Talk:Foil (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Lead and infobox The infobox mentions that the song was recorded in December 2013, but I do not see this mentioned in the body of the article and it does not seem to be sourced anywhere. This part (but reveals a plot twist in its second verse, parodying conspiracy theories, the New World Order, and the Illuminati) seems rather wordy, and I think something like (but becomes a parody of conspiracy theories, the New World Order, and the Illuminati in its second verse) could be more concise and have the same message. For the genre parameter of the infobox, I can only see a reference and mention of “parody” in the article. I do not see a clear reference or citation for “art pop”, and although the article talks about the song’s humor, it never directly describes the song in the “comedy” genre. It is a little strange that the record label (i.e. “RCA”) is only mentioned in the infobox and not in the lead or the body of the article. I do not think the link for “music critics” is entirely necessary, and I would put a comma between “critics” and “and”. Background and composition Link Mandatory Fun in this part (it is the shortest parody on Mandatory Fun). For this part (It retains the original song's instrumentation; however, it is slowed down to match Yankovic's singing voice), I think it may be better to condense it slightly as (It retains the original song’s instrumentation, but is slowed down to match Yankovic's singing voice). I think it reads a little better instead of separating the information into two shorter sentences. I am confused by this part (He also mimics Lorde's "sultry croon.”), specifically the “also” part. The previous sentences do not mention Yankovic doing anything else so the “also” does not make sense in this context. For the same sentence, unless you are quoting a full sentence, I would put punctuation outside of the quotation marks. For this part (due to its omission of the bridge and final chorus from the original track), I think it would beneficial to link “bridge”. This is not really a recommendation to change anything, but it looks odd to have two written out as a numeral in this part (At 2 minutes and 23 seconds). You do not have to change it, but I think it is worth pointing out. I am confused by the placement of this sentence (Yankovic planned to incorporate a twist in the song while outlining ideas). I would move it down to the second paragraph as you have not told the reader about the twist and exactly what it is at this point so it does not really make any sense. These two sentences (In an interview with Billboard, Lorde responded to Yankovic parodying her song on his album by revealing that she was "asked ages go if he could do it"; she agreed to his offer) seem far too wordy. I would cut it down to something like (In an interview with Billboard, Lorde said Yankovic "asked ages go if he could do it” and she agreed to his offer.). I have a few issues with this sentence (The singer listened to Yankovic's parodies since the age of 10 and took a liking to his parody of "Confessions" (2004) by Usher.) Is it really necessary to point out Lorde’s exact age when she started listening to these parodies. I would also think there could be a way to combine portions of this sentence to something like (Lorde enjoyed Yankovic’s music, specifically his parody of "Confessions" (2004) by Usher, since she was a child.) I would avoid using phrases like “the singer” per the essay, Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. For this part (opting for a doggy bag from the waiter to take home), I think you can just say (opting for a doggy bag) since I think the current wording borders on over-explaining this detail. I would link “chorus” for this part (The first verse and chorus expand upon the usage of aluminum foil for food storage purposes) since I would find it more likely for readers to be unfamiliar with specific music terminology. Remember to add ALT text to the image. Reception I do not think the link to "music critics" is necessary here: ("Foil" received mostly positive reviews from music critics.) This sentence ("Foil" received mostly positive reviews from music critics.) does not really make sense since the article only cites one negative review. I have a few issues with this sentence (The Los Angeles Times deemed the song a highlight of Mandatory Fun). Does the source mention anything else about the song? Also why is the reviewer's name not included in the prose? I am uncertain about the following sentence (Consequence of Sound writer Matt Melis called it one of the album's "essential tracks," comparing it to previous food-related parodies by Yankovic). After looking at the source, it seems that either all of the reviewers or the site as a whole marked this track as essential and not necessarily Melis himself. Also, Hauser was the one that compared this to Yankovic's past work not Melis. I think it would be more beneficial to more specific in the prose, since Hauser specifically names The Food Album. I would also add a part about Ben Kaye's review of the song as he is the one that has the more detail perspective on it. I would actually recommend rewriting this part entirely. I think it may be better to move this sentence (The song received a nomination for Best Individual Performance at the 2015 Webby Awards.) to an earlier point in the paragraph because it is odd to transition from positive reviews to a negative review to an award nomination (which is similar to a positive review). For this sentence (Commercially, "Foil" peaked at number three on the United States Comedy Digital Tracks.), I would clarify that the Comedy Digital Tracks chart is a Billboard chart. I actually prefer your wording in the lead. Music video I am uncertain about this sentence (The music video for "Foil" was released as the third of a series of eight videos produced for Mandatory Fun on July 16, 2014 through CollegeHumor's YouTube channel.). The source says this (The “Foil” clip, which premiered Wednesday via College Humor, is the third released so far this week (in a series of eight) and the current wording in the article implies to me that all eight videos were released on one day (July 16, 2014) and the cited source seems to contradict this. These points are not cited: (As of December 2019, all videos released for "Foil" have amassed a combined 39 million views.), (During the chorus, three woman dressed in foil outfits appear as they ad-lib the song's lyrics.), and (The video ends with Oswalt taking off his human head to reveal the face of a reptilian humanoid.). Unlink doggy bag as it was already linked in above sentence. I am confused at why the author's names are included in some sentences and not others (like saying just MTV and later L.V. Anderson of Slate). Live performances I have a question about this part (Yankovic performed "Foil" as part of the Mandatory World Tour in 2015). The article on the tour says it lasted between 2015 and 2016 so did he take it off the setlist for the 2016 performances? This section references Yankovic by his first name when it should be his last name. See also I do not think this section is necessary so I would remove it. References Would either of these two articles (Weird Al Just Topped His Best Work With This Lorde Parody, Weird Al Spoofs Lorde's 'Royals' With an Ode to Leftovers) be beneficial to the article? @De88: I can tell that a lot of good work has been put into this article. I did notice several areas that would benefit from further revision, and it may be helpful to put in a request at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to help with the prose. Hopefully, my comments are helpful, and please let me know if you need any clarification about anything. Once my comments are addressed, I will do another read-through of the article and look more thoroughly through the sources. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I went ahead and took care of each comment. Thank you for paying close attention to detail. It helps to comprehend and analyse mistakes.

