Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Make Me Like You/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 [1].
Make Me Like You edit
This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album This Is What the Truth Feels Like. I have spent a lot of my time expanding this article to its fullest potential and believe it would make for an excellent FA candidate, hence why I'm here now. I am willing to do anything for to achieve the FA status. It underwent a copyedit and I have tried to model it after other FA songs by similar artists. Any comments would be extremely appreciated. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from AJona1992
|
|---|
|
- Note: User is on vacation until early October and may not respond here until then. Carbrera (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak
|
|---|
@Carbrera: Everything else looks OK. Apart from potential weird comma issues, there's nothing more. A VERY GOOD article. I wish you all the success with it. You may fix my issues and I will support this. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Carbrera: With my issues being resolved, I now support this nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aoba47
|
|---|
@Carbrera: Once you address all of my comments, I will provide my final comments about this. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Mymis
|
|---|
Also:
|
Resolved comments from Tintor2
|
|---|
After that I don't have no more issues. I will support the article if you solve them. Also I've nominated an article, Allen Walker, for FA here and I would appreciate feedback. Anyway, good luck with this article.
|
Resolved comments from SomeoneNamedDerek
|
|---|
Lead:
Production and release:
Composition and lyrics:
Critical reception:
Commercial performance:
Music video:
Live performances:
Credits and personnel:
—SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
- Awesome work! The quality of the article allows for my support for the nomination. Best of luck! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on prose (nothing else checked once I saw the state of the prose) Worryingly, I see five supports above but a quick read reveals that the article contains prose such as "The song lasts for a duration of three minutes and thirty-six seconds" [spot the redundant words], "According to Daniel Kreps, writing for Rolling Stone, its sounds are 'refreshing' and favorably referred to the lyrics as "all about renewal" [the sentence makes no sense], and "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with." [err...] This nomination really needs some close attention from experienced eyes, because the prose cannot be said to be "engaging and of a professional standard". These are examples only, so please don't fix these three sentences alone and then think that the problem is solved. I suggest that you read every sentence out loud, asking yourself as you do so whether what you have written makes sense, whether it sounds polished, whether you're repeating yourself, whether you can say the same thing in fewer words, etc. As examples of these last two points:
- in the "production and release" section, you twice mention the album and that the single is from, but only tell us on the second occasion that it's her third album, so you could combine this point with the album's first mention and then call it "the album" the next time;
- you say words to the effect of "This song was the second single from the album; something else was going to be the single to follow the first single, but then this song was chosen instead." Even assuming we need to know that it wasn't the original choice as second single, the whole idea can be expressed in fewer words
- Your list of dates of release can be trimmed (combine sentences so that you don't have "mainstream radio" twice in successive sentences; in any event, avoid constructions like "Five weeks later, the single was released in Italy to mainstream radio on March 25, 2016", where we don't need both the date and the period of time elapsed since the previous date).
FA is a big step up from GA, I'm afraid, but with more work I hope you can improve this article so that it becomes more interesting to read. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bencherlite, @Bencherheavy: Yes, I took care of your above comments. Yes, I realize that won't exactly fix this problem, but I'm currently going over every sentence in the article to search for cohesiveness. I agree that doing this should help solve the issue, but to be honest, I think it would be hard for each sentence structure in this article to satisfy everyone's needs and liking. Perhaps one statement that I worded sounds brilliant to myself but confusing to another user. Like I previously stated, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to FA status, and if this will do the trick then sign me up. What I'm asking is that when I conclude making my changes, would you be willing to perform another spot-check on this article? You seem highly experienced in the 'featured' side of articles so your knowledge would be welcomed. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Carbrera, do not strike through my comments again. That's for me to do, if and when I want to do so, not you. BencherliteTalk 14:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bencherlite I didn't mean any disrespect; I was trying to mark my progress in your suggestions. Since it's frowned upon to leave the "done" symbol, a strikethrough seemed most appropriate. I apologize and didn't mean to offend you. Carbrera (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have fixed several issues regarding the prose. You are free to look at the article again if you so choose. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- It's still not an example of Wikipedia's finest prose. Just from the opening section:
- “she pushed herself” – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with “she then wrote” or something along those lines?
- “newfound relationship” – we have “new... newfound”, but more importantly “begin new ones” is redundant (she could hardly begin old ones) and “newfound” feels like the wrong word
- I’m left unclear as to whether the divorce songs were part of the third album or not - we're not given any indications about when the divorce was, when the new relationship started
- Why do we need a sentence, with two quotations, about a Jimmy Kimmel interview just to confirm that the song is about Shelton, which was established in the previous sentence? If the point is that it was speculated that Shelton was the subject but only confirmed by Stefani at some later point, then make this point more clearly and in fewer words (we don't need "about that guy" for instance).
- Why do we need to know that Idolator and Warner/Chappell Music both said on the same day that she was working with Mattman and Robin for the single, let alone that Warner confirmed this via a particular outlet? Why can’t we just say that she worked with M&R on the single?
- Does working with M&R on the single precede or follow working with Tranter and Michaels on the writing? I would assume that you write it first, in which case the sentences need to be moved around.
- However, the lead says that M&R co-wrote the single, which is not what this paragraph says, and so this needs to be sorted too
- Then we get Mattman and Robin mentioned again, complete with our second and third links to the same article (“Mattman and Robin”, hiding as Easter egg links under “Larsson” and “Frediksson”). The repetition is capable of elimination
- I’m unhappy with “channelling” left as an unattributed quotation because it is an opinion rather than a fact.
