Talk:Hyperpop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hyperpop in pop culture

I realize the article already has a section for "Popularity" of Hyperpop, but there's quite a lack of recent Hyperpop coverage in popular culture in the Wiki article. For example, we have a few sources to cite about popular Hyperpop artists breaking into mainstream popular culture, like ericdoa[1] and Laura Les[2] both being featured in the TV Show Euphoria, which averages 16.3 million viewers in current episodes[3] (2022). Additionally, I think we could site the Lollapalooza 2022 lineup[4] featuring 6 "Hyperpop adjacent" artists (Charli XCX, 100 Gecs, Midwxst, ericdoa, Underscores, Prentiss, Glaive). TrumanBrown

Hyperpop umbrella of genres

Artists that Classify as Hyperpop

Emo?!

Undue weight

Newer artists/style that should be addressed

Orphaned references in Hyperpop

Bubblegum Bass & Origins

Cleanup

Origins of the Spotify "hyperpop" playlist

HexD article

Should I get rid of the Novagang section of Digicore?

Dubious

Article's coverage of hyperpop stops at 2021

"Cade Clair" listed at Redirects for discussion

What is the difference between Digicore and Glitchcore?

Nominator: Aradicus77 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Dizzycheekchewer (talk · contribs) 18:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'll review this article.

I'll start with some broadstrokes things I notice and will then do some citation spotchecking. I am too wordy by nature, so I apologize in advance.

  • First some general formatting/Criteria 1 notes. Not all of these are absolutely necessary for meeting the GA criteria, but they would all very much contribute to its improvement along those lines.
    • The lead, as is, is very long and not particularly targeted, per MOS: Lead. The second and third paragraphs especially have too much detail that goes beyond nutshell coverage. Really the second graph could be just the first sentence and the last sentence, with the remainder being reserved for the body of the article. Ditto with the third graph, which only really contributes its first sentence ("hyperpop started to decline") to the nutshell coverage of the subject. The second sentence there doesn't add much (a list of other contemporary microgenres without much stated connection to hyperpop) and the third sentence is a piece of trivia that would belong in the body.
    • I'd encourage you also to take a more authoritative tone throughout. The use of outside viewpoints to build the picture of your subject is ofc necessary, but you also need to have an encyclopedic style. So the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section begins with "According to" some person and a specific quote about what hyperpop is not. That sentence may be perfect as is for later in the section, but the graph is better suited with a more direct topic sentence that introduces the reader to the broad-strokes and then narrows down to quotes from music pundits or specific traits. There are a couple other instances where quotes are a bit over-used and/or graphs are front-loaded with overly specific bits, rather than a general summary of the viewpoints. Just in the Characteristics section, something like graph 2 is a better model, where it starts with "hyperpop has association with LGBTQ" then it goes into individual details.
    • There are also a lot of direct quotations, not all of which seem to meet MOS:Quote. Some—especially one-word quotes—read close to scare-quoting though I know that's not the intention at all. I would look through and consider what needs quoting and what can be just as easily paraphrased, with proper attribution. MOS: Quote is not absolutely necessary for GA qualification, but there could be individual instances that may cross the line, so I'd encourage a look through them all.
    • The section "Background" confuses me a little and seems to foretell and/or replicate the "origins" subsection of the History section. I don't know if it all fits there or if some aspects belong in "Characteristics" or even "Etymology," but the progression of sections as is doesn't quite mesh well to my eyes. It (and looking at the Talk page) leads me to think that this was at one point a somewhat unstable article and could use some holistic ironing, with the "background" section possibly being vestigial.
    • Lastly, avoid duplication anywhere but the lead. There are, for example, multiple references to Szabo and ENAO that reiterate the same basic points about them unnecessarily.
  • The citations generally seem in order and I will do some spotchecking, but a couple things
    • There's multiple references to student-run news orgs (I see at least The Ithacan and the NC radio one, but could be others). I would discourage the usage of those sources, as WP:RSSM only really considers them usable on a case-by-case basis and even then, mostly for specific campus-related events or individuals.
    • Ditto with a couple other sources, including VirtualHumans.com (which I can't find reference to on WP, but which seems to be clearly unreliable—no stated content policy, mostly written by one improperly attributed writer, and featuring a prominent link to a website that sells AI influencer tech—and Vice, which is yellow on WP's source scale but is probably usable, if necessary, here.
    • You almost certainly don't need as many explicit references to the authors of the articles you cite. The inline citation should suffice most of the time. This of course goes hand-in-hand with my early comment about quote overuse, as quotes do better with in-text attribution.
  • I don't have a strong feeling about it and it wouldn't affect GA value, but BritEng doesn't seem proper, especially when its a coinage by American Spotify employees and the American duo 100 gecs is considered the breakthrough act. It also doesn't seem to be followed throughout (I didn't do a deep dive on that basis, but "colorful" rather than "colourful" is used.)
  • The last section seems like it has value, but kind of works as a repository of other information that is a)not directly related to hyperpop and b) covered on its own pages. Right now it butts up against GA criteria for broad (but not out of scope) coverage. Could do well as a list/see also and/or with more roots back to hyperpop specifically.

