Talk:Don't Forget (Sky Ferreira song)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by CAVincent in topic "but not why it was controversial"
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Don't Forget (Sky Ferreira song) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 SL93 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that a negative review of Sky Ferreira's "Don't Forget" on Pitchfork caused a large amount of controversy? Source: Paper
Created by VersaceSpace (talk). Self-nominated at 19:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
- Passing comment: It would be nice if the article included what the negative review said. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge: Addressed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Please change the link to
[[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]. I also agree with the comment above that it would be nice if the article explained what the controversy was. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)- Whoops, surprised I made that first error tbh. I explained what the review said already, is there something else you'd like me to say? GoingBatty —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- You kindly detailed what the reviewer stated, but not why it was controversial. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- The cited source doesn't explain this. It seems obvious to me that a negative opinion would be the only reason a song-review would be controversial, and the content of the review is noted there. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- You kindly detailed what the reviewer stated, but not why it was controversial. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Whoops, surprised I made that first error tbh. I explained what the review said already, is there something else you'd like me to say? GoingBatty —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. Good to go.--Launchballer 17:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
"but not why it was controversial"
editIt wouldn't really matter if it wasn't the DYK hook, but having chosen to use the controversy as the hook then it should have been explained. It isn't remotely obvious to me that a negative review, per se, would be controversial. As negative reviews go, calling a song bland and unmemorable seems, itself, pretty bland and unmemorable. I did a bit of googling trying to figure out the controversy. It does appear that there are thin-skinned fans upset about the existence of a non-glowing review, but that hardly appears to rise to the level of controversy. CAVincent (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)