Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Make Me Like You/archive2
- 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) 21:43, 18 February 2017 [1].
- Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like. It recently underwent a major copyedit that has heavily improved the prose, which was likewise the main reason why it failed its previous FAC. Like I previously said, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to the FA status! Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
|
---|
@Carbrera: You have done an excellent job with this article. I have a lot of respect for you in that you are putting a lot of work and dedication in this. Your work actually makes more interested in returning to writing and expanding articles related to music (as I was starting to move away to do articles on television and fictional characters more instead). Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time and then most likely support it for promotion. If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination, and I will send some positive energy your way that it does well this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
|
- @Carbrera: Support, well done and good luck getting it passed! Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Source review—it looks like it's just a few minor points:
- In note 2, E! is italicized, and but in note 3 it is not. I'll also note that the target of the wikilink says that the online presence is E! Online, not just E!, which is the name of the publishing TV network. If the website is cited elsewhere, the same comments would apply for the sake of consistency.
- Done
- In note 8, does that template support
|edition=Japanese
to get the "Japanese edition" text out of italics?- Done
- In comparing note 8 with note 10, the latter has the artist and label wikilinked while the former does not. Normally you'd only link them on the first usage, in keeping with the concepts behind WP:OVERLINK. I'd just double check and shift links, or drop them, as appropriate.
- Done
- There are a few website names that are rendered in roman text as the publisher where I'd expect them to be in italics as the
|work=
(or|website=
, they're aliases). These include Idolator, Vulture, and the like.- Done
- Usually when citing newspapers that lack their locations in their names, that is unlike the Los Angeles Times, we would include that location in
|location=
. This goes for university student newspapers, where the university is typically the location, unless they're a purely online publication like The Huffington Post.- Done
- In terms of reliability and quality, nothing is amiss here. In short, just a little polishing, and the article is good to go in terms of the sources. Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: I believe I hit every thing you pointed out, please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for the source review! Best, Carbrera (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
- @Carbrera: some points are not done though. You didn't address the inconsistency in why some website names are rendered through the
|work=
parameter (or its|website=
alias) and others are. Idolator is not consistently in italics, while Bustle and E! Online are. They're all the names of websites, which are for all intents and purposes equivalent to a print newspaper or print magazine, so we should be rendering them in italics for consistency.Also, "ABC News" is unlinked in note 32, but linked in note 106. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but my comments above were illustrative in a few cases with a suggestion to audit the remaining footnotes for the same issues, like the linking. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979: I apologize. I left out one of the Idolator references on mistake. I also fixed the "ABC News" linking error. Thanks for catching that. Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: some points are not done though. You didn't address the inconsistency in why some website names are rendered through the
- @Imzadi1979: I believe I hit every thing you pointed out, please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for the source review! Best, Carbrera (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
- In note 2, E! is italicized, and but in note 3 it is not. I'll also note that the target of the wikilink says that the online presence is E! Online, not just E!, which is the name of the publishing TV network. If the website is cited elsewhere, the same comments would apply for the sake of consistency.
- Looks good now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- If this review was helpful, you may want to review the prose on other nominations, like mine to help out other nominators. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing the above comment, I would encourage you to either participate in other FACs in order to build good will and connections with FAC contributors (and may draw more attention to this nomination) or asking a few experienced FAC users for comments on this nomination (as you are still working towards getting your first featured article, they will mostly likely be more responsive to helping you I would imagine). Just want to offer some advice to help you this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: Thank you for the tip. In fact, I did leave comments on both Imzadi1979's FAC and Tomica's most recent nomination yesterday. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
- Comments by Cartoon network freak
Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak
|
---|
Lead
Infobox
Production and release
Composition and lyrics
Critical reception
Commercial performance
Music video
Live performances
Track listing
Credits and personnel
Charts
Release history
Carbrera, here my comments; once you've addressed them, I'll give this a support. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Coordinator note: @Carbrera: do you plan to reply to these comments? This nomination is seven weeks old now and is starting to look a little stale, especially if you are not responding. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Support with all my comments being resolved! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:Gwen Stefani - Make Me Like You (Official Single Cover).png: Non-free cover art of the song used to illustrate the topic, which seems OK to me. All points of NFCC are adequately addressed in the rationale
- File:Make Me Like You (1).ogg: Song sample, used to illustrate a part of the song discussed in the adjacent paragraph. I see a bit maintenance tag on the file that should probably be addressed. Seems like the points of NFCC are addressed, though.
