Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Little Love/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2023 [1].

My Little Love

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "My Little Love". I know my reputation is spoiled here due to the godawful Meghan Trainor songs, but sometimes I really enjoy great jazz like this one. Don't be fooled by it not getting a commercial single release, this song very much forms the heart of 30 along with tracks like "To Be Loved" and "I Drink Wine". Just trust me on this and do play it once! Also, it features voice notes of Adele's child. (How has Meghan Trainor not done this yet?) I have been very lucky to receive DYK and GA reviews from Aoba47 and Pseud 14, respectively. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)

[edit]
Thank you. I'll get back to you on the sample point.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to the discussion with Aoba below, I have added an audio sample to the article.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think it may be worthwhile to link steel guitar since items like bass are also linked. Also, does bass in this context refer to a bass guitar? If so, I would clarify that in the prose.
  • Information about which bass instrument it is is not available, unfortunately.
  • Thank you for the clarification. I know that liner notes can unfortunately be ambiguous at times so I understand this situation. I was just curious since Greg Kurstin is credited as playing the bass guitar for "Easy on Me", but I also see that he is credited as playing just bass for "Oh My God" and "I Drink Wine" so it is likely just a case of inconsistency with the liner notes and credits. At least, there is some information here. I have a physical copy of Bluebird of Happiness, and the only thing in the liner notes are the songwriters, producers, and samples. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (at the EastWood Scoring Stage in California), I think it would best to specify the city, especially since earlier in the same section, No Expectations Studios is specified as specifically in Los Angeles.

