Wikipedia:Peer review/Inspired (song)/archive1

Inspired (song)

.

Hello everyone! I would like to put this article through the FAC process at the beginning of next year, and I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dan56

Synthesis
I see many instances of multiple references citing single sentences. This is not a critical concern when verifying individual facts whose validity is unaffected by being joined together (like recording location and mixing credit), but I see some where the contents of one source are synthesized with those of a second source to form original ideas not found in any one source: "Some media outlets...", "Critics praised the song's message as hopeful...", Some questioned.... You can summarize the article as a whole this way in the lead (Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary), but within the article, you should attribute each opinion individually, unless you can find a source that says these things about "some media outlets" and "critics", i.e. sources that comment on consensus or observe trends in the reception. If no sources do this, then avoid summarizing them this way in the article body. Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback on this part. I have a few questions about it. How is it synthesis to write a sentence on a topic that multiple reviewers address and the cite the sources to support that? Would it be preferable to have these sentences be standalone without the references and have the subsequent sentences be used to support it? To my knowledge, the application of of Wikipedia:SYNTH is still a rather contested issue, particularly regarding articles on music, television, and film. Your comments primarily deal with the "Reception" section; when I have developed these sections in the past, I have consulted Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. I am already aware that it is an essay rather than a policy. I have tried to follow that essay's advice to organize through thematic elements and topic sentences to create a more cohesion. If you have the time, @Mike Christie:, I would greatly appreciate your input here on this matter. I hope that I do not come across as rude, as I am genuinely trying to learn more about this. I have no issue with removing those parts if necessary, but I would rather have a discussion on it first. Again, thank you for the feedback! Aoba47 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

With the sentence about "critics praising the song as hopeful" in particular, maybe the three sources intimate this ("powerful", "a message to find the strength within yourself", "challenge"), but I don't see where they explicitly say the song is hopeful; only Teen Vogue comes close by calling its message "uplifting". Furthermore, two of these sources do not appear as professional music critics but rather columnists passively commenting on a music story for otherwise non-music magazines: fashion, trends, celebrity news, which Miley Cirus is at the intersection of, thus the commentary (Suzannah Weiss is more of a feminist blogger than a music critic, and she is not reviewing the song but rather reporting a story: the performance on Today; Dana Getz is an entertainment reporter). These sources should be contexualized in the text, not labeled collectively as "critics". And for the sentence on "sincere", Breihan is cited, but his commentary specific to the song is only that it is a "wet noodle" (flaccid, ineffective), rather than a commentary on the sincerity of the lyrics. More contentious is "received a mixed response"; how can you quantify this objectively? (Billboard and Taste of Country appear only to appraise the father reference as a gesture, not as a work of art or its artistic merits). And of the three that are cited for commentary on the father reference, only one is depicted as a negative critique, which makes it (mathematically) in the minority (so the general response could be regarded as positive?) In sum, it is synthesis when you are implying a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the sources. No source says this "received a mixed response" or that "was praised by critics as hopeful". These conclusions are questionable, vulnerable to being contested, challenged by editors, reworded to suit a variety of interpretations the sources could intimate: "Critics praised the song's politics", "The song was positively received by fashion outlets". And if this article is to be judged by FA standards, then these sentences need to be rectified. Dan56 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the essay you cited. While I agree it is good advice to organize commentary thematically and introduce it with a generalization, you should not feel compelled to make them up or go beyond the "literature". Often, an article's content is limited by the sources available to it. Maybe this is the case with this article's topic, and you should opt for a simpler approach; paragraph for positive commentary, paragraph for negative commentary. But I do not have the same familiarity with the sources that you do, so this is just an idea. Dan56 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for the ping. I think you're right to say there's a range of opinions on SYNTH, and discussions of critical reception are a particularly difficult area, because it's natural to group related commentary. It's particularly difficult to justify summary statements such as "Most critics...". If you don't have a very broad range of reviews to look at, including multiple national-level reviewers in both newspapers and specialist publications, then you need something like a specific statement from a reliable source, or a summarizing source such as Metacritic. I think it would also be possible to say this with a smaller number of reviews if you can be confident you've seen the majority of reviews, but it's not as safe a statement and is more likely to be challenged. I think "mixed response" is usually easier to justify. If a couple of national newspapers praise something, and a couple of others criticize it, you're on safer ground, but again the more sources you can cite the safer you are, and it's sometimes better to avoid the summative statements.

The most difficult situation is when you have a relatively small number of sources which are not from high-prestige publications -- this is often the case for music articles. In those cases grouping is still possible but you may have trouble making sensible summarizing statements. Dan's specific comments above seem to me to take the right approach (I haven't looked at the sources themselves): for example, is "hopeful" the right word for a summary statement if only one critic calls it "uplifting"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie:@Dan56: Thank you for the responses. That makes sense to me, and I have revised the "Reception" section accordingly. I had intended the section to be divided between the first paragraph on positive reviews and the second on the negative reviews in the original version anyway. I added a more generic topic sentence for both paragraphs to make it clearer. Let me know if that helps and needs further improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Years in dates
After the first mention of a date's year in a paragraph, you do not need to repeat the year in subsequent dates in the same paragraph if the year is the same, as I see is done in the second paragraph of "Background and release" and "Live performances". Dan56 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eurohunter

