Talk:Tilaluha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tilaluha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from (including jeepney and cyberlibel) other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Tilaluha has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 13, 2025 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Filipino boy band SB19 considered disbandment after their debut single "Tilaluha" saw little success?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines: Music Low‑importance Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philippine music task force (assessed as Low-importance). 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. R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Royiswariii talk 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Filipino boy band SB19 once considered disbandment after their debut single "Tilaluha" saw little success upon release?

• Source: Lagarde, Shai (April 14, 2021). "SB19 Gears Up for World Domination". GMA News. Archived from the original on December 19, 2024. Retrieved December 19, 2024.

• Reviewed:

Created by Relayed (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

– Relayed (t • c) 12:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Good work on the article, Relayed! It looks in excellent shape and is well-sourced; no copyvios found, either. Hook is interesting, because if they disbanded, then they wouldn't become one of the top stars of Philippine pop music today! ~ Tails Wx 01:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tails Wx! Thanks for reviewing the hook! – Relayed (t • c) 08:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Relayed (talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will review this article over today! --K. Peake 13:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking the review. I will be looking forward to it. – Relayed (t • c) 04:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

• Infobox looks good!
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on drums
• Make the release sentence the third one instead
• "and express the want" → "expressing the want"
  • I might disagree with this. "with lyrics that reference unrequited love and a breakup and expressing the want to escape from the sorrow the person has gone through" could be "unrequited love, a breakup, and expressing" or as is since express and reference can be both verbs for the lyrics RFNirmala (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "received weak reception" → "received a weak reception"
• ""Tilaluha" received mixed responses" → "the song received mixed responses"
• "praised the band's vocals and the song's production and lyrical content but" → "praised SB19's vocals, the production, and the lyrical content, but"
• Rather than several set lists and events, mention after including what a few of these were named

Background and release

• "also increase in" → "also increasing in"
• Where is the local-based pop groups being unpopular sourced?
• The three hundred auditionees are not sourced
• ""Tilaluha" was re-released by Sony Music Philippines on February 1, 2020." → "they re-released "Tilaluha" on February 1." to be less repetitive

Composition and lyrics

• "composed by Geong Seong Han[A]" → "composed by Geong[A]"
• Shouldn't the musical description sentence be the last of the first para instead as that is quite short and the second one would then be only about lyrics?
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on drums
• Wikilink string section to its own article instead
• [6][3] should either be in numerical order or move [3] to being after the vocal harmonies clause
• "is about an" → "are about an"
• "and the person's desire to" → "and their desire to" to avoid usage of the person terminology
• "akong limutin ka"" → "akong limutin ka."" and place the punctuation inside for the English quote too since this is a full sentence in the source
• [20] should only be invoked at the end of the last sentence

Reception

• "describing the song further as "beautiful and underrated" overall." → "finalizing that the song is beautiful and underrated." to be less repetitive and the fact these two words are not used next to each other in the source
• Rappler should not be italicised
• "felt like it was written" → "felt like they were written"
• "to the band establishing" → "to SB19 establishing" since this is a new para
• The contrast to "Tilahula" is not mentioned by the sources and [24] only calls Get In The Zone dance-pop
• Wikilink dance-pop to itself instead
• "which made them achieve" → "making SB19 achieve"
  • Should I also change the marked word for consistency? RFNirmala (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

• Img looks good!
• To be less repetitive than mentioning 2021 for each concert, I would advise to start this portion of the first sentence as "of several concerts by SB19, including 2021's"
• "the band recorded a performance" → "SB19 recorded a performance"

Credits and personnel

• Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel

Release history

• How do the references back up a release in various territories?

  I have added two more locales of the same URL for the Apple Music citation; as for the Spotify one, I am not entirely sure what I can do to support its release on various territories since Spotify uses a different region-lock mechanic. – Relayed (t • c) 14:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• The information before the first clause of Note B is not sourced by [2]

References

• Copyvio score looks amazing at around 9%!!!
• Ref 2's archive is using the same one as ref 20 in error
• Either use GMA Integrated News or GMA News for refs 2, 21 and 22 to be consistent as these are all on the same website

  I have reverted RFN's edit for this one. I afraid that the sources were published at different times with a different publisher name. Pre-2022, the publisher name was GMA News, thus Lagarde (2021) should have "GMA News" on its parameter. Sometime in October 2022, they changed their identity to "GMA Integrated News", thus sources posted in 2024 was written that way (as per Template:Cite_web#Publisher). – Relayed (t • c) 14:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite ABS-CBN News as publisher to ref 9
• Maybe it would benefit if you added various countries' citations to ref 16
• Cite Rappler as publisher instead on refs 20, 23 and 26

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; should have been submitted earlier but my browser hit a technical error briefly! --K. Peake 15:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Kyle! Thanks for reviewing the article. Still remembered you from the Gento (song) review last time. Thank you very much for the comments; I appreciate it a lot. I'll go over them as soon as possible once I find time to do so. Probably the latest I could address these issues is on Thursday because of other IRL obligations. – Relayed (t • c) 17:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Kyle Peake and @Relayed! I worked on some of the points such as copy-editing and publisher consistency in references to help the process. Strike them out if they're good, ping me for any concerns. Hope this GA passes as soon ass possible. RFNirmala (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RFNirmala I have crossed off where you have addressed my points now, please go over the remaining points when you are free! --K. Peake 09:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kyle Peake I'll let nominator do the content and sourcing points. I did another run on this review, you could check :) RFNirmala (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Kyle Peake and RFNirmala. I believe I have addressed everything else. For those points I was not able to address directly, I have left my response above. Thank you for your assistance, RFN. Let me know if you have anything else, Kyle. – Relayed (t • c) 14:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Relayed  Pass now, I copyedited the one instance where the article should use marking instead of marked for you. --K. Peake 08:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Kyle! – Relayed (t • c) 08:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.