- My oppose stands. This needs too much work and I'm not going to conduct a line-by-line rewrite of the article. I suggest you withdraw and go to peer review, seeking an experienced FA level copyeditor. Pinging Tony1 who may have some other thoughts as to whether I'm way off line here, given the current majority view that this article is of FA-standard. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carbrera: I do have to agree with the comments from @Bencherlite:/@Bencherheavy:. I apologize for reading over a lot of the problems that were identified above, as I should have done a more comprehensive review. I agree with the recommendation to re-read through this article for prose errors. I would suggest looking at how S&M (song) to see how the song's length could be more seamlessly incorporated into the section or remove it all together as I have found that it is not a necessary component for a FA on a song. I think you need to be careful with the use of quotes, as shown the Kreps' sentence quoted above, as you sometimes rely on the quotes to convey information without spelling it out fully. I would recommend avoid using one word quotes, and instead convey the information through your own words. Remember that everything that can be paraphrased should. Direct quoting is primarily for when something would be lost if the quote were not used directly. A lot of the prose problems stem from the overuse of quotes (for instance, the "Critical reception" section has a lot of unnecessary quotes). And the "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with" definitely needs to be completely revised. Another example of an awkwardly constructed sentence is "At the 57th Annual Grammy Awards in 2015, Imagine Dragons did a similar concept to Stefani, performing live during a commercial break". I will leave my support vote up for now, but I may strike it in the future as I agree with Bencherlite's assessment. The article is definitely on the right track, but the prose needs to be polished. I apologize again for reading over and missing this in my initial comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stefani co-wrote the recording with Justin Tranter, Julia Michaels, and its producers Mattman & Robin.- why "its" producers?
it garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired- why not, "thought to have been inspired..." (not controversial as Stefani later confirmed it)
-
upbeat environment and its radio-friendly vibe.- why not just " upbeat and radio-friendly vibe."
-
During the song's bridge,- can we link bridge?
Stefani joked that she could barely believe the performed occurred.- umm, something wrong with the grammar here...
- I trimmed some words during my copyedits. Make sure no meaning is lost.
- Ok, in general, only keep stuff in quotes if it is memorable or distinctive - in the second para of the Composition and lyrics section, both "the gloom lifts" and "inflecting emotion in her voice" should be able to be rewritten without resorting to quotes.
Responding to Bencherlite's ping.
- First, that reviewer's comment: " 'she pushed herself' – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with 'she then wrote' or something along those lines?" I couldn't find anything to support the "pushing" in ref. 1, a half-opinion half-whatever journalistic piece for Pitchfork. So unless the nominator can provide reasoning or evidence in RSs, I'd say replace as suggested (or better, "she wrote", since "after" has already conveyed the sequential meaning).
- Bencherlite's other comments seem actionable too.
I looked through just the opening paragraph of just five sentences:
- Start: ""Make Me Like You" is a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani for her third solo studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like (2016). Issued as the album's second single, it was released digitally on February 12, 2016, while being serviced to contemporary hit radio on February 16 in the United States."—There's tension between "issued" and "released". "recorded by" makes it sound momentarily as though it was trashed and not released; it's superseded by the subsequent sentence anyway. Or is the contrast between non-digital first, then "released digitally"? I know I'm a pop-culture dunderhead; maybe I'm missing assumed knowledge in a targeted readership, but this seems to need recasting. Perhaps we need "2016" twice ... hard for me to tell. What does "serviced to" mean? Maybe that's assumed knowledge, but surely there's a more standard way to put it.
- "the latter two"—I think it should be "the last two"; and we have "serving" soon after the problematic "serviced", so why not ", of whom Larsson and Fredksson were also the producers"?
- "Described as a pop and disco song,"—as soon as you ascribe agency (even suppressed by passive voice), we need to know who was doing the describing. There's no ref. Maybe you wanted to draw back in certainty by ascribing those epithets out into the fog rather than simply stating them in Wikipedia's narrative voice? If not, why not: "In genre a pop and disco song", or something like that? Agency problem without ref. again in "it was though to have been". Who thought?
- ""Make Me Like You" incorporates influences of light rock into its sound, that consists of chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody."—Do we need "into its sound"? There's redundancy-tension between "incorporates" and "influences". The join of comma+that is ungainly. Why not: ""Make Me Like You" shows the influence of light rock, in chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody." (I presume your readers will associate beach-like with rock.)
- "themes on"? "themes of" would be standard.
Maybe the rest is a little better (the opening is usually difficult because thematically more intensive); but I have to agree that this needs too much work to be considered for promotion this time around. I encourage you to keep writing and editing, but developing a razor-critical stance in your reading of others' and your own text will take a while. (Try my "Advanced editing exercises", in my user space, although I hesitate to recommend them because it's been so long since I revised them. Perhaps you could give feedback on that talkpage on any mistakes you detect or suggestions you might have for improvements.) Tony (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- In light of recent comments, which have highlighted fundamental prose concerns, I'm going to archive this nom and recommend that after actioning outstanding points (and combing the article for similar issues to those identified) you try a Peer Review before looking at a renomination at FAC. As an alternative to PR, I encourage you to consider the new FAC mentoring scheme that's aimed at nominators who have yet to achieve their first FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.