Great work with the article as always. After reading through the article once, I could only find two three very nitpick-y points (well, technically three since the first point has two comments). Once both points have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. What do you think about the potential inclusion of an audio sample in this article? I was being more conservative after the "Easy on Me" nomination but there might be a stronger case to be made for one here.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an audio sample would be justified here as the voice notes are such an integral part to the song, from its creation all the way down to its reception. I believe it would also help some readers better understand what the prose is conveying as some people may not be as familiar with voice notes or would not fully understand how these messages are interwoven into the song itself. Thank you for addressing everything. I will read the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that you will address anything that ChrisTheDude brings up in his review below. Hope you have a happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • "Kurstin plays bass, mellotron, piano, and steel guitar; Chris Dave plays drums and percussion; and David Campbell arranged and conducted the strings" - the tense changes from present to past mid-sentence
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "melisma"? I for one have no idea what it means.......
  • "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed they may" => "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed that they may"
  • "In the United Kingdom, "My Little Love" debuted at number five on the Official Audio Streaming Chart" - might be worth clarifying that this is not the main Official UK Singles Chart (the UK's equivalent to the Hot 100). It actually missed the UK Singles Chart completely, although this will almost certainly be down to a bizarre rule that no artist can have more than three songs in the chart in the same week.
  • That's what I got. Oh, and don't ever feel the need to categorise songs you like as "godawful". They're not bad songs if you derive enjoyment from them. The other day someone told me that my favourite album of the last six months was "absolute garbage" and I just ignored him because hey- I really like it and that's all that matters :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. Thank you so much for the review! I haven't heard the whole Zach Bryan album but the Kacey Musgraves collab was awesome. You should definitely not pay any mind to anyone criticizing you for enjoying it, lol. Hopefully he'll join Trainor and Miss Adkins next year.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the first one, I can see that you've split it into multiple sentences, but it still reads a little oddly (to me at least) that David Campbell conducted the strings but Kurstin plays bass. I would suggest it should all be in the past tense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Addressed comments from Gog the Mild
  • "Music critics compared the production of "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye". Did they, or did they 'compare[] "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye'?
  • "an emotional progression for Adele." I am not sure what this means. (What does it mean?)
  • The critical consensus was along the lines of "Adele delves further into her usual emotional subject matter; gets more emotional than ever". Open to suggestions on better ways to articulate this.
  • " Critics also highlighted the inclusion of the voice notes, praising the songwriting and lyricism." This reads as if the songwriting and lyricism of the voice notes were praised. Is that what is intended?
  • Switched to pre-GAN wording.
  • "and entered the top 40 in some other countries." Maybe "some" → 'several'?
  • "Adele began working on her fourth studio album by 2018. She filed for divorce from her husband". It seems odd that she was working on the album more than a year before the event which inspired it.
  • "mended her estranged relationship with her father" reads a little oddly and I am unsure it is grammatical. 'improved her relationship with her estranged father' or similar may work better.
  • This sentence has already passed a few FACs and seems to pass my grammar checker as well. A similar sentence is cited as an example of correct usage of the word on Collins: "People who have conflicted or estranged relationships generally do worse after a bereavement."
  • "The years following the divorce plagued her" doesn't work. Plague in this context means, according to Wiktionary "To harass, pester or annoy someone persistently or incessantly." A period of time cannot harass etc.
  • According to Oxford dictionary, plague in its verb form can mean "to cause pain or trouble to somebody/something over a period of time". I've reframed the sentence along your suggestion, though.
I don't think I made a suggestion, but I like the change - it is now tied to something specific.
  • "These inspired her return to the studio". Perhaps you could say prior to this that she had ceased studio recording. And, if known, state when and why.
  • Hmm, I was able to locate some stuff about her announcing she will never tour again in 2017 but nothing about ceasing recording. I think "return" here just means she went back to the studio for a new record cycle, not necessarily that it was after a long break.
  • "Adele released "Easy on Me" as the lead single from the album, entitled 30, on 14 October 2021." Why is this here, rather than the latter part of the last paragraph in this section, with the other details on release order and dates?
  • "Adele co-wrote "My Little Love" with its producer, Greg Kurstin". This jars a little, and thinking about it, probably because you are jumping chronologically. When they co-wrote the song, it was not known that Kurstin would produce it. Suggest deleting "its producer" - which also resolves issue of "producer" and "produced" in the same sentence. Kurstin's role as producer is already covered in the next section.
  • "which Annabel Nugent of The Independent described as "smoke pluming from a lit cigarette perched on an ashtray"." I doubt that she did. Perhaps "described as" → 'likened to' or similar.
  • "and thought it marked an emotional progression for Adele." As above. ('and considered it even more emotionally wrought that Adele's previous work'?)
  • Suggest "spectate" → 'see'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. I'll give it another read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2
[edit]
  • Any reason why Adele is described as English instead of British?
Do you mean on Wikipedia biographies?
? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gog! I mean Wikipedia biographies! As in the wording stably in place on her biography over the past five years (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018). Would you like me to change this? It would get swiftly reverted without there being some sort of consensus behind it. <3 Also, I really apologize for the joke above. I don't think you liked it.NØ 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The joke was great. It gave me a belly laugh.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. What happens in one, or even many, Wikipedia articles sets no precedent for what should happen in any other. I was just asking an open question and was anticipating a policy based response. As I didn't get one I looked it up myself. MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". I think it is clear that it is looking for the country of which the subject is a citizen or national and one cannot, since 1707, be a citizen or national of England. However, the addition of "region" confuses the issue, as, to a lesser extent, does England being a country, albeit not a sovereign one; I think this adds enough uncertainty for me to let it go, in spite of my personal feeling that it does not comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share your willingness to have the MoS-based wording in the article. However, I would also like the same correct wording reflected on other articles like Adele, Ed Sheeran, or Amy Winehouse and hence talk pages of those will be the avenue to achieve the change more broadly.--NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention the son's age at first mention of him?
  • "She recalled that creating it cleared up some of the chaos that was obstructing her ability to express her feelings." perhaps '... emotional chaos that was ...'?
  • "Some praised the lyrics". You then go on to only mention positive opinions. Were any less fulsome?
  • There were no negative reviews about the lyrics. Removed the "some" wording.
  • "The song received a Gold certification in Brazil." Why the upper-case G?
I capitalize the names of these award titles like I would with any other awards like "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc. The official award titles have them in caps and it makes sense imo since "gold" here is not referring to the metal.--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "official award titles" are proper nouns and so should be capitalised. I am not at all sure that a "certification" is an award or otherwise deserving of upper-case initials. (Eg, if I were a certified MMA instructor, I would not say that I had 'received Instructor certification' with an upper-case I.) What is the full "official award title" for Brazilian gold certification?
Here's the formal discussion about this a few years ago which ended in a sort-of consensus to leave it up to individual editors but encouraged capitalizing when the certification is referring to a single country (Brazil in this instance) and not needing to do it in a sentence combining certifications from several countries, e.g. "the album was certified gold in five countries." I, of course, have capitalized them on all song articles I have worked on and have a preference for that for the sake of consistency.--NØ 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing that consensus: I see two against capitalisation, one for and two, including you, offering no opinion on this specific issue. Similarly the 2007 discussion you refer to, which only attracted two contributors, ends with "if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine". Is there an official title in Brazil that goes along with such certification? Is the gold award certification trademarked? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gold is not trademarked by Promusicae as far as I can tell. They refer to the certification as "Oro" (capitalized) in Portuguese on their website. Even if you are not satisfied with that discussion, I would say there is a soft consensus the caps usage is okay from all of my own song FAs. Taking Blank Space as an example (admittedly, the other 1989 FAs don't seem to follow this), "multi-platinum" is lowercased when referring to multiple countries grouped together: "It received multi-platinum certifications", then capitalized when referring to individual countries: "Australia (8× Platinum), Canada (4× Platinum), New Zealand (4× Platinum), and the UK (2× Platinum)". You're welcome to start a new discussion about this but said discussion would fall out of the scope of this particular FAC considering there are 10+ other FAs utilizing the caps. Best, NØ 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three hours after posting this, you changed your mind and made the change. Which is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. You are even allowed to change the article just to get an irritating reviewer off your back. But could you just confirm that going forward you are committed to this version of the article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On this article, sure.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankss!--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this is the longest review (mostly because of my replies). I would prefer to collapse my reply about the certification titles too after you agree Take 2 has been satisfactorily addressed.---NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ok. Re take 2, I would prefer you didn't. The closing coordinator may not be as generous as me around MOS:NATIONALITY, so I would like it to be readily see it so they are aware they need to come to a judgement on it. Similarly I would prefer the discussion around G/gold to be easy to spot for the reviewer and for anyone subsequently referring to this discussion. Just one issue above I would like a little more clarity on before supporting. I'm sorry if this FAC has seemed unusually gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the acknowledgement in that last sentence. Descending into lengthy discussions about larger MoS issues affecting several different articles on an FAC about an extremely short article has been unexpected, to say the least. I'll leave take 2 unhatted.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request and cautioning that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Some dates are in parentheses and others aren't. I don't get the impression Otherwise it seems like the sources are formatted consistently. Everything I see appears to be sourced to typical pop-culture sources that I've seen on other FACses on these topics - magazines, news, typically prominent, from what seem to be professional writers. Note my caveat that I am not deeply familiar with any of them. Is Dutch Single Top 100 an official chart or anything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this one and all of the other source reviews you do, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Similarly to the Mckenna Grace article, dates format outside the parentheses when author names are not available. Unfortunately, this is not something I can fix unless the authors for those articles become known. The Dutch Single Top 100 is indeed an official chart recommended by WP:GOODCHARTS.--NØ 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, then, with the caveat about source unfamiliarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck
[edit]
  • 3 I don't see anything about her mending the relationship with her father?
  • "Their relationship had long been strained. [...] Adele did go to see Evans before he died. 'I know he loved me, and we actually got our peace before he died.'"
  • 4 OK.
  • 16 Where is "sentimental"?
  • I have now successfully learned that "emotional" can not be swapped out for "sentimental".
  • 21 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK, but is "low register" a subjective or objective claim?
  • Musical register is a technical term so objective. If another journalist said she was singing in a high register they would be objectively wrong.
  • 27 Quote's not in the article.
  • It is but there are also lyrics in a bracket. Try a search for: "Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child (“Mummy’s been having a lot of big feelings lately”) or blubbering into her phone during bouts of insecurity"
  • 30 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 Can I have a quote that supports the sentence?
  • "This being an Adele track, Mummy’s a bit blue. 'I don’t really know what I’m doing,' she sighs, to which her nine-year-old squeakily replies: 'At all?'" sort of supports that she feels confused and lost, but the Entertainment Weekly source also cited right after this sentence definitely backs up the whole sentence.
  • 40 Can't find the "astonishingly moving" part.
  • Switched it out for direct quote "incredibly touching" now
  • 44 OK
  • 46 OK
  • 48 OK
  • 49 OK
  • 52 OK
  • 55 OK
  • 57 OK
  • 58 OK
  • 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for investing the time for a spotcheck.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]