I could not find sources for the lines in the music video section you pointed out. In previous GA reviews, reviewers tend to ignore citing the synopsis of a music video as it becomes a challenge to find sources for each set of descriptions in the video. Would it prove beneficial to add the official video at the end of the final paragraph? De88 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my comments. If previous reviewers allowed it, then it should be fine here as I can see the case of the music video being used as the primary source, similar to how a film synopsis generally does not include any citations as the film is cited as the primary source itself. I will look through the article again now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Second round of comments

• For this part ( praised the first half of the track but expressed criticism to the "weird switch to Illuminati jokes".), I think it would read better to say "but criticized the "weird switch to Illuminati jokes") instead, and I could add a comma between "track" and "but".
• I have a question about this part (Henry Hauser compared the track to Yankovic's previous works and noted that it could have been included in his 1993 record The Food Album). When I looked at the original source, I can only find an instance where Hauser compared the song to The Food Album, and I could not find the comparison to other albums/songs. This is the part that I found from the source: (on “Foil”, a delicious parody of “Royals” that could easily have made the cut on 1993’s The Food Album). I am probably reading over that part, but I just wanted to make sure.
• For the aluminium foil image, I do not think the (pictured) part is necessary since the beginning part (i.e. "An image of...") already makes this point clear.
• I still have an issue with this sentence (Other critics were less positive.). The section only include one negative review (the Paste one) so I do not see how "critics" plural is supported. I could see Ben Kaye from Consequence of Sound being a second critic to support this more mixed-to-negative response so maybe it would be better to move his criticism directly before the Paste review?
• The citation for the Breanna Ehrlich source says MTV News but the prose just says MTV. I would revise the prose to have it say MTV News to be more specific.
• For the Consequence of Sound citation, there are two quotation marks at the beginning of the title.
• Reference 3 is missing the author's name (Kevin O'Keefe).
• For Reference 7, I would just use Slate instead of Slate Magazine as that seems to be the common name for the source.
• I am a little confused by the links used in the citations. For instance, Billboard is not linked in Reference 4, but it is linked later in Reference 11.
• I am also confused on why certain websites/magazines are not linked at all in the citations, like World, Consequence of Sound, Forbes, etc.
• I am still not convinced about the necessity of the "See also" section. The link to "List of songs recorded by "Weird Al" Yankovic" does not seem really specific to this article and song, and seems like something that could be added to every article on a Yankovic song. Unless there is a strong reason for inclusion, I still think it should be removed.

Again, great work with the article. I hope my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I believe it should be ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I took care of each comment. For the Consequence of Sound comment, I found no quotation marks at the beginning of the title. I also meant to remove the "See also" section from your first set of comments but forgot. My mistake. De88 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. It seems that reference titles are automatically put in quotation marks so the quotation marks are doubled because of this. I was referencing Reference 10 by the way. Since that is outside of your control that is not an issue. I will ✓ Pass this. Great work with the article, and thank you for being patient with my review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)