This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Inna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Inna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InnaWikipedia:WikiProject InnaTemplate:WikiProject InnaInna
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Why is Alexandru Cotoi listed as a producer when it is only sourced that Inna resided with him while working on the album?
He is one of the record's producers per album credits (Spotify) and yes, he had been residing with her alongside all other writers and producers. They were all maing songs while in the villa.
It has not been directly sourced anywhere in the body that he is a producer, just that he resided with Inna; add sourcing. --K. Peake08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to source such things as a person's occupation if they have their own article. Technically, I'd have to source that Inna is a singer, too, but that doesn't make any sense since she has her own article which people can access and in which this fact is sourced. The same goes for Alexandru Cotoi. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in the span of three weeks" → "over the course of three weeks"
"where the singer resided with Romanian songwriters and producers" → "where Inna resided with" because the introduction is not needed in the lead for the musicians when it is written in the body
You do not use this comma when you have "the"; it is was "an EP", then the comma would've been correct.
"the EP was ultimately scrapped following" → "However, the EP was ultimately scrapped after" as a new sentence
"Heartbreaker was not supported" → "The album was not supported"
"on 2 December 2020." → "in December 2020."
You should write about the performance in the creation and release section and move the ref there so it is sourced in the body, though it is fine to still keep the mention here in the lead
I thought about how to write about the performance in the body, but it doesn't fit anywhere. Maybe if she releases music videos and stuff, I'll make a "Promotion" section, but rn I think it's fine for this to stay in the lead. Exceptions like this are allowed.
Retitle to Background and composition, with the comp info being moved here
"Composition and reception" is fine as it is; all the composition info is taken from the two reviews. For another example where such a section exists, see this.
Retitle to Critical reception after you have moved the composition info; I suggested doing this because comp is supposed to come after background but sections should not only be one para, so you can merge that with the current background section
See my comments above. Such sections can exist if there is a valid reason for it, and there is in this case.
I'm sorry to be disagreeing again, but I think doing it that way would bring a lot of repetition in the section. As it stands now, the section starts with an 'overall' commentary by Muuse, which is followed by their and InfoMusic's commentary on each track. The composition info comes only from the two reviews, and the section details both their commentary and composition info tracklist-wise, so there is definitely a certain structure. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Bradley Stern of MuuMuse called" → "Stern called" since this will be the second mention of him in the proposed order
See comment above.
"new body of work" → "new body of work with Heartbreaker"
"by adding the" → "by not adding the" since that is what happened and what the source actually says
Whoops, sorry this was my mistake :)
"further applauded Heartbreaker's" → "further applauded the album's"
"the votes immediately"." → "the votes immediately."" since those are full sentences quoted
Remove wikilink on EDM
"written in both English" → "that are written in both English"
"with Stern commenting" → "with Bradley Stern of MuuMuse commenting" due to this part being set to get moved to comp earlier in the article
"is followed by "Heartbreaker"," → "is followed by the title track "Heartbreaker","
The fact he picked it as a highlight belongs in critical reception while the rest should be in comp, but can be mentioned with different wording somewhat in reception to show why/how he praised those things
See comment above.
The "Thicky" opinion should remain in reception and be next to the rest of Stern's review
WP:OVERLINK of YouTube on refs 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 31
I don't agree with this. The user may be clicking on ref 15 first and not ref 14. If YouTube is only linked on firs instance on ref 14, then the user would not have the link on ref 15, which is odd.
Remove Free Listening on SoundCloud from the title of ref 22
WP:OVERLINK of Instagram on ref 24
Remove ref 26 and replace all places where it is invoked with ref 28, as that is a duplicate for "Heartbreaker" and includes the citation listed by song name
I do not get it. Ref 26 is a link to the album itself, an ref 28 to each individual track's "single" release on iTunes. Why would these two refs be the same?
WP:OVERLINK of SoundCloud on ref 27 and remove Free Listening on SoundCloud from the title
Regarding the overlink comment, see my comment on the YouTube issue above.
iTunes Store → Apple Music (AU) on ref 28, also remove the wikilink for the first citation
Apple Music should be linked on first instance as the user may be clicking on ref 28 first without any context and may want to have the link.
Replace ref 30 with the Tidal credits because Spotify is not a reliable source
Are you sure Spotify is not reliable? It's a music service just like Tidal and actually displays the credits for this album; I can't see any credits on Tidal.
Alright, I may agree, but I technically cannot see any credits on Tidal. Could you possibly check the source yourself? Cause when I click on the three dots next to each track, no credits show up (unlike Spotify). Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source is fine to be used because it shows the credits when you add that word to the end of the URL; I should've cited the Tidal URL with listen in it instead of browse initially to provide the correct source for usage. I have added the source for you now. --K. Peake10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the response even though it is somewhat delayed; I am not ready to pass this article yet, though have made comments above where things still need fixing and crossed out any suggestions I made that have been decided on by me as unnecessary. --K. Peake08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]