This review has been stable for a while so I had a look with a view to promote but I'm a little curious about some of the language, particularly something like the song being "complimented" for its "sentimentality". First off, unless there's an EngVar thing, I'd expect a person to be complimented, not a thing; secondly, I'm used to sentimentality being viewed as more pejorative than praise (or perhaps I'm just not that into pop music). Normally I'd recuse and review myself but I'm doing that on a couple of other articles so I wonder if I could take Jo-Jo up on the offer of a spotcheck, and after that call on Mike Christie for a review, mainly of the Reception section as that's what sparked my comment. MaranoFan, please don't make any changes based simply on what I've said here, it's really a drive-by -- let's see Jo-Jo's and Mike's takes before anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Just to be clear, "complimented" was one of only five suggestions made at the GAN, that I probably incorporated on a whim. It should not be indicative of any larger problem with the article. The GA reviewer also did spotchecks in case you find that relevant.--NØ 19:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to pick up the review; I have a house guest at the moment so it might be three or four days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks all, I will aim to take another look at this in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I can nominate another one right?--NØ 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I starting going through again last night and still have concerns that might impact future noms as well as this one -- pls be patient. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite shocked. The rest of the sections are very recently written and ironclad in my opinion. Curious for you to outline the issues.--NØ 12:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Just looking at the reception section.

  • "Critics complimented "My Little Love" as one of the most sentimental songs on 30": the sources don't use "sentimental" -- it appears you're using it as a synonym for "emotional", to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. The source phrases appear to be "undoubtedly the record's hardest gut-punch", "one of the most emotional songs on her new album", and one of the two songs described as "its most emotionally wrenching material". I don't think "sentimental" reflects these accurately.
  • "considered it even more emotionally wrought than Adele's previous work". This is an odd use of "wrought"; the word's only common figurative use is in the phrase "wrought up", meaning "in an anxious and upset state". The sources have "Adele takes her signature brand of musical heartache to new depths", "Adele gets vulnerable like never before", "Adele has returned with 30, taking bigger risks and revealing enough hard truths to make this her most powerful album yet" (though this is about the album, not this song in particular), and "The song is profoundly vulnerable, and hearing Adele reassure her son that she loves him conveys a truer sense of sadness than any of her past songs about heartbreak." I think vulnerability is the common thread here, rather than a more generic word such as "emotional".
  • The rest of the paragraph covers individual comments by reviewers about the emotions and honesty of the song. I think this paragraph (and the whole section, looking further down) has the "A said B" problem. I think you and I have talked about this before in reviews, and if I recall correctly you disagree, but I think keeping the full names of both the journalists and source publications in every case, rather than relegating them to the footnotes, makes it very difficult to write engaging prose. Also, why is Lipshutz's comment here? The source has "never been bolder in her song construction"; I don't understand what he means by that, and rephrasing it as "most intrepid song construction ever" is probably not far enough from the original. I think it's one of those vague phrases that's hard to rephrase because of the vagueness. Similarly, why is Mullin's comment in this paragraph? That comment is about thematic evolution, not emotion and vulnerability.
  • I haven't looked at the sources for the second and third paragraphs in as much detail, so I have no comments about the citations to individual reviewers, but the "A said B" problem is definitely there too.

The construction of the section seems sensible to me -- comments about the level of emotion, then the voice notes, then the lyrics. I think if some reviewer and source names were trimmed, and some opinions combined via paraphrase and summarization, it would be shorter, more engaging, and smoother. I am not going to oppose as I have not read the whole article, but I would not be able to support with this section in this form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how is this my first time realizing you wrote WP:CRS. Highly impressive. @Ian Rose and Mike Christie: I have now significantly reworked the article / section in line with MC's comments. The opinions expressed in paragraph 3 are too diverse to be merged in any meaningful way but done on the others. Cheers.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I sometimes think that essay is the most influential thing I've written on Wikipedia; it's nice to see other people refer to it.

Here are two options for improvement. I wrote the first set of notes and then realized it's not what I think is the best choice, so I wrote additional notes. I think if you follow these first suggestions it would help, but what I'd do in your shoes is take the second option.

Option 1

  • The changes are a big improvement but there are a couple of vocabulary choices I'd like to suggest changing. Looking at the sources I think what's happening is that you're making word choice changes to avoid close paraphrasing. It's usually better to restructure to avoid having to do that.
    • I think you could cut "immensely" in the first paragraph -- we don't need an adverb there.
    • How about "love for" instead of "adulation to"? "Adulation" has connotations we don't want here.
    • "imperative addition" -- this is an example of what happens when you try to change words to avoid paraphrasing problems. The source has "isn't a necessary addition to the record"; you have "didn't form an imperative addition to 30". The CLOP example talks about this sort of paraphrase. How about giving the McCormick quote first, and then adding Kaplan's take: "...during bouts of insecurity', and Consequence's Ilana Kaplan agreed that they weren't needed, though they gave an insight into Adele's state of mind."
  • Suggest combining Mapes' and Swann's reviews with "and", moving Petridis before or after them instead of between. They're two very short comments and it would vary the rhythm a bit.
  • I see similarities between the first paragraph and the positive comments in the third paragraph from Sanchez, Murray, and Piatkowski. (In fact Piatkowski's review comments aren't really praise at all.)

