Talk:Da Funk

Da Funk was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 28, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Verify source

I had to remove this statement:

The track bears a heavy influence of G-Funk and said to be made after Bangalter & Homem-Christo had listened to west coast rap and g-funk for weeks time^[1]

The source in question is not English and seems to be self-published which violates WP:RELIABLE. A ISBN search doesn't provide further information about the statement made and I would love if information could be provided with a transcribe to English so I could allow the source to be added back in. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Strage, Fredrik. Strage Text". Sweden, Alfabeta Bokförlag, 2009 pg. 293 (ISBN 9789150111941)

30,000 copies in 1997. NONSENSE

THE single was a world hit It even reached the top 10 of the UK Charts. IT charted in germany after the success of AROUND THE WORLD and made it to # 65

and many more

it missed the US HOT 100 charts narrowly- It had healthy sales in the USA. But the HOT 100 CHARTS are based on Sales and Airplay. therefore AIRPLAY of the song was nearly zero

it reached #30 on the SINGLE SALES

therefore the INFORMATION 30,000 copies sold in 1997 is not reliable

Where it sold that sum ?

in the USA ?

IN THE UK

in france ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.46 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Da Funk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year of release

I'm not comprehending the removal of sourced comments about the single's release.

Da Funk was initially released by Soma Records in 1995. The duo signed with Virgin in 1996. The single was released again - look at the EP which has both Soma and Virgin logos on it - in 1996. These statements are sourced. You don't go by the "most cited" date especially with record labels because it could be anything noted as exceptions in the notability guidelines for music-related articles. You're going to get the 1997 date from any streaming site or seller because they are obtaining that from the respective label.

Regardless of the most cited, this history is important to note because it's when the duo got signed to a major label. The transition from the different labels and also maintaining exclusive rights to the music is essential to note. The timeline needs to be there. It's more critical in the Homework article also. – The Grid (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1995 is the first date and should be listed first. The next, most famous release, comes second. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent coverage

Are there any sources that cover this independently, as opposed to database entries, coverage of the whole album, or ranked song lists? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Da Funk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 15:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review this shortly! --K. Peake 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

While having the genres listed is good, the ones with the refs in the infobox should be written out with acid house in the body rather than invoking refs
Lengths do not appear to match the body
Mention only in the opening sentence that it is from their debut studio album, Homework (1997) and make the single release the second sentence
""Da Funk" received little attention" → "the song received little attention"
The classics sentence should be the end of the lead instead and remove the ref
"and its accompanying music video" → "and its music video" with the wikilink
"A reversed clip of "Da Funk"" → "A reversed clip of the song"
"American G-funk records: the bass was" → "American G-funk records: the bassline was" with the wikilinks
Wikilink gangsta rap
Pipe electro to Electro (music)
"Bangalter also stated that the song's melody is meant to be" → "member Thomas Bangalter also set the song's melody to be" with the wikilink
I would suggest for the acclaim and rankings, split into one sentence talking about what reviews praised about the song then another saying about rankings and listing some examples
Commercial performance should be mentioned here in the lead since the song charted in many countries later on

Background

Pipe 12-inch single to Twelve-inch single
The anthology appearance and "Funk Ad" do not appear to be sourced
"sold 30,000 copies." → "sold 30,000 copies up to the end of 1995." to be specific

Composition

"of gangsta rap. They tried to" → "of gangsta rap, trying to" as these sentences are too short on their own
Invoke the ref at the end of any sentences using direct quotes
"it to hip hop."" → "it to hip hop"." per MOS:QUOTE
Pipe electro to Electro (music)
"aesthetic they were trying" → "aesthetic that Daft Punk were trying" as this is a new para
The riff sentence does not appear to be sourced
Try to add more info around the actual elements of the comp; for example you can take the G-funk groove, lead line and distortion pedal from Mixdown Magazine

Critical reception

Re-word the Music Week review to something like "the song is a refreshing release for anyone who has been" before the quote starts to avoid overquoting
"the French duo."" → "the French duo"." per MOS:QUOTE
[16] should be invoked at the first sentence of the review too
Put some of the NME review into your own words per WP:QUOTEFARM
"declared it as" → "declared the song as"
Put some of the ShortList review into your own words too per previous

Commercial performance

Please create this section since the charts table has a lot of listings

Music video

Img looks good!
Wikilink music video
I understand the synopsis does not need sources, however you need to add a source regarding the director
Pipe anthropomorphic to anthropomorphism
Remove overly obvious wikilink on New York City
"a pair of children. He is" → "a pair of children, then he is"
"His boombox annoys a bookseller on the sidewalk from whom Charles" → "Charles' boombox annoys a bookseller on the sidewalk from whom he"
Add a dash before Tony Maxwell on the quote box to signify this is what he said himself and wikilink too
"Thomas Bangalter has stated that" → "Bangalter has stated that"

Impact and legacy

"the number one single" can you elaborate please – what year(s) or genre was this list for?
Maybe it would do good to add some of the quotes from at least a few of the rankings?
Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork and pipe to Pitchfork (website)
"In 2011, it was featured" → "In 2011, the song was featured" but this is not sourced
"Same year," → "In the same year,"
Remove wikilink on NME
"listed it in their" → "listed the track in their"
"Same year," → "In the same year,"

Track listing

Good

Charts

Good

Certifications

Good

Release history

Centre the ref column

References

Copyvio score looks too high at 47.6%; please cut down the quote box from Vice to sort this out
NPR Music → NPR on ref 1
Remove the author from ref 2
Pipe IPC Magazines Ltd to TI Media on ref 6
What exactly makes Resident Advisor a reliable source on ref 5?
theguardian.com → The Guardian with the wikilink on ref 7
Pipe About.com to Dotdash Meredith and the date 2014-07-10 should be formatted consistently with the other refs on ref 9
Cite BBC News as publisher with the wikilink on ref 10
Pipe Vice to Vice (magazine) on ref 20
Ref 21 is usurped and the archive will not load
Add a work/publisher to ref 22
Wikilink SNEP to itself on ref 48
Wikilink Radio & Records on ref 54

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; I look forward to your response! --K. Peake 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse: I understand you may be busy however it has been 11 days now, any updates on this please since I may unfortunately have to fail if not? --K. Peake 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fail at this point. I've been overloaded with schoolwork. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 20:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse ✗ Fail now, if you re-nominate don't feel afraid to mention me and I'll review again! --K. Peake 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[StrageText-1] Strage, Fredrik. Strage Text". Sweden, Alfabeta Bokförlag, 2009 pg. 293 (ISBN 9789150111941)

[1]