- File:Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png: Non-free screenshot of the music video. Not exactly sure how the article would suffer if it lacked that, so I wonder about whether it's NFCC#8 compliant. The other points seem to fit.
- File:Death Cab for Cutie at Manchester Academy, 4 July 2011.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to illustrate a point of comparison that is discussed in the section. Freely licensed, good EXIF. Used elsewhere in lower resolution.
- File:Gwen Stefani – This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour ("Make Me Like You").png: Free image that shows a live performance of the song, which is discussed in the adjacent section. Broken EXIF, free license, can be moved to Commons probably.
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks so much for the image review! Are there any steps you would like me to facilitate in order to improve the article? Carbrera (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Only things I'd suggest is to add inline citations for the infobox and to boost up the rationale for Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks. I believe the rationale is better as of now, but may I ask you to clarify "add[ing] inline citations"? Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:INLINECITE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I did include inline citations on the "Genre" parameter as this is where they are often placed, but when looking at other 'song' featured articles like 4 Minutes and S&M (song), they do not features any at all, so I think keeping it simple is best (although I'm sure you know more that I do about this). Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC).
- I have removed the infobox inline citations per the policy that SnapSnap mentioned below. Carbrera (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:INLINECITE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks. I believe the rationale is better as of now, but may I ask you to clarify "add[ing] inline citations"? Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Only things I'd suggest is to add inline citations for the infobox and to boost up the rationale for Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SnapSnap
|
---|
|
- @SnapSnap: I believe I have fixed everything accordingly. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
- @Carbrera: No problems. Nice job. :) snapsnap (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SnapSnap: Would it be alright with you if I placed your comments into a "Resolved comments" box like those above? Carbrera (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Sure, go ahead. snapsnap (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SnapSnap: Would it be alright with you if I placed your comments into a "Resolved comments" box like those above? Carbrera (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: No problems. Nice job. :) snapsnap (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comments from magiciandude
The article looks great and I don't see any obvious problems with the sources. All the other issues the reviewers were already resolved. My only recommendation at this point is specify who released the song in the lead. Erick (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Magiciandude: THANKS! I just added the note per your suggestion! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
- No problem. While I can't comment on the prose since I'm not an expert on grammar, I will support this article in good faith. Erick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source reliability and formatting review; the comment above on sourcing is not quite in depth enough to qualify. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: Thank you! Are you referring to Imzadi1979's comments above? Regards, Carbrera (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
- Ah, my mistake, I missed that. It's usually best not to collapse image or source reviews. My apologies. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted so (as above, unless I missed it) we should have a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.
- I wonder also if Bencherlite and/or Tony1 can quickly peruse this latest version of the article as they had prose concerns last time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Butting in with Earwig's tool - there are a couple of false positives as they all use a quote which inflates the copyvio probability. Else looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: Should anything be changed regarding the quotes you mentioned? Carbrera (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
- No, they're fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: Should anything be changed regarding the quotes you mentioned? Carbrera (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
- Butting in with Earwig's tool - there are a couple of false positives as they all use a quote which inflates the copyvio probability. Else looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake, I missed that. It's usually best not to collapse image or source reviews. My apologies. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comments by Mymis
- In "Production and release" section, the only date mentioned is song's release date. Is there another earlier date or even just a year indicating when she started working on the song?
- I can't find any specific date or time period, like you mentioned. I believe it was placed on the BMI website around December 2015, but I didn't archive that so it cannot be verified. It's quite unfortunate. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Link 107 is broken.
