Talk:Ghost Town (Kanye West song)

Ghost Town (Kanye West song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Ghost Town (Kanye West song) is part of the Ye series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 30, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
September 10, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 5, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 070 Shake said that it felt "crazy" to have been on a record with Kanye West?

Current status: Good article

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 16 June 2018 by reviewer Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs).

Dave Edmunds?

Dave Edmunds did do a version of "Take Me for a Little While", but that's pretty obviously not the version that was sampled, nor is it the original... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/576031/Kanye-West-PARTYNEXTDOOR-Ghost-Town-The-Royal-Jesters-Take-Me-for-a-Little-While/ 129.174.182.87 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost Town (Kanye West song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LOVI33 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kyle Peake, I'll begin my review now. It's a larger article so it might take me a little longer. LOVI 33 18:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lead

Not sure if psychedelic should be labelled as a genre since is refers to specifically the guitar and "sounds." LOVI 33 20:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development

First paragraph is really long, maybe split it into a few.

Done how's that look? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrics

"The track includes" → ""Ghost Town" includes"
"Guitar is included" → "A guitar is included" OR "Guitars are included"

Done for the above --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release and recording

[sic] → [sic] using Template:Sic

Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Looks good.

Accolades

This could maybe be a subsection under 'Critical Reception' due it still having reviewers comments

Not done since that is two paragraphs and a table, so is enough for its own section and the comments are from the lists only --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

"Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2" → "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)"

Done don't know how I made that typo --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

Looks good.

Appearances in media

Looks good.

Sequel

Looks good.

Credits and personnel

Change 'Credits' subsection to 'Personnel'

Done but should I keep the credits adapted bit though? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Looks good.

Certifications

Looks good.

Notes

Looks good.

References

Copyvio score looks good at 35.9%
refs 4 and 5: MOS:CAPS issues; or is that just how PartyNextDoor is stylized?

Not done since that is how his name is stylized --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ref 25, target Sheffield, Rob to Rob Sheffield

Done and fixed a few more refs up too --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Looks good.

Final comments and verdict

On hold for now. This article is extremely well written, great job! The comments above I'm sure wont take too long. It's great reviewing your articles! LOVI 33 20:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Have responded above, thanks a lot for the comments and I hope this becomes a GA soon. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thats a ✓ Pass! LOVI 33 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Thanks a lot! --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that 070 Shake said that it felt crazy to have been on a record with Kanye West?

Improved to Good Article status by Kyle Peake (talk). Self-nominated at 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is alright (AGF per the recent GA promotion, and spot checks revealed no obvious faults), but I believe it should say "felt" instead of "feels" due to indirect speech being used (this applies to both the article and the hook). IceWelder [✉] 15:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Customary ping @Kyle Peake. IceWelder [✉] 14:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: Hi there, I have fixed the hook and other potential issues with the sentence! --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rap rock as a genre

Andrzejbanas claims that including this as a genre violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE, but The Atlantic ref states "Rap and rock have been for the last few years in a crossover moment" directly in reference to the two songs after mentioning them; doesn't this work as a source for it as a genre? Reaching out to LOVI33, since you were the GA reviewer and this did not come up at all. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that genres should be specific and we should not interpret a reviewers/writers wording per the above mentioned rule, (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), specifically, " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context.". Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that closely and thanks for the advice since I understand this is in WP:GOODFAITH, but a crossover of rap and rock is obviously rap rock; this is not summarising or rephrasing from the source as it does not change the meaning or implication. If I had used this as a source for hip hop just because it states rap then yeah that would be a violation, but I haven't. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cross over between genres is what they said, but I'd refer to specifics instead of interpreting it as a genre. I'd lean towards dropping out genre name dropping unless its specifically state. The article is well written and well done that I think not having it will still have users understand the sound of song without genre listing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I was reviewing for GA, for me it was pretty explicit that it was rap rock. Rap rock is a fusion genre of hip hop music (also known as rap music) and rock music so I think it is safe to call it rap rock. Plus it specifically says a crossover, meaning a fusion genre. LOVI 33 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas I appreciate that you are in good faith and I consulted LOVI33 for an outsider's opinion instead of reverting the edit to not potentially edit war, but since the user has stated the genre can remain, I think it is fine to restore the revision with all due respect of course. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still wait it out if we could. We barely have any discussion on it here and I would say we shouldn't interpret things that are said in an article like that. It's not fair for our readers and its misrepresenting the original authors statement. By adding it, you are saying the author called it rap-rock, which they didn't. Perhaps they were very careful not too. I'd feel very uncomfortable adding a hip hop song that happens to sample rock music and call it rap rock. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas Should we wait for the opinions of other editors then? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: what do you think LOVI33? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think it should be reinstated as a genre. I doubt we will get a big discussion for this since this is a non-single from an album released a year ago and is not getting as many page views as it has before. LOVI 33 14:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Andrzejbanas I believe with the given context, it would be fine to reinstate the genre without any edit warring being classified. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask around some project groups and see if we can get some more opinions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrived here from notification at WP Songs. Any chance someone could provide a link to The Atlantic's article? Kinda useful. Thanks. JG66 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JG66 Take a look here. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. JG66 (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SONGS as well. I’m all for adhering to STICKTOSOURCE too, but I generally don’t see a problem if there’s no other reasonable interpretation. For example, I’ve had editors similarly question wording of something like “Breaking Benjamin has made an entire career of playing hard rock music, and this song is more of the same ” for sourcing a given a song of theirs as hard rock. I mean, it doesn’t directly call the song hard rock, but what possible message could the writer possibly be trying to convey? The whole message of the sentence falls apart if they don’t see the song as hard rock. I feel like this could be one of those scenarios... Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is complex but effectively the part of the article supports both elements of rap and rock. The article says Which might explain why, in 2018, the best music from hip-hop’s lead provocateur is rock and roll and then proceeds to name "Ghost Town". To me that says that the genre should say rock and roll. There may be other sources that mention rap/hip-hop as specific genres but I don't think we can synthesise that The Atlantic is calling "Ghost Town" rap rock. Actually the article talks about rap and rock as two separate genres and the decline of one as well as the rising popularity of the other. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've found myself moving from yes to no, swayed by almost every comment above – but Lil's viewpoint is the one that rings truest, imo. To my mind, there's a minor step made in interpreting the Atlantic writer's comments as explicitly stating that the album is rap rock, and that minor step constitutes synthesis. If I was writing or expanding the album article, I might use the source to support rap rock but I'd make a note to self (and/or write a comment with the edit) that a better source is needed and I'd keep looking, knowing it doesn't quite do the job. I can understand why editors would think The Atlantic article is sufficient, because it's not just down to how individuals interpret statements in the source but also to how we each of us might interpret the wording at WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and therefore whether there is any violation of that policy. JG66 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to STICKTOSOURCEs and not WP:GWAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 130p July 2020 (UTC)