Promotional single

How publicly released single can be the promotional single? Spin says that promotional single was released in June and dont tells about "official" digital release which could occur later on 9 June. Eurohunter (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: The following sentence (On June 9, 2017, RCA released "Inspired" as a promotional single from Younger Now.) in question from the "Background and release" is supported through two sources. The Spin reference is used to support the song's classification as a promotional single, while the Apple Music one is for the release date. It appears that you have overlooked the Apple Music source. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: How do you know Spin says about public digital release release from 9 June but not about different promo release release earlier in June? Public digital release just breaks the definition of promotional single. Eurohunter (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I am not sure that I understand what you mean. I do not see how releasing a song as a promotional single and making it available for people to purchase through a digital download is contradictory? Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Simply saying promotional singles aren't avaiable publically. Eurohunter (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I am wondering if that is an older definition of the word prior to digital releases and streaming. I have seen the terminology "promotional single" frequently used with songs released by an artist to promote an upcoming albums, which did not received a full single-release in terms of promotion. For instance, media outlets have referenced Ariana Grande's "Imagine" as a promotional single for her upcoming album Thank U, Next, and the song is available for purchase. It is most likely an instance in which "promotional single" is being used for cases that were previously known as a "buzz single" or an "advance single", which are both discussed in the promotional recording article. I know that difference between the phrases "single" and "promotional single" has been a matter of debate though on several other music-related articles. It doesn't help that media outlets/music critics are quick to label releases as single or promotional singles, and sometimes the artist and/or their record label do not clarify the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: There are two types of singles: 1-2 track single and 5-8 track maxi single (most cases). For digital singles promotional versions are released still on CD or digitally (not publically). Where is it said that "Imagine" was a promotional single (I can't see information in the article so I couldn't find sources)? "buzz single", "advance single"? Did you got it from Promotional recording article? There are no sources and it breaks definition of promotional release. Eurohunter (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Eurohunter: I used "Imagine" as an example of how the term "promotional single" is frequently used in references to singles released prior to the album's release. That is not sourced in this article (for obvious reasons, as this article is about a Miley Cyrus song), but again, it was just an example. Another example is how "Me & the Rhythm" is a promotional single. I did not use the promotional recording article when labeling this song a promotional single; I used a source and used in the article accordingly. I have never heard your definition (Simply saying promotional singles aren't available publicly) for a promotional single before. Where are you getting that from? Again, maybe it is just a changes in the time as music is shifting from physical releases to digital. I am just going off what the source tells me, which clearly describes "Inspired" as a promotional single. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• The article says the following about the song's release: (On the album credits for Younger Now, Yoel is credited with co-producing album singles “Malibu” and “Younger Now,” as well as the promotional single “Inspired.”) and (In June, Cyrus released promotional single “Inspired” via digital download.). Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• This source is not enough because as I said it doesn't confirms that it is the same release so with this source we know that promotional single was released somewhere in June and we also know that it was released publicaly as single via iTunes on 7 June (two different releases). Eurohunter (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since this is going in circles, I will wait for other contributors to comment on it. There is not anything (at least to my knowledge) to prove/support there are two separate or multiple releases for this song as you claim. We will just have to agree to disagree over the definition of a "promotional single". From your point of view, a "promotional single" cannot be made commercially available, but I know there are dozens of songs that were commercially released prior to an album's launch that were promoted as "promotional singles" and referenced as such by music critics. Inspired has been referenced as a "promotional single" by the following sources: Contactmusic.com and iHeartRadio. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Apologies for pinging you again, but maybe you have some insight on this matter? Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are unambiguous that this is a promotional single, so the issue seems to be what that means, and whether there was a separate "non-promotional" release. Barring some source that makes it clear there was a separate release, the text in the article seems well-supported by the sources. With physical singles the pressing and sleeve of a promotional release used to be different, but with digital downloads that's no longer the case, so it's hard to see the difference -- are promotional digital releases restricted somehow so the general public can't download them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. To the best of my knowledge, a promotional digital release is still made available to the public, in that they can purchase it or stream it. Aoba47 (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64

I'll get to this soon. JOEBRO64 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to take so long on this. Here's what stood out:

• "Inspired" was first made available for digital download... First, I'd change the link to music download. Second, "digital" is tautological; all downloads are digital.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Critics had a mixed response to the song. Why?

• I had originally included the reasons in the lead, but after previous commentators in this peer review raised WP:SYNTH concerns about similar sentences in the "Reception" section, I also removed those parts from the lead. I could definitely add that back in though. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The single's cover photograph was taken by the singer's fiancé, Liam Hemsworth... I'd replace "the singer" with either "Cyrus" or "her", for concision

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Inspired" is a country ballad lasting three minutes and 21 seconds. Two number formats shouldn't be used in one sentence, pick one or the other

• But I thought it was a standard to use numerals for numbers over ten? Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Ringer should be italicized, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Inspired" received positive reviews following its release. Two things here. In the lead, you said reviews were mixed, not positive. Also, "following its release" is pointless; all reviews are post-release.

• I used mixed in the lead as this section covers both the positive and the negative reviews of the song. Since the song received both, it had a mixed response overall. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Other critics had a more negative response for "Inspired". Bin "for 'Inspired'."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise that's it. Great job. JOEBRO64 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: Thank you for the comments! And no worries about taking your time. I hope you are having a great start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)