Wikipedia

Talk:TV (song)/GA1

< Talk:TV (song)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Your Power in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago20 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

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

I will conduct this one today! --K. Peake 08:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead

edit
  • The recording year is not sourced anywhere in the body
    • Right, removed
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billie Eilish under songwriters
    • Do you mean duplink? Anyhow DUPLINK says "wikilinking may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes"
  • Merge the first two sentences with, "Billie Eilish, released as one of two tracks on her" only placing the release year in brackets and removing the labels from prose
    • If it's okay with you, I partially implemented the suggestion. I did remove the record labels from the lead section to provide breathing room, but the rest stayed the same: I want to make the opening sentence feel short, since part of my writing style is to sprinkle short and sweet sentences in the middle of longer, more complex ones.
  • Add a sentence about the writing of the song as the second of the first para, mentioning when she wrote it and the two songwriters
    • I'm not sure about that. The jump from "The studio version of the song features a sample of crowd noises from the tour performance" to "Eilish wrote the song with its producer, Finneas O'Connell" is a pretty big one. Its current placement in the paragraph is fine, IMO, and I think it serves as a good closer.
      • This is out of order though; writing obviously comes before the song is released, so should be prior to any comp and you can add more about the songwriting to the lead. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • Rearranged, placing the songwriting sentence at the end of the first paragraph. I chose to add the bit about writing on tour in the lead, and I think that's enough detail.
  • "for her subsequent studio album," → "for her subsequent album,"
    • Trimmed
  • You don't need to write studio version for the song in the second para when no other one has been mentioned
    • Many folks posted the full Manchester performance across social media, so I'd say there is another version: a live version, an unreleased version, etc etc. I tweaked the lead's third sentence to make this fact more clear
  • The soft vocals part is not notable for the lead, however minimalist production is so mention that instead
    • Well, when you have multiple sources used in the article that put focus on Eilish's soft vocals, I would push back and say this inclusion is justified
  • Find a way to mention the link between her lamenting of the fixation and perceiving of a lack of concern about other issues
    • Done
  • "critics praised it for" → "Critics praised the song for" as a new sentence, but keep where it is
    • See my reply on the fourth comment
      • You are overusing it in this sentence. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • When it comes to pronouns like "it" or "she", I'm more lenient about repeating it twice or thrice in a row than, say, nouns. Either way, I moved the songwriting bit somewhere else, so this should not be an issue any more.
  • Add a sentence about the song's notable commercial performance after the above one
    • I'm not sure if putting this in the lead would be appropriate (?) First, there is not a lot of discussion in the article nor in outside sources about the song's performance as a whole - which casts doubt on the "notable" claim. Second, such a sentence would not fit any of the two paragraphs thematically: the first talks about a basic overview and background context for the song, and the second exclusively talks about the songwriting
      • The song was a top 40 hit though, making chart positions notable by default. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • Added a brief summary: "it reached the top 40 of singles charts in over 10 countries". I don't want to list all of the countries in the lead because it will be clunky and would give readers information overload

Background

edit
  • Img looks good!
  • Remove comma before Happier Than Ever
    • Not done; I don't think this changes anything of value wrt how the sentence reads
  • "during which she was busy writing" → "using the time to write"
    • I would prefer not to repeat the word "time", so I stuck with the current wording
  • "wrote the song with her brother," → "co-wrote the song with her brother"
    • "co-wrote" to me is fluff, and I try to keep fluff in articles to a minimum. If someone writes a song with another person, then the "co" part would be obvious (and therefore unnecessary)
  • Merge the first para with the second one per overly short size
    • Not done; while yes, the first paragraph is around half as long as the second, if I were to merge the two, then the resulting paragraph would have the opposite problem - very long. Plus, the second paragraph as it stands has an overarching theme throughout: how songwriting for "TV" connects to the Dobbs case. Merging that would lose the paragraph cohesion, I believe.
  • Pipe US Supreme Court to Supreme Court of the United States
    • WP:NOPIPE advises to keep links as short as possible, and piping links simply to avoid redirects is not necessary.
  • "history with political activism," → "history of political activism," with the pipe
    • This seems like overlink to me
      • Not really, as activism is not a basic term. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • Oh well, considering that one notable thing about the song is that it references Dobbs, doing this would be fine
  • "it was a placeholder" → "It was a placeholder" per the source capitalisation
    • Done
  • Per the img text, shouldn't you mention the Manchester date being during the UK leg?
    • No, not really. I can't find a way to incorporate the UK leg fact in the prose without its sounding awkward. Plus, I was intentionally being vague with the "amid live performances in the UK" part of the caption, because that tour photo was taken in the O2 in London, and not in the AO Arena where the Manchester concerts were held
  • "who provided instrumentals" → "who provided instrumentation"
    • Rewrote to fit this suggestion somewhat
  • The first time since around 2017 is not sourced
    • Added a source
  • "She got the idea" → "She had the idea"
    • Not done; they convey the exact information in an equally valid way, and usually when this is the case I stick to the article's status quo.

