Wikipedia:Peer review/Lorde/archive2

Lorde

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'll nominate it for FAC next month. After the FAC is promoted, it will have a fully FT about Lorde.

Thanks, TheFame08 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. As you're aiming at FAC, I'll be critical! I'm not really into pop music as a rule, but I thought Pure Heroine was fantastic.

• "Her first major release, The Love Club EP, was commercially released" Repetition
• "Lorde's music consists of the subgenres of electronica, pop and rock, including dream pop and indietronica." This has a number of issues. For example, her music may be influenced by or categorized in a variety of genres, but her music does not consist of genres.
• "her to read a range of genres" This doesn't work either- read works in a range of genres, perhaps.
• "and musician friend Louis McDonald" I'm guessing that McDonald was a student at the time- perhaps "musician" is a little ambitious?
• Is it really appropriate to refer to the article's subject as "Lorde" in the sections before she was using that name? (Or was she using the name then? It'd be great if this could be made clear, if so.)
• "McDonald's father Ian sent out his home audio recording of her and Louis McDonald covering" Ambiguous "her".
• You refer to "Royals" as a crossover hit; I'm not fully clear I understand what this means or why "Royals" is/was one. Is it explicitly used by your sources?
• "The Love Club EP, Pure Heroine and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 1 soundtrack" Too much; at the very least, I'd drop Hunger Games from the title, and perhaps The Love Club.
• "Lorde became the youngest solo artist to achieve a number-one single in the US with "Royals"" This isn't quite right- she's the only solo artist to achieve a number-one single in the US with "Royals".
• A contradiction. From the lead: "Its following singles include "Tennis Court", "Team", "No Better" and "Glory and Gore"." And from the body: "The release of Pure Heroine was preceded by four singles: "Tennis Court" was released in June 2013 ... the third single, "Team", became a top-ten hit worldwide;[32][36] and "No Better", a song only included on the extended version of Pure Heroine, and "Glory and Gore" were released as the two final singles from the record, respectively."
• Why are you not chronological in the article body? Why talk about the album release before the single releases?
• Would a personal life section not be typical? Does information about her relationship really belong alongside information about rights to her music?
• The paragraph starting "In December 2013" is a bit clumpy. I generally find the paragraphs of that section a little short- it could all be a bit smoother, I think?
• "Among those records, Lorde deemed Rumours by Fleetwood Mac as "a perfect record"." Repetition
• "In a review for Consequence of Sound, Jon Hadusek details the minimal production on Lorde's music "allows [her] to sing any melody she wants, layering them over one another to create a choral effect."" This doesn't make sense. "details" cannot be used like this.
• "Jason Lipshutz of Billboard shares that her works features deep bass rumbles, lilting loops and programmed beats" Too prosaic. I don't know what "lilting loops" are, and "shares" is a little informal.
• "Lorde writes her music vocally" ???
• "details the singer's voice as "twitchy electro"" Details? How can a voice be "twitchy electro"?
• Beware of repetition of "vocals" in "musical style".

More later. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, back:

• "Talking about her collaboration with Joel Little, Lorde shares that Little's refining her "raw potential to end up with [the music]" was one of the best aspects of him." This needs to be completely rewritten
• "Lorde details that her songs are shaped by her lyrics, which she felt as a "more cohesive way of working."" This too. Beware of your tenses shifting all over the place.
• "in a short story manner" This doesn't quite work
• I think some reviewers may be a little critical of the length of your "artistry" section. I appreciate that Lorde is a fairly distinctive artist, but it does seem to be a fairly lengthy discussion; more specifically, you may want to think about how you arrange it. The sections are not as clearly distinct as you might think, and it comes across as a smidge quote-farm-y.
• "Her music is noted for the manner in which its view of pop culture is contrasted with that of her contemporaries, such as Miley Cyrus and Rihanna.[92]" Does this belong with the music discussion?
• "Britney Spears is an admirer of Lorde, commenting that her music "[is] really different and cool."[100]" Who cares?
• The final paragraph of "public image" comes across as "and here's a list of other things".
• You should go through your sources with a fine-toothed comb to iron out less reliable sources and aim for consistent formatting. For example:
  • Have a think about how to use wikilinks. There are a number of possibilities, but consistency is good. Some example issues:
  • People is trash and not to be trusted.
  • Your Ian McDonald source is a bit light.
  • Black Magazine? V Music? If these are magazines, the names should be italicised.
  • Is Event Manager really the best source you have? How important can these things be if you're not citing anything else?
  • The way you cite YouTube videos is completely inconsistent. Also, be aware that you should only link to videos uploaded by/with permission of their copyright holder.
  • Digital Spy isn't great.
  • You should specify the language of your Chilean source if it's not English. Also consider providing translations for the article titles of non-English sources.
  • Why the quote for the Stan Mahoney source?
  • The way you cite Stuff.co.nz is inconsistent

Not at all a bad article- some tweaking could well prepare it for FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thank for your comments. I'll fix it later! TheFame08 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)