Again, apologies for the length. I wanted to provide this preliminary view for you to provide some fixes. Feel free to comment when you've responded to them and I'll take another look and do a full proportional spotcheck of the citations. I don't think it's far off from GA qualification. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

PC Music is a british record label which is where hyperpop grew out of.
The background section pertains to what music writers have called pre-hyperpop but the actual origins of the genre start with Charli XCX in 2016. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Aradicus77
  • Yes I'm aware of PC Music and different British hyperpop artists. If you want to stick with the BritEng, it makes no difference to me, but the article a) says the term came from American Spotify ppl and b) associates 100 gecs with the explosion of hyperpop as a genre. If it were an article just about Charli/AG Cook/PC Music etc. BritEng would be obvious. Either way that was (explicitly) a very minor suggestion I had, not something worth discussing in detail. If you think the one is better, I would encourage you to make it consistent throughout though, again, it has little to no bearing on GA status.
  • Whether or not that's the case (the article currently traces it to "the early 2010s" with Vroom Vroom at the tail-end of its origins), having the two sections is redundant. If "pre-hyperpop" is a relevant, documented phrase or phase, then it would still belong either in the origins subsection or a more conclusive background section. If you want to start the history of hyperpop with its forerunners (pre-hyperpop or other inspirations) that's valid. If you want to start the history of hyperpop with its identification as such (with forerunners in the separate Background section), that's valid too. But having both a pre-history and then a history that starts with a pre-history muddles the section progression. Imagine someone skimming the article and getting bogged down with the less-than-legible chronology
That said, it's been nearly a week and there's been no visible effort to address the feedback—even the urgent and easy to fix problems like iffy sources (student-run news, AI website, heavy reliance on Vice) have been left untouched. And your response here has been to pick at relatively small critiques. I'm not here to attack the article or your efforts, I'm trying to help the article reach the GA standards. If you don't find value there, I don't know how much use this process can be.
Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
I think valid concerns is the student run news AI website and reliance on VICE but you will have to point these out to me (mainly the first 2) because I'm not sure which you are referring to as that. I could dial back the quotations as well but yeah I don't see the point of cutting down the quotations to the point that a lot of the context is gone or removing the background section which was the best solution to keeping all mentions of pre-2016 / PC Music / Charli XCX artists being referred to as hyperpop, unless you want it renamed to something better? I only called it "Background" because someone made a similar edit to Indie rock.Aradicus77 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
btw what I found less constructive was changing the lead because it was too specific. It feels most informative and outlines everything to know about the genre. Kieran-Press Reynolds has said the genre has become a "macrogenre". So it's equal for the lead to be as big as pages like Hip-hop or Rock music Aradicus77 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
For me not using an authorative tone, that has to do with the fact that I've been hounded last few months for it so now focus more on direct quotations since I have no clue what tone people would want to be on the article without being accused of original research or the like. Though I have now gone back to more bold paraphrasing due to complaints of over quoting. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and that you've put in a lot of work on the article so far, but it doesn't seem like you've properly opened yourself to the review process. I would strongly encourage you to review the good article criteria.
It's ultimately your responsibility as nominator to make sure the article meets the criteria (ideally before you submit). If you don't, I try to recommend changes to help you reach that standard. It doesn't really matter if something I flag is something you contributed or something that a previous editor contributed, it's all part of the article. And I tried to give details (I, for example, explicitly pointed out multiple iffy sources, but they still remain), but it's not necessarily something where I give you line-by-line instructions.
Either way, it's still not far off, but it's not there now. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
@Aradicus77 Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I've given a lot of time and space to this review, but unfortunately reviewer has been unresponsive and combative about recommended fixes. There are currently iffy sources used and issues with the structure and content. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
This might be useful to run as a double DYK hook with Kim Petras, so I'll take a look at this myself in the next couple of days. I'll offer a preliminary comment that Vice is listed at WP:NPPSG as "more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics", so is probably fine here.--Launchballer 07:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Dariacore description

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI