Talk:To Be Loved (Adele song)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:To Be Loved (Adele song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Troubled.elias (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be taking this review, just to ease the GAN backlog a little. If you have the time, I'll appreciate if you left a review for Not My Responsibility - it's a pretty brief article and should take a short while to read :) elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking this up. I will address the comments after the review is placed on hold, if that is okay, lest I keep getting too excited and abusing you with pings, lol.--NØ 19:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
| GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
|---|
|
|
Overall: |
 ·  ·  · 
|
- Opening comments
- All of these sources are Certified Reliable(tm) for music-related articles; this is good! No reference errors jump out; the references section looks pretty compliant with MOS:NOTES.
- The article covers all the aspects I would expect a song article to cover - background, release, composition, and reception.
- Article history is stable.
- Only one image used in the article, which is a public domain photo from the US federal government.
I find the Whitney Houston image fitting, but can we move it to the "Composition" section where the comparison is made?- The comparison is included in both sections. I am trying to break the five paragraph-long wall of text with its current placement. I will move it if you really insist, though.
- Oh, I didn't see that at first. No worries, you don't have to do this
- The comparison is included in both sections. I am trying to break the five paragraph-long wall of text with its current placement. I will move it if you really insist, though.
- Spotchecks: I've used a pseudo-RNG to generate a sample of 11 references to check for any WP:V or WP:OR issues. I expect them to be clear, though, since you're a veteran editor with a lot of FAs/GAs under your belt :) Reference numbers refer to this version of the article.
- [2] - verified
- [8] - verified first instance and second instances. There is somewhat of a close paraphrasing wrt the source and the first information cited by this, and while it would be neat to fix that, it isn't *that* egregious
- [9] - verified quote, plus the "they both cried" claim. This is too depressing :(
- [12] - verified first and second instances
- [19] - verified - "torch ballad" description
- [23] - Ooh, this is a lot. Four instances. So first instance of this citation is there to cite a quote, which I can verify. Second instance is for the "cracks voice during bridge" thing which I can also verify. Third and fourth instances involve quotes from the source itself: no OR or V issues found
- [31] - verified
- [40] - verified. Good paraphrasing.
- [44] - verified both the placement and the quote
- [48] - verified that it is unranked and that "To Be Loved" is in there
- [54] - verified.
- From my spotchecks, no OR or V issues were found. AGF that the unchecked references are also valid. There were some closely paraphrased lines as I've indicated above but this doesn't need urgent fixing here IMO. Doesn't indicate any copyvio either; ran this through Earwig and it didn't pick up anything.
- Prose - this is in no particular order
- (MOS:LEAD) Lead is well-written and I can already tell it's representative of the entire article. Good job with this!
- (MOS:WORDSTOWATCH) All quotes, opinions, observations, etc. etc. here are attributed properly. Would like these quotes to be cut down somewhat in favor of some paraphrasing, but out of respect I won't ask to do it here. Better that during an FAC or PR. Things such as "rave reception" or "best songs of 2021" or "powerful vocals" are cited to sources that clearly say it, so no issues of puffery arise.
- I got a little lazy since GANs are usually less stringent in stuff like this :P. I hope I was able to make this better.
- Just noticed this: "his passing from cancer". MOS:EUPHEMISM, which is part of WORDSTOWATCH, advises against using "passing [away]" and suggests to use the clearer alternative, which is dying.
- Done.
- (MOS:LAYOUT) Order of article elements is good; each section of the body is titled and arranged properly. Paragraphs are pretty cohesive and are split properly.
I've said above that the Whitney Houston image can be moved up the Composition section - please do so. Might want to shrink it using|upright=as well just so it fits - MOS:FICTION and MOS:LISTS don't really apply here. The compliance with the above MOS guidelines is mostly good - just one issue to be resolved
"The song was among those she played" - which song? You listed three of them prior. Would clarify that you're obviously referring to "To Be Loved" here"Jesso Jr. plays the piano, and produced the song" be consistent with tenses"parlays" is too informal, me thinks, and somewhat confusing to someone unfamiliar with the term"induce an impulse to applaud in the listener" - gave me pause for a second. Is it just me or should this be "an impulse to applaud from the listener"?Wikilink "chest belt" to "Belting (music)", "vibrato" to "Vibrato", and "bridge" to "Bridge (music)" for unfamiliar readers"dulcet" "apportion" "stentorian" "sullied" - lots of unfamiliar vocabulary words here... What do these intend to convey? Where possible, strive for simpler wording. Or, wikilink to Wiktionary, although I prefer the former solution- (No shade to you personally but) people should look those up in case they are unfamiliar. They're real words.
- Huh. Pardon but I am confused by this. Sure, they can look it up. I certainly had to do that before typing this here. Though I will note that the NYT source cited for the "apportion" sentence says "...what it means to share her life" which is. Not exactly close to how 'apportion' is apparently defined... Remember that GAN crit 1a says we have to make this clear and understandable to a broad audience. This choice of words gets even more confusing when you look up what the words mean and compare it to what the sources say. Plus, why should we waste readers' time doing all the searching when we can just opt for clearer diction?
I'll be more lenient here - I'm fine with "dulcet" and "sullied" staying, I suppose. Easy enough to understand from context clues. But "apportion" and "stentorian" can definitely be replaced.- I'll budge on "apportion". Stentorian, however, even according to the wikitionary, conveys the appropriate meaning here exactly, so I'll be retaining that with a link. I could just change these now and then switch back after the nomination is passed but I would prefer not to do that.
- That's totally fair! Thanks for the cooperation. Consider this one striked
- I'll budge on "apportion". Stentorian, however, even according to the wikitionary, conveys the appropriate meaning here exactly, so I'll be retaining that with a link. I could just change these now and then switch back after the nomination is passed but I would prefer not to do that.
- Huh. Pardon but I am confused by this. Sure, they can look it up. I certainly had to do that before typing this here. Though I will note that the NYT source cited for the "apportion" sentence says "...what it means to share her life" which is. Not exactly close to how 'apportion' is apparently defined... Remember that GAN crit 1a says we have to make this clear and understandable to a broad audience. This choice of words gets even more confusing when you look up what the words mean and compare it to what the sources say. Plus, why should we waste readers' time doing all the searching when we can just opt for clearer diction?
- (No shade to you personally but) people should look those up in case they are unfamiliar. They're real words.
"being royal as always" - this is one of those instances where I would prefer the actual quote from the critic over the paraphrasing. I don't get what this is trying to say.- The "commercial performance" section reads clear to me. "Credits and personnel" and "charts" are fine.
- The critics seem unanimous in the opinion that this is a damn good song... hm. Might wanna listen to it sometime. There's one criticism of the song here about replayability, so it doesn't lean too hard on the positivity I suppose. Compliant enough with WP:NPOV.
- You haven't heard 30??? Would definitely recommend, especially if you enjoyed Sour :)
- No. I have onlyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh heard the lead single. Clearly a poor decision on my part. Though I'm still reeling in from relistening to Happier Than Ever for a while, so my metaphorical cups are pretty full at the moment :")
- Ooh what happened to that, btw? Waiting for your go-ahead for the HTE GAN anyday now!--NØ 09:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, got a little exhausted trying to expand it, so I went to improve a way smaller article first (NMR). I still feel woozy w content creating, so for the next few weeks I'll spend my energy reviewing other people's work. Don't worry though, I can feel "Happier Than Ever" getting the bronze star Soon(tm) 😊 elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, got a little exhausted trying to expand it, so I went to improve a way smaller article first (NMR). I still feel woozy w content creating, so for the next few weeks I'll spend my energy reviewing other people's work. Don't worry though, I can feel "Happier Than Ever" getting the bronze star Soon(tm) 😊 elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
- Ooh what happened to that, btw? Waiting for your go-ahead for the HTE GAN anyday now!--NØ 09:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. I have onlyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh heard the lead single. Clearly a poor decision on my part. Though I'm still reeling in from relistening to Happier Than Ever for a while, so my metaphorical cups are pretty full at the moment :")
- You haven't heard 30??? Would definitely recommend, especially if you enjoyed Sour :)
- The article doesn't go on unrelated tangents, and seems focused to me.
- That's all from me. Placing this on hold so that my issues get addressed.
- Sorry, actually wait. There's one more. See here.
- All addressed with just two replies / clarifications. I hope you're having a great week!--NØ 08:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Same goes to you. There's nothing left for me to do here; we are
Done. Passing. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Same goes to you. There's nothing left for me to do here; we are
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.
Requested move 13 July 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 08:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
– Alright, we got a newly created song article named "To Be Loved" (by Adele), and it turns out that there is another song article named "To Be Loved"... kind of. The song article that came first is actually titled "...To Be Loved" with the ellipsis at the beginning. Now I am extremely sure either "...To Be Loved" or "To Be Loved (Adele song)" need to be renamed and have their disambiguator modified, though I have no idea which one should be moved.
Per WP:DIFFPUNCT. Is the title "...To Be Loved" sufficiently distinguishable enough from "To Be Loved (Adele song)" that we can simplify the latter to "To Be Loved (song)" ? Or, on the other hand, is it not distinguishable enough, and it would be necessary to disambiguate "...To Be Loved" with the artist name (Papa Roach)? I am perfectly fine with either solution, though I have my personal preference, which can be seen below. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I am leaning with rename "To Be Loved (Adele song)" to "To Be Loved (song)" per DIFFPUNCT. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Songs has been notified of this discussion. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose both: Unlikely anyone looking for the Adele song will use periods in the title, so oppose the second one. And everyone looking for the Papa Roach song cannot be expected to use periods, so oppose the first one. We'll be done here after a hatnote pointing to To Be Loved (disambiguation) is added to the Papa Roach song article.--NØ 07:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as far as I can see neither are ambiguous, are there multiple Adele songs? Are any others called with the 3 dots (anyone searching with the dots surely could only be looking for it). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, clearly my naivete is showing here - I read DIFFCAPS one more time and, well, I guess we can't reasonably expect folks to use periods when searching for the Papa Roach song as Marano said. I expect more folks to oppose for the same reasons if I keep this open, and since I'm the nominator I'll withdraw this request. Though I will note that "To Be Loved (song)" redirects to the Papa Roach song - will be retargeting the redirect link after I close this shortly. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 08:49, 13 July 2022 (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.
Did you know 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 SL93 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that Adele almost broke her phone while performing "To Be Loved" because her pitch was too high? Source: Variety
- ALT1: ... that Adele and her father cried after she played him the song "To Be Loved"? Source: The Washington Post
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Illegal Immigrant
Created by MaranoFan (talk). Self-nominated at 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC).
- So this was created on the date of the DYK nomination, and has already passed a GAN before DYK?? Damn. Anyway;
- Created (and promoted to GA) less than seven days ago, definitely over 1500 characters, and no prose related issues. Earwig gives 34%, but these are attributed quotes which isn't a problem. Both hooks are in the article, cited, under 200 characters, and interesting; though I would urge the promoter to pick ALT0 over ALT1. QPQ done, all good!
~StyyxTalk? 14:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Created (and promoted to GA) less than seven days ago, definitely over 1500 characters, and no prose related issues. Earwig gives 34%, but these are attributed quotes which isn't a problem. Both hooks are in the article, cited, under 200 characters, and interesting; though I would urge the promoter to pick ALT0 over ALT1. QPQ done, all good!
DYK broke my phone
A non-technical entertainment writer isn't a source for the capabilities of smartphones, nor did he ever say that anyone's phone "nearly" broke. Reported at WP:ERRORS and removed from article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- guardian.ng appears to closely paraphrase the original Variety source, so I would not regard it as a separate, or even a reliable, source. Elizium23 (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian is a reliable source. I'm really not sure what you are looking for. Please feel free to directly suggest a hook you would like.--NØ 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian (Nigeria) is not The Guardian of the UK. Elizium23 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure what you are looking for. Please feel free to directly suggest a hook you would like.--NØ 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking for some WP:V. I'm grateful that you've reworded the hook to conform to the sources, but I would still contend that there is only one valid source for this. Elizium23 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will compromise and be fine with removing it after you okay one of the other hooks. Please understand that my priority is the DYK that goes live in less than 24 hours. Kindly go through all of the alternatives at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Next_DYK.--06:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking for some WP:V. I'm grateful that you've reworded the hook to conform to the sources, but I would still contend that there is only one valid source for this. Elizium23 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure what you are looking for. Please feel free to directly suggest a hook you would like.--NØ 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian (Nigeria) is not The Guardian of the UK. Elizium23 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Guardian is a reliable source. I'm really not sure what you are looking for. Please feel free to directly suggest a hook you would like.--NØ 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)