- Fixed. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Link 93 is a fansite.
- Fixed. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Mymis (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mymis: Thank you so, so much. I have addressed all of your comments. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC).
- Maybe add the year when she started dating Shelton or something? To provide approx. time frame to show that the song was composed within the same year when it was released, and not like five years ago.
- Great work on this article. You have my support. Mymis (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Leaning Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator on this, and I think the prose still needs a little work. Just a few minutes looking threw up a few things that would be a problem; none of them are huge issues but perhaps should have been spotted at this stage. My oppose is not set in stone, and I expect to at least strike it and hopefully support once there has been a little work. I spotted these just looking randomly through the article, and I would recommend someone taking a look for similar issues throughout. These are samples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- "with chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody": I'm not too sure what a chiming guitar is, although I could just about live with it, but while my musical background is limited, I know enough to question what on earth a "beach-like melody" is. And quoting a critic's review does not make this make sense, either.
- Done – I agree. I removed "chiming" altogether and (since the melody is also described as uptempo by a different source) I replaced "beach-like" with "uptempo". Carbrera (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
- "and Stefani later confirmed that it was inspired by her relationship with singer Blake Shelton": I understand why we have used confirmed here, but as we do not mention that there was speculation, I think just saying that "Stefani was inspired by her relationship..." would be fine for the lead.
- Done
- "An accompanying music video, directed by Stefani's long-time collaborator Sophie Muller, was the first to be filmed and broadcast on live television.": The first out of... what?
- @Sarastro1: Thanks for your concerns. I added "only" to hopefully address your concern. If you'd prefer just "only" or "first of it kinds" (or something in that nature), please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
- "The video includes several costume changes and scenes, including one which pokes fun at media scrutiny of Stefani's personal life": I have yet to see any video that does NOT include scenes, so that part is a little odd.
- Done
- "received comparisons with similar concepts done by other artists": Again, this is a little odd and seems circular. "Something was compared with something like it" We need a little more about this. Positively compared? Negatively? What concepts?
- Done – I wouldn't say any of the sources positively or negatively compare it, but rather just the concepts like you pointed out. So I wrote out, "received comparisons to live videos from Imagine Dragons and Death Cab for Cutie." Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- "After completing several songs dealing with Stefani's divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, she began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton.": This would be better as "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton." I'd even prefer "writing about her relationship"
- Done
- ""Make Me Like You" is a three-minute, 36-second pop and disco song.[18][19][10]": Ref order
- Done
- "and funk music are paired with "feathery guitar riffs" and digital harps[17] in a vibrant melody": Quotes are all very well in music articles, but are often meaningless used like this. We should either paraphrase what the critic means by "feathery" and "vibrant" or just summarise that they liked the guitar, harps and melody. Or leave it out entirely.
- Done – Since it is fairly difficult to summarize what the critic might mean, I used "uptempo" as that is pretty self-explanatory. If you'd like to remove it altogether, please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- "The single's artwork, photographed by Jamie Nelson, features Stefani "channeling" Marilyn Monroe's hairstyle.": I'm sorry, a hairstyle cannot be channeled. Why not just say "with a similar hairstyle"? If you want "channelling Marilyn Monroe, you need a little more explanation of how she is doing so.
- Done
Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I addressed all of your concerns above. You may be aware but I'd like to point that the article received a major copyedit on October 29, 2016 that helped the prose greatly. If any more things regarding the prose stuck out to me, I can honestly say that I would've fixed them by now. Thank you for helping make the article better. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
Comment: Just to reiterate, these were samples only, and it may have had a major copy-edit but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from another going over. I also should point out that the last edits did not really clear up the points. We now have:
- "was the first and only to be filmed and broadcast on live television"" This still does not clear up "first and only" what? The first...? I assume song from the album, but it is far from clear.
- "and a scene which pokes fun the media scrutiny": There is an "at" missing here.
