Talk:Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 14, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 17, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| 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. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
![WikiProject icon](#/media/File:WikiProject_Songs_7"_record_on_sheet_music.png){kind=small}
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:Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MelissaFukunaga (talk · contribs) 12:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Miminity (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
I try to review this in the following days. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- There are a lot of blaring issue about this article especially some of the WP:ORs. I'm gonna fail this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Lead
- "Folk-pop" is uncited and not found anywhere else in the body, including the infobox
The music video was directed by Jorel Lising, portrays as a couple who are trapped in a time loop after one dies, with one retaining painful memories from their past relationship, played by KathNiel stars.
can be written along the line of[...]. It portrays a couple, played by love team KathNiel,[...]
. Current wording feels a little funky.The track is also subjected to the breakup of KathNiel
, is the song part of the breakup of KathNiel? Can you clarify this?
Background and release
In 2019, Ben&Ben members were featured in the film, titled LSS (Last Song Syndrome) and also performed at Wanderland Music and Arts Festival.
. What's the relevance of this to the song?The band also covered Bread's song "Make It with You" for the TV series of the same name
same as aboveAfter the critical and commercial success of the band's debut album Limasawa Street and the tour of the same name,
relevance and connection to the song. Source 3 is not about the article and connecting the album and the tour to the song seems like an WP:OR- The lyrics and the analysis are a word-for-word copy of the Daily Inquirer article. At least rewrite the analysis in your own word
[...] expresses his feelings after writing a song on Twitter [...].
add the on Twitter and maybe put the expression in quote.
Music video
- update the url status of source 11 (Nylon Manila) to dead as, I cannot access the original link.
- Source 13 links to an ABS-CBN article not a push.com.ph article
Use in media
- the song is not mentioned in the source Source 14
the song was used in a trailer and the soundtrack
. No mention in the source provided
Reception
- Source 8, the quote
most personal, painful song so far
was said by Benjamin per source not the author - Is Preen.ph reliable? The website looks like a blog to me.
- Move
Filipino science fiction romantic drama
into "Use in media", unlink Rewind and KathNiel.
Credits and personnel
- No Issue
Charts
- No Issue
Awards and nominations
- No Issue
Other Issues
- Source 13 and 16 is the same
Image
- Fair Use with a free use rationale
- No caption
| GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
|---|
|
|
Overall: |
 ·  ·  ·  |
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.
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:Sa Susunod na Habang Buhay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ArinAstrid (talk · contribs) 11:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi!. I will be reassessing this article. I will observe if the issues found in the previous review have been properly addressed.
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.[6]
Notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review
Criteria check
- Well-written:
- No issues with lead section.
- I rearranged the article's layout to comply with WP:SONGS.
- "Music video" section contains MOS:Puffery issues.
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | "Music video" section contains WP:Tone issues. | Fail |
| (b) (MoS) |
|
Fail |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | There is a list of references with properly cited sources. | Pass |
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The article is supported with reliable sources. | Pass |
| (c) (original research) | No original research | Pass |
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | No issues found by the copyvio detector | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The "Background and release" and "Reception" sections remain too brief, and a preliminary online search has not uncovered additional articles from reliable sources that could be used to expand them. | Fail |
| (b) (focused) | The article remains on topic. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The article was written without bias. | Pass |
| Comment | Result |
|---|---|
| No ongoing edit war | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The non-free image and audio sample properly follow the rules for using non-free content. | Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The image and audio sample used have suitable captions. | Pass |
Source spot check
Source spot check results |  Passed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reassessment of issues found in previous review
Reassessment check | All issues have been resolved |
|---|
|
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Fail | The article does not meet the criteria due to a few major issues. |
Discussion
- "Music video" section
- @ArinAstrid: Please rewrite the entire description of the contents of the music video. It should be understandable without seeing the actual music video. For example,
revealing Bernardo and Padilla intertwined in pink and orange
is not understandable at all. Make sure that the description can still be found in the supporting citation. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 5:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)- Fixed. ArinAstrid (talk) 6:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ArinAstrid: It is not fixed. It should be written in 3rd person POV, but you wrote it in 1st person. Also, when referring to a person's name that has already been mentioned in the section, it is standard practice to use only their last name. If multiple individuals share the same surname, use their first names instead to avoid confusion.
I recommend learning from Blank Space#Development and release to better understand how to write about a music video in Wikipedia. This is a featured article, so it's a good learning basis. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ArinAstrid: It is not fixed. It should be written in 3rd person POV, but you wrote it in 1st person. Also, when referring to a person's name that has already been mentioned in the section, it is standard practice to use only their last name. If multiple individuals share the same surname, use their first names instead to avoid confusion.
- Fixed. ArinAstrid (talk) 6:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ArinAstrid: Please rewrite the entire description of the contents of the music video. It should be understandable without seeing the actual music video. For example,
- "Background and release" and "Reception" sections
- @ArinAstrid: Please expand these sections to pass Criteria 3a as requested by the assisting experienced reviewer. If unable to do so, I unfortunately would have to fail this reassessment. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 5:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
toby
Hello. I am checking up on this review as part of the June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. This review was listed as without an experienced monitor.
Now, I do not edit music articles, but the Reception and Background and release sections are incredibly tiny. Reception especially should ideally be at least a full extended paragraph long, yet only one review is cited. This is not enough to pass criteria 3a and I recommend the reviewer place this On Hold until the nominator can expand both sections.
I may drop more comments later. toby in solidarity 02:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- And FYI, do not fail/pass this article until I drop my full thoughts on this review. I have not done so yet. toby in solidarity 06:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Tarlby I am finished reviewing the article. Please check it as soon as you can. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- @TheVoicelessWriter Apologies for the wait. I've been too occupied to edit for the past few days. toby in solidarity 16:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Review conduct + quality
- I see that you (the reviewer) have edited the article at least two dozen times. This is an overreach, as you should only directly edit the article to fix typos or perform completely uncontroversial fixes. Multiple of these edits appear to me to have overhauled certain sections, which is the nominator's job.
- Because of the above, the review appears from a glance to be superficial, as the changes done are not presented on this current page. The reviewer should aim to ask the nominator for changes rather than performing them themself.
- As I've said above, multiple major sections are incredibly short and do not pass the criteria.
- You do not have the check every source in an article for a spotcheck. Reviewers may check as few as 10% of the references, with 5 being a minimum.
- I'm glad that the you caught the confusing prose for describing the music video. I'll also add that multiple claims sound too poëtic and non-neutral. For example, Despite their backs turned, they appear calm and content, a visual that aligns with the song's opening narration.
- I will not conduct my own review of the article, as the result seems to be clear already; I recommend that the reviewer fail this nomination. toby in solidarity 16:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
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.