Option 2. Here's an alternative to the above comments. I think it would be better to quote a bit less. I can see the attraction of some of the quotes but I think our job in a reception section is to summarize and identify common threads in the review. The topic sentences for the paragraph do that to some degree, and you've also done it in the middle of the paragraphs, but I think more could be done. The third paragraph is almost half quotes, for example, and the second paragraph is about 40% quotes. There's no target number, but given that most of the remaining text is names of reviewers or publications that seems like too much to me. I think the key points from the sources are:

  • naked, honest song-writing -- perhaps excessively so but some found it touching
  • voice notes and closing voicemail -- tells us about Adele's state of mind but some reviewers thought it was excessive
  • another of her trademark heartbreak songs, and an evolution of her previous work
  • praised for creativity, skill, honesty
  • Adele's loneliness and vulnerability

I think if we built a couple of paragraphs that assembled these points into a summary of what reviewers thought, without any quotes at all, then quotes could be re-added for illustration. I think that would give the reader a more natural flow that didn't feel like a list of bullet point quotes. (There are a couple of bits of information such as the Rolling Stone ranking that would have to go in a separate paragraph.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for boiling it down like that. This has been incredibly helpful. I've incorporated both, options 1 and 2, and arrived at a Critical reception section that should hopefully be acceptable. Please feel free to copyedit. Cheers, NØ 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a big improvement. I joined two short and somewhat related paragraphs but otherwise didn't touch the prose. Ian, I'm not going to register a full support on prose as I haven't reviewed the rest of the article but I think this section is now fine. Personally I'd trim some of the reviewer and publication names, but I know not every editor likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review. Marano, Jo-Jo's and Mike's comments and your willingness to take those on board have eliminated some of the initial concerns I had re. the language, but I think there's still a fair bit of room for improvement to get to FA standard. I see issues re. expression, repetition, and overuse of quotes:

  • Critics praised the raw and honest songwriting of "My Little Love" and found it touching. -- "and found it touching" seems tacked on, how about Critics praised "My Little Love" as raw, honest and touching.?
  • Critics thought the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" conveyed Adele's state of mind but was excessive. -- Aside from another paragraph starting with "Critics", this is cited to only two sources, so I'd suggest "Some reviewers" is more appropriate. Further, you repeat "Adele's state of mind" in a quote later. Why not just say Some reviewers felt the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" was excessive." as that appears to be common to both sources?
  • The quote from McCormick could use some trimming: instead of wrote that "the weepy voice notes may be a bit too much. Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child..., consider reducing to wondered "whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child...
  • Reviewers also commented on Adele's expression of loneliness and vulnerability in the closing voicemail, which they thought was uncomfortable to listen. -- Do you mean "uncomfortable to listed to"? I think you could lose that last bit entirely and finish the sentence on "voicemail".
  • ...and more vulnerable than Adele's previous work -- I don't think a work itself can be vulnerable, but you could say it displayed more vulnerability on Adelle's part...
  • They thought it was another one of her trademark heartbreak songs which evolved from her previous work. -- You have stuff on heartbreak songs and her previous work later, you can lose this sentence entirely to avoid the repetition.

I'd have to lean oppose as it reads now, but I can see myself changing that if the above suggestions are acted upon, or if you can convince me it reads better as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All swiftly acted upon. Thanks for helping to polish the prose more. Did this on mobile because I am outside so apologies for any typos. Will correct any when I get home.—NØ 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ian Rose. I think you can go through it now. While initially rewriting this section, I was trying to match the exact wording of Mike's bullet points above. I think all of your suggestions are improvements, and I have incorporated them. Always here to take care of anything else. Cheers, NØ 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've also now ran this through repetition-detector.com and it only detects Adele and the song's name as repetition. I believe the Background and Commercial performance sections are free of repetition and mostly free of quotes. In the Composition section, I think losing Aguirre and Chinen's quotes would be detrimental as the adjectives they used seem integral to conveying the comparisons with Gaye and for integrity; other quotes are too small to seem a problem. Reception has already been extensively covered by you and Mike. To my interpretation, all actionable commentary regarding this oppose vote is now exhausted.--NØ 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks MF, I expect I'll drop the oppose but let me have another read and perhaps finetune -- I had noticed some of the wording in the lead was identical to parts of the reception section but was going to leave that till reception was attended to; you might have also addressed that now in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I felt the lead and reception could still stand a few tweaks and trims but happy to discuss if it seems too much. Don't have time now to go through in further detail and perhaps support, but striking the oppose. For future reference, I really think it's worth trying PR for music (or other pop culture) articles, given the challenge of creating balanced yet engaging content -- the more eyes before FAC the better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for coordinators

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/My_Little_Love/archive1&oldid=1189084051"