I don't particularly wish to do a line-by-line review at this stage of an FAC, so I would recommend someone taking a close look at the rest of the article to see if there are any other points, whether that is the nominator or someone else. Just addressing each point I make is unlikely to convince me to strike the leaning oppose or to support. In any case, I will take another look in a day or so. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I appreciate it very much. I looked at your two comments and fixed them anyway. Thanks for your time, Carbrera (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
Prose needs work:
- "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton"
- "The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton, which she called her favorite self-composed song"
- "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton"
- "Mattias Larsson and Robin Frediksson of Mattman & Robin recorded Stefani's vocals at Wolf Cousins Studios and Maratone Studios in Stockholm and Interscope Studios in Santa Monica, California."
- "According to Stefani, about 30 minutes before the video's live broadcast, she stumbled at the end of the piano lounge scene and received a minor head injury."
- "During the video's final rehearsal, she missed her exit to a rising platform while inline skating and her stunt double accidentally turned to face the camera. According to a Music Times review, Stefani joked that the mistakes "'knocked some sense' into her".[77] The video went off without a hitch, which Gabe McDonough of Music and Strategy called "a best-case scenario" in a Billboard article."
These are samples only. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: Thank you for your comments. I have tried my best to address your concerns. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
- It needs a full copyedit. For instance the second para of the "Commercial performance" section has the word "peak" or "peaked" in all but one sentence, and it appears thirteen times in the section. I agree with Bencherlite and Tony1's comments in the first FAC. Since that time the only copyedits made were from a GOCE member. Follow Tony's advice, try some of User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises and work the prose. I realize I didn't explain what was wrong with those sentences, nor did I suggest alternatives, because I thought it would be good to for you to see the issues. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: Thank you for your comments. I have tried my best to address your concerns. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]Oppose on prose. Sorry, Carbrera, since I know you asked me to review hoping I could help, but I don't think this is ready, and it's been at FAC long enough that I think it should be worked on away from FAC before being nominated again. I'd be willing to work on the article with you if you like. Some comments below; I went through the lead and first section and glanced through the rest of the article.
- Suggest making it "comparisons to live-streamed videos" in the lead, as otherwise it's not clear how this can be the first video filmed on live TV. Or you could just cut this detail -- is the comparison to those videos really worth mentioning in the lead?
- "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new ones based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton. The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton." I don't see anything in the given sources about Stefani writing songs that relate to Rossdale, and I also don't know what it means to say "the lyrical transition ended". Can you explain?
- Why do you list Mattman & Robin as Larsson and Frediksson in the lead, but as Mattman & Robin in the body? Then you give both names in the next paragraph, this time with an explanation.
- Why do we need the details of the report and confirmation of who the producers were?
- "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton." This is just a detail about the sequence of question and answer by which we know that the song is about Shelton. Does this need to be in the article?
- I think the first paragraph of the "Production and release" section is poorly structured. Currently it's like this:
- Stefani's songwriting, reason for writing MMLY
- Subject of song
- Production
- Other info about the album MMLY is on
- Was the single made as part of the recording for the new album? If so (i.e. if it wasn't a one-off, later incorporated into a subsequent album) then I'd suggest
- Background info about the album -- events leading up to it (e.g. divorce, relationship with Shelton), plans to record the album
- Songwriting team, specific information about writing/producing MMLY
- Currently it jumps back and forth between subjects.
- Looking through the rest of the article, I think there's a bit of work needed to get the prose to FA quality. For example, the critical reception section is listy, and the commercial performance section looks like it might benefit from at least partly being made into a table, perhaps organized around the various charts. I also saw a couple of bits of trivia that I don't think are needed such as McDonough's comment about a "best-case scenario", which is essentially quoting someone about something that didn't happen and had no effect. And do we really need the text of her statement after the video? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Closing comment -- Following Sarastro's and Victoria's comments, I agree with Mike that further work should take place outside FAC. Tks everyone for your input and I hope to see this re-nominated before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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) 21:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.