# Talk:Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

ShootForTheStarsAimForTheMoon.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: Sometimes sources don't always cover every single sample on an album, samples are credited in the album's booklet. Samples are also credited in the album's songs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@AshMusique: The reason why I remove the link to WYKBL because it already linked in the background section, and the rest of the singles don't need to linked twice in the article's prose, they can be linked in the templates instead. Which is why me and The Ultimate Boss remove them in first place. You clearly don't know how good articles or featured articles works. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, it would be helpful for you to use edit summaries in future. And that's three sections above, so there is nothing wrong with linking it again in a different section - as I said, it makes for easier navigation for readers. Keep in mind that most readers who use Wikipedia do so on mobile devices, and templates are also not viewable on majority of mobile devices. Either way, a reader shouldn't have to scroll all the way to the bottom or the top of an article to find a link which could have been provided in the section they are perusing (especially in such a lengthy article as this one). I write my articles in the absolute cleanest fashion and thank you for the links, rather insulting of you to assume I don't understand how featured and good article criteria works, but I very much do; one of the criteria is that FA/GA articles meet all the guidelines the MOS has layed out. Now some editors, including GA reviewers might argue that repeating links fails GA criteria, however if you read MOS:REPEATLINK, it very clearly says "Generally , a link should appear only once in an article", it does not say links should not be repeated at all or where links should not be duplicated. I know it says "but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, [...] and at the first occurrence after the lead", however it allows for exceptions in repeating links at the discretion of an editor. AshMusique (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@AshMusique: Wrong. The mobile version does not count, most readers don't care about the linking in the prose, they go to the track listing section, which all the links of the tracks are at. MOS:REPEATLINK still says a link should appear only once in an article. Maybe you should stop using the mobile version and stop arguing with editors who work hard on articles to get them to good quality. Don't mean to be rude but I'm saying what it is. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts, that's your own opinion and threads on original research. Also  that's not the point, it's not merely about whether the reader cares whether there's linking in the prose or not. I didn't say a reader wants to see all the tracks in the article. Even if that were the case, what I'm saying is, it's helpful to have the link(s) right there where the reader is reading, so unnecessary navigation isn't needed. And no, again, MOS:REPEATLINK says "Generally , a link should appear only once in an article", it allows for exceptions, and though it mentions which parts of the article the exceptions are meant for, some discretion is allowed in cases like these, taking the reader into consideration. As simple as that. You still have not convinced me otherwise. Please don't tell me which version of Wikipedia I must use, thank you, I edit best from it. You're completely missing what the point is here - it's not about me. I'm not "arguing" with anyone, I commend users who put in the hard work to get articles to GA status, but I'm also not going to not implement changes I deem in best interest of the reader. This is after all a collaborative effort. The fact that you see it as arguing is not sensible, I am simply trying to get my point across. And your hostility is not appreciated, regardless of whether you think what you're saying is "what it is", please kindly pipe down. AshMusique (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @HĐ: @Kyle Peake: @MarioSoulTruthFan: in this issue. What do you guys think, is AshMusique is right about this or wrong? I like to hear another editor opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Here are my two cents on this subject. Usually I link singles in the infobox, tracklist, lead and once in the article if it is mentioned in the prose. However, its a case by case situation if something that is mentioned on the first section of the body of the article and then two sections below I would wikilink it again, it really varies. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I would advise against wikilinking more than once in the body's prose, as doing so sets a standard by which countless links could be prone to being repeated. If you look further, the guideline actually says "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead", so prose should follow the general rule. --K. Peake 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: @Kyle Peake: I agreed with what you guys said. The tracks are already linked at the infobox, lead and track listing. I don't see the reason why they need to be linked multiple times, the article isn't that long to begin with. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
When I said I would wikilink it again, it would be if the article was long enough. The article is being reviewed perhaps the reviewer will address said subject. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@AshMusique: I like to apologize for my aggressive language, doesn't mean to come off as rude. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi TheAmazingPeanuts, thank you. Apology accepted, I appreciate it. Hope you're well. AshMusique (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Non-free use rationales for both images are in great shape.
Additionally, I couldn't find any issues in the infobox.
Add a comma after "July 3, 2020" per WP:DATECOMMA.


### Background and recording
The last sentence in the first paragraph needs a source.
That's about it here, #Recording looks great.


### Music and lyrics
This has to be the best-sourced section ever created! Well done.
"song which features" → "song that features"
"are sentimental" → "are a sentimental"
"obsessesing" → "obsessing"
"with bonus track" → "with the bonus track"


### Title and artwork
In the quote blocks, move the references after Complex.


### Release and promotion
Some sentences here have 3-4 sources. I recommend using WP:CITEBUNDLEs to reduce the clutter.
"the albums second single" → "the album's second single"
Since the sentence is kinda short, remove the comma after "relationship".


### Critical reception
Try reducing the use of quotes with the help of WP:RECEPTION.
In the #Accolades table make the references column unsortable: ! scope="col" class=unsortable | Ref.


### Commercial performance and track listing
Couldn't find any issues in either of these two sections.


### Personnel and charts
These sections look good as well.


### Certifications and release history
Looks good.


### References
Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".


### Progress
Some Dude From North Carolina thanks so much for the comments! I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: I reverted your edit because the publications started with the word "the" is usually ignored, just take a look at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have re added the feature list to the beginning of the page as it lists all the features shown on the album similar to that of most other pages of this nature. I am also adding it to the talk section so other people can see and then decide on what the outcome should be. Feature list or not. User: Chiade85 (User talk: Chiade85) 19:53, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)

User: Chiade85 , please don't speak only to one user here, but tell us what you did, precisely. We don't know what "feature list" means. Also, as long as a disputed addition is discussed, it should not be added to the article, - only after it found consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I only spoke to them only because they were the one who had such an issue with it. The feature list is the list of all features seen on the album in the main body of introduction text. Chiade85 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
The talk is for everybody interested. I indented as we normally do on talk pages. I'll do it for you. You added this, a list of many names who were featured in a recording, to the introduction. If you ask me, the introduction should have only the key facts, and these detailed names are not key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chiade85: Don't called people names who I disagree your editing skills okay. The reason why I reverted your edits because you added every single body in the lead, added too much content like that is unnecessary and made the lead look bloated (See WP:TOOMUCH and WP:LEAD). And your grammar doesn't help matters either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: I personally feel like the content isn't unnecessary if I wasn't the one editing it then I would want to see the features on the album. But if you don't see it like that whatever. Also don't mention things like grammar/spelling (I know you didn't, it's hypothetical)as you don't know what issues a person may have with things like that, so if you don't like someone's grammar change it yourself. I am no longer going to use Wikipedia as I am going to retire the account or ask for a deletion as I clearly can't add necessary information to the pages and can't seem to have people see things the way I do so I'll leave it to the professionals I guess. User:Chiade85 (User talk:Chiade85) 22:52, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
Please don't rush. The information is probably good to have, but not in the introduction. It needs a reliable source, and people need to agree that it's good to have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chiade85: I think you being petty here, just because me and Gerda Arendt disagree with your editing doesn't mean you should quit Wikipedia over this issue. When you get reverted by another editor, you don't restore your edits, simple as that (WP:BRD). You can get better as an editor but just like everybody else here, you have to follow the guidelines (WP:MOS). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Chiade, my first article was deleted, - I didn't leave Wikipedia but asked for help, and found it. Try it, we are here to help to put content in the right position with good references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)