Talk:Weird Faith/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Voorts (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll get a review of this written within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, I've evaluated everything except for the prose itself. The main issue right now is the use of quotes, and any fix to that is likely to significantly alter the text, so I'm going to put it on hold now and evaluate the prose after everything else is addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

Background and production:

• Diaz also began working on her sixth studio album, Weird Faith. – This reads like a side tangent even though it's the main subject of the article.
  • Changed.
• in Nashville and in upstate New York, recorded the album in upstate New York – Can this be written to avoid having "upstate New York" twice in a row?
  • Changed.
• including trusting the growth of her career and her relationships with her new manager, label, and romantic partner – This is a little wordy and hard to follow.
  • Changed.

Composition and themes:

• This section reads more like a list of opinions than an encyclopedic summary of the themes, but it's not bad enough that it causes problems with the GA criteria and it won't affect the review.
  • I'll keep working on that section post-GA.
• Weird Faith has been described and Critics have described – Introducing two sentences in a row with "described" affects the sentences' flow.
  • Changed.

Critical reception:

• This also feels like a list of opinions, but I understand that this is more difficult with reception sections. Again, won't affect the review.
  • Same as above.
• For Glide Magazine, Dillon wrote that Diaz's blunt songwriting "anchor[s]" listeners – Blunt is being said in wikivoice, I suggest clarifying that Dillon said it was blunt.
  • Changed.
• the album focused on "processing emotion" – This is more of a theme than critical reception. There are a few other borderline cases, and it might be worth looking through this section again to see if any of them are analysis of the composition or themes instead of critics' opinions.
  • I removed that from the prose, but didn't add it to the themes section since it's already got Donelson's analysis.

Verifiable with no original research

Resolved (including spot checks)

All sources look reliable. AllMusic is correctly used only for its review content. The one thing that needs to be looked at more closely here is the use of quotations. A significant portion of this article is lifted directly from the sources instead of being paraphrased. WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:OVERQUOTING both touch on this. Fixed. Spot checks: [1] Hughes – Checked all four uses [1a] Does this support that she joined his tour band? After Diaz had played a couple of Styles’ shows, he reached out to her and asked her to join his live band, in which she spent three months singing backup vocals and shaking maracas across the world. [1c] I don't see the word "indie" anywhere in this source. Removed cite. [4] Zeisloft – Checked all three uses [4a] Where does this say that she wrote the song in her home and in New York? Added another cite to cite 5, which discusses that one of her inspirations was a place where she hiked in upstate NY while working on the album. [8] Ferguson – Checked all three uses. [8c] Where does it address the making of mistakes? I suspect that this one is an issue of me not seeing it rather than it not being there, but I still have to check. I think I was trying to summarize this: It aims to find out what happens when the dust settles and you’re at the start of something again, pushing through the discomfort to give it another try. “This is your brain on love,” Diaz seems to be saying in these songs. She takes the adage of needing to suffer in the name of great art and flips it on its head a million times over, proving what often goes unsaid: Even a functional relationship is still muddled by anxiety and insecurity. Changed making mistakes to "insecurities". [10] Harbron – All three uses good.

• I don't know whether there's consensus that this is mandatory, but you might want to cite the personnel section, even if it's a single citation at the beginning of the list to the album's liner notes.

Broad in its coverage

The article is missing release information. Album articles commonly have a section on the release and promotion. Even if there's not enough for a full section, the basics should still be included as part of the production. Most pressingly is that the release date isn't found in the body.

• Added.

Neutral

No neutrality issues. The article is written in a neutral tone, and no ideas are given undue emphasis.

Stable

No recent disputes. The article might benefit from an update over the years if more is written about the album, but that's not urgent and it wouldn't require significant rewrites.

Illustrated

One non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale.

@Thebiguglyalien: Comments addressed above. I've also added a couple of reviews to the review section. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Voorts, the quotation issue is still there. I checked the composition and themes section: about a quarter of the section, 125/525 words, is in quotes (not counting song titles). Same issue in the reception section. Quotations of copyrighted sources are non-free content and should only be used when necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: I've trimmed some more quotes. If you think I need to trim more, I'm happy to do a fresh pass. If you have suggestions, I'm open to them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

voorts I've looked over the prose. At this point it's just a few minor points on wording/organization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, thanks. Any spots in particular you want me to go over again? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Just the points I've listed above—the quoting has been trimmed down enough and any other possible changes are beyond the scope of GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Self-trout I didn't see that you had put the comments above since I was automatically jumped down to the comment here when I clicked on the notification. I'll get on those shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.