# Talk:Sad Machine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sad Machine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: MFTP Dan (talk · contribs) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Dibs. After I finish my FAC that you've commented on, I'll review this. I love this song.

@MFTP Dan: Thank you for considering reviewing this article! However, reviews usually should be completed in seven days, as stated by WP:GAN/I#R2: "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner [...] plan to wrap up your review in about seven days." I understand you like the song, but if you plan to review it only after the FAC (which may take a month of more), the best course of action would be to start the review only after the FAC, if no one takes it in the meantime That way, I'd like to ask you if you are interested in reviewing this article while the FAC is running or if you would like to withdraw the review for now, starting again after the FAC if no one takes it in the meantime. Skyshiftertalk 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I apologize, I wasn't aware of that caveat. Something must have changed in the review instructions that I didn't know about. If that's what you'd wish, I will throw it back in the pool until I'm done. mftp dan  oops  23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I believe this would be the best option. In that case, I've made a change to the GA nominee template so it is now back to the GAN list. Skyshiftertalk 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sad Machine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:08, 9 June 2024 (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 felt this one was 100% due to be picked up since not only was the previous review abandoned, you also have two pending in the queue! --K. Peake 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
The recording year is not directly sourced in the body's prose
I believe this is implied by "Originally, 'Flicker' would be the album's second single, after 'Sea of Voices'. However, he then wrote 'Sad Machine' and decided to change the song three days before it came out". This is because Robinson wrote "Sad Machine" after "Sea of Voices" had already been released.
WP:OVERLINK of Peter Robinson under songwriters in the infobox
Fixed
Mention in the first sentence that it was recorded for his debut studio album, Worlds (2014).
Done
"It was released on May 13, 2014 as" → "The song was released on May 13, 2014, as"
Fixed
Change this sentence to calling it the second single from the album since the title should be mentioned in the first sentence like I have laid out here
Done
The lead is somewhat disordered; move the elements that Robinson wanted to the second sentence and make concept the third sentence, then the release one
Tried to reorganize it according to how the article is organized
"Critics noted inspirations from synth-pop," → "Critics noted the song as synth-pop and the inspirations from" adding Sigur Rós too and I believe you could start a new para here
Done
Before the commercial performance sentence, add one regarding the reviews of the song and a separate sentence about rankings for the song
I prefer adding sentences regarding reviews (i.e. in the format "It received generally positive reviews from critics") only when sources explicitly comment on it. The rankings are pretty diverse so I decided to mention the Vice one only.
Mention that the gold certification was from the Recording Industry Association of America
Done


### Composition
Retitle to Background and composition
Done
Wikilink escapism on the quote text
Done
Wikilink and italicize Cuepoint per MOS:LINK2SECT
Done
You should also mention from the source about it being his favorite how he felt that the song served to summarize the album and place everything together
Done
"wistful and nostalgic."" → "wistful and nostalgic"." per MOS:QUOTE, re-invoking the ref here since it is a direct quote
Done
Audio sample rationale is fine, although add something like how the Vocaloid resembles a robot for more info suitably
Added some info that was in the Worlds article.
"and the human boy."" → "and the human boy"." re-invoking the ref too per usage of direct quote
Done
"evocative of fiction?"." → "evocative of fiction?"" since the question mark works in place of a full-stop
Done
"and described its use as the" → "and found its use of the" to be less repetitive
Done
Wikilink synth-pop only on the first occasion instead
Done
"feeling of the previous single," → "feeling of the album's lead single" with the wikilink
Done
"said that this was one" → "said that "Sad Machine" was one"
Done
Pipe Consequence of Sound to Consequence (publication)
Done
Add the release year of Manners in brackets
Done


### Release and reception
"to change the song" → "to change his selection" to be specific
Done
Re-invoke the ref after the first sentence since this also uses a direct quote
Done
Wikilink lyric video per MOS:LINK2SECT
Done
"on the 21st." → "on May 21."
Done
Pipe AXS to AXS (company)
Done
"highlighted it in" → "highlighted the song in"
Done
Remove pipe on Billboard
I usually follow MOS:REPEATLINK's permission of "[linking] a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence".
"considered it the third best" → "considered "Sad Machine" the third best"
Done
"with Harley Brown describing as" → "Harley Brown described the song as" starting a new sentence here
Done
Mention that the gold certification was from the Recording Industry Association of America and how it amassed 500,000 certified units
Done


### Charts
Good


### Certifications
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Done


### Release history
See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Done
Change Region to Various since it cannot be verified to be released in every single country; I guarantee this was not available in North Korea
Done
Add a ref column then ones to back up these being released in various countries
Done


### Notes
The "Clarity" vocals are not sampled
I don't understand your suggestion. However, I noticed that the reference doesn't support the note, and I'm 100% sure there was a source for it but I couldn't find it. So it's now removed.


### References
Copyvio score looks slick at 25.9%!!!
Ref 1 is safe since WP:MEDIUM says Cuepoint can be assessed for reliability and the interview checks out as reliable
Wikilink The Arizona Republic on ref 2
Done
Ref 3 should cite via Spotify with the wikilink and Sample Sized should not be included when you already cite Worlds Commentary
Done
Cite AllMusic as publisher instead on ref 8
Done
Pipe Consequence of Sound to Consequence (publication) on ref 9
Done
Remove Your EDM from the title of ref 12
It is part of the title and Worlds passed FAC with it, so I think it can be kept.
Cite AXS as publisher instead and pipe to AXS (company) on ref 16
Done


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed, this has a few sloppy areas but some is better than that like the lead and reception; nice work! --K. Peake 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: everything has been responded to! Skyshiftertalk 02:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Skyshifter: I would say you still need to add a sentence noting what the reviews here show the critics praised and regarding my typo on the notes section, I meant the source did not back it up but thanks for removing ahead of my correction! --K. Peake 07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: added! Skyshiftertalk 10:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 Pass now, very good that you added critical reception now summarizing although the repeat refs were not needed! --K. Peake 20:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)