Wikipedia

Talk:Not My Responsibility/Archive 1

< Talk:Not My Responsibility
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kavyansh.Singh in topic Did you know nomination
Archive 1

GA Review

Latest comment: 2 years ago35 comments2 people in discussion

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:Not My Responsibility/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 14:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Soon!--NØ 14:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  • @MaranoFan, thanks for picking this up. I'll be in and out of Wikipedia today due to some house errands, so I'll appreciate a ping every time you leave new sets of comments/replies here. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     09:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • ... fuck, adding then editing that reply actually pinged twice. I'm waaay in over my head today. Sorry about that ^^ Feel free to spam ping me back as revenge, or something /s

Review

  • I am a bit confused by the article structure. Shouldn't "Production and release" go above "Plot"? The latter is an abrupt beginning to the article.--NØ 09:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Switched. Film articles usually begin with the plot, though obviously per MOS:FILM this shouldn't always be the case. (And given that the film is incredibly short, I do agree it would feel more natural for the plot section to come second)
  • After that is switched, make sure you link Eilish's name at the first mention.--NØ 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Done
  • "in March 9, 2020"?--NØ 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Changed to the appropriate preposition, ditto with the "March 2019" one
  • "Its audio was later included as a song in Eilish's second studio album" - a bit convoluted. How about "It was later included as the ninth track on Eilish's second studio album"? Seems to get the point across just as well to me.--NØ 10:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know - I might be nitpicking here, but it feels wrong to say that "a short film was included in an album." Unless the album is a video album, I feel like we have to clarify that the film got converted to a song
      • Actually, hold on. I trimmed "as a song" because it was extraneous. Now it reads as "Its audio was later included in Eilish's second studio album, Happier Than Ever (2021)". Essentially means the same thing - though I didn't include "ninth track" as it is unnecessary detail for the lead. This sentence should be sufficiently trimmed now, I hope. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
        📝see my work         11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "Not My Responsibility begins with Billie Eilish wearing a black jacket in a dimly lit room" - Is she shown putting the jacket on? That's what this seems to imply. Otherwise you could go with "begins with Billie Eilish in a black jacket"--NØ 10:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Changed.
  • Do you think the sleeveless shirt link is necessary?--NØ 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not - delinked. I don't know how I forgot to delink that when I first got to the article
  • What's the source for the plot here, the video? I would suggest including that as a reference after the last line so it is clear.--NØ 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • MOS:FILMPLOT covers this: Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.
  • "on March 2019 to commercial success"? Also commas needed after dates mid-sentence.--NØ 10:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Tweaked this one
  • Link to self-image maybe.--NØ 10:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Linked
  • "Eilish revealed that she did this because she was extremely conscious about her body and she wanted to avoid sexual objectification" - Simplify: "This was because she was extremely conscious about her body and she wanted to avoid sexual objectification"--NØ 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "negative comments about her appearance" is a rather long term to wikilink. Looks a bit WP:SOB-y. Also a bit iffy on the usefulness of the body shaming link here.--NØ 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "getting called a "slut"" - Again, this looks like an odd wikilink to me. How about "being slut-shamed"?--NØ 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "in March 9, 2020"...--NØ 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "two months later on May 26" - Just one of these would probably suffice. Althought I'd add the year if you decide to keep only "May 26".--NØ 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, here is what we call a quintuple whammy - I've edited that section to address all 5 points above
  • "a Billboard staff author" - Just one of the latter words would probably do.--NØ 10:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Lars Brandle wrote for Billboard"
  • "wrote that Eilish got to demonstrate her "creative juices" with the film and commented positively on the background music" - Add a comma after "with the film" so the reader knows it isn't Eilish doing the commenting.--NØ 10:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • done
  • "In an opinion piece for Paper" - Probably could do away with "an opinion piece for" in favor of just "In Paper"--NØ 10:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Riley Runnells, a Paper author"
  • "expressed pity for Eilish's longstanding experience with body shaming, but felt inspired by her continuing drive to speak out against unfair standards" - "but" is not the right conjunction here as these aren't opposing opinions.--NØ 10:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • They are opposing moods/vibes though. The first clause deals with something negative (pity, body shaming), and the second clause introduces an upside/silver lining (inspiration, speaking out against shaming)
  • Not sure about "album track" as a section title but I also have no ideas for what to replace it with.--NØ 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • "Usage as a song" "As a song" ?
  • "The audio from Not My Responsibility the short film was used" - "the short film" seems completely unnecessary to me in this sentence.--NØ 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Also I'd simplify the introductory sentence for the "Album track" section to "Not My Responsibility was included as the ninth track on Eilish's second studio album Happier Than Ever", as I think it conveys all of the relevant points more succintly.--NØ 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Addressing the two points above - this part got trimmed down to "The short film's audio was included as the ninth track on Eilish's second studio album, Happier Than Ever."
  • It feels a bit weird to start describing the song's composition "An ambient, electropop track... transition between the two" four(!) sections into the article, which I'm afraid indicates the need for a structural overhaul.--NØ 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Where do you think this should go, then? Sources from the time Not My Responsibility premiered don't really comment on the music from the short film --- remember that we're dealing with a short film here. The plot and the visuals and the message come first. The audio becomes front and center when we are discussing an album track or song. Hence I feel it is appropriate to describe the composition in a section where "Not My Responsibility" (notice how I am now using quotes) is described as a song, or as part of a studio album. Due to the extraordinary nature of the article we're dealing with, it's important we come to a WP:CONSENSUS on how to discuss NMR both as a film and as a song.
    • And fwiw the "transitions into Overheated" part is definitely relevant in that section, considering the placement of it and "NMR" in the tracklist
  • Also what do the live performances have to do with its inclusion as an album track? (I mean why are the performances in this sub-section?)--NØ 10:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
    • With the new section name ("usage as a song") this should be more appropriate.

I have some concerns mainly about the article structure, particularly with the ordering.--NØ 10:07, 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

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Troubled.elias (talk). Self-nominated at 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: None required.

Overall:   "Credits and personnel" section needs citations. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Not_My_Responsibility/Archive_1&oldid=1101671149"