate language, use something to describe these type of critics named in the source instead
"attributing its allure to its" → "attributing its allure to the"


### Accolades
"on March 21." → "on March 21, 2024."
Write the accolades that are mentioned in the lead out in prose
The song of the year nomination is not sourced at MAMA
I would say the table would be better if you removed the year table since all of these award ceremonies were in 2024 and instead name as 2024 MAMA Awards and 2024 Melon Music Awards in that table; this would also overlinking to the awards page


### Credits and personnel
Add a source like the liner notes for these
Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel


### Charts
Looks good, but shouldn't the Taiwan and Singapore ones be written out in reception's prose too since they are notable?


### References
Copyvio score looks really good at 25.4%!!!
Cite JTBC as publisher instead on ref 1
Cite Herald Pop as publisher instead with the wikilink on ref 2
Wikilink NME on ref 3 instead of ref 20
The fact → The Fact on ref 4
WP:OVERLINK of Naver on refs 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22 and 23
www.izm.co.kr → IZM on ref 7
Cite News1 as publisher instead with the wikilink if this is the same news website on ref 8
Cite Newsis as publisher with the wikilink on ref 11
Yonhap News → Yonhap News Agency with the wikilink as publisher instead on ref 14
Cite Sports Dong-a as work/website instead on ref 17
Add a website/publisher to ref 21
Pipe Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 19 instead of refs 24 and 27
Cite Circle Chart as publisher instead on refs 28 and 29


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed, came through now! --K. Peake 16:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake I think it's all done. I've also added more content, like in the reception section, and included more awards from 2025, as well as a new section titled "In the Public Culture" So, check it out! Lililolol (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
For the music video section, the sources mentioned online users, who are netizens.  Also, Cube, the parent company, acknowledged the song's popularity (I added their statements to the Reception  section).
I didn't include the Taiwan and Singapore charts because I don’t think it’s a major success. Should I add them?
"around The Korea Times and the ref here too" – what does this mean?"
Lililolol (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
"Start a new para at the critical reception" – explain more! Lililolol (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Lililolol I have copy edited the two you were unsure about in, as for the Singapore and Taiwan charts are these not the main charts? If they are, top 30 is definitely notable I would say. --K. Peake 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake Done Lililolol (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
 Pass now, a slight misunderstanding over the charts point yet I've copy edited this in now! --K. Peake 09:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:(G)I-dle which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

A song from an album appearing on a chart—even one called a "singles chart"—never qualifies it as an official single without further proof. A "single" must be treated by the artist or label as a standalone release—usually promoted independently, with its own video and marketing efforts (unique artwork is common but not mandatory). Charts only measure consumption—album tracks can chart on their own merits without single designation. On English Wikipedia, it's incorrect to label a song as a single based solely on chart inclusion; that would constitute original research. Moreover, The Korea Times is the only source calling "Fate" a single—an outlier; no other reliable source does so. Reliable sources—ideally multiple—explicitly confirming the artist's or label's intent to release the track as a standalone single are required before "Fate" can be treated as a single on English Wikipedia. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)