Music and lyrics

edit
  • Quote box looks good!
  • ""TV" is a" → "Musically, "TV" is a"
    • Not done; ditto with "had the idea" suggestion
      • Musically is the correct term to begin a music and lyrics section, though. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • I am less concerned with whether it is a correct way to do it - I am more concerned with whether it is necessary. Many song articles survive GAN and FAC without having to do this.
  • Pipe minimalist to Minimal music
    • Done
  • "It discusses poignant" → "Eilish discusses poignant"
    • Not done; ditto with "had the idea" suggestion. Saying the song discusses a theme and its singer discusses a theme are equally valid.
  • Should the case be referred to as Dobbs or Roe vs. Wade?
    • These are two different cases; the former concluded in 2022 and the latter ended in the '70s. Roe made abortion a constitutional right, and Dobbs overturned that decision. Eilish was pissed at the overturning in particular.
  • Pipe music journalists to Music journalism
    • I really hate to say the phrase again, but, not done. I have noticed this linking trend a lot in song articles, but to be honest I've found this arguably OL, because the average reader would be aware of what journalism means, and they can easily put two and two together to find out what "music journalist" entails.
  • [26] should solely be invoked at the end of the sentence
    • Not done. Invoking it at the end entails that only everything after "Laura Snapes ... wrote that immediacy..." is supported by the source. However, I am also using the citation to support the part of the sentence that claims that the song was driven by the lyricism and vocals.
  • Merge the second para with the third one per overly short size and the theme being the same
    • Not done. First, the paragraphs in the section are relatively of similar size, so by that measure I do not get this critique and suggestion. Second, the themes are the same, yes, but the second paragraph intends to give only a broad overview of everything in the lyrics, preparing folks for the subsequent paragraphs which go more in-depth on each verse.
  • "The song opens by describing a" → "Eilish opens the song by describing a"
    • Not done; see the "Eilish discusses poignant" suggestion
  • "the question "what’s the" → "the question, "What's the" per this being a full sentence in the source
    • This is a tricky one. I looked at the examples in MOS:CONFORM, and the sentence as it stands is comparable to the example The program was criticized primarily because "the equipment was selected for its low price", according to LaVesque. The quotation in our article is a direct continuation of the sentence, so the original capital letters may be lowercased.
  • "In the chorus, she discusses" → "In the chorus, the singer discusses"
    • Not done; both are equally valid, though I suppose an argument can be made that the latter would be WP:ELEVAR which is usually frowned upon
      • You used she in the previous sentence, so this is too repetitive. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • As I have said, I am more lenient about repeating pronouns twice or thrice in a row than nouns. Though fret not, I have trimmed the sentence
  • "she laments how "the internet's" → "she laments, "The internet's" per the source
  • "overturning Roe v. Wade"." → "overturning Roe v. Wade."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
    • Done
  • "for the issues she currently faces in life." → "for the issues of her life."
    • The cited sources emphasize the recent nature of the song, and thus it focuses primarily on Eilish's recent experiences. Per the MTV source, "In the second verse, she brings up other current events [and] ends with Eilish blaming herself for being at fault [for those events]."
  • "sample begins playing as" → "sample plays as"
    • Simplified

Release

edit
  • Remove commas around Guitar Songs
  • The unexpectedly part is not sourced
    • Replaced this with a better source
  • "in the EP, the other being "The 30th" which" → "on the EP, alongside "The 30th", which"
    • Done
  • Merge the first para with the second one
    • Found a way to turn the three paragraphs into two
  • "after some thought, she decided" → "after discussion with Finneas, the singer decided"
    • Done
  • "had to be released early," → "had to be released immediately,"
    • Not done; both are equally valid IMO
  • "at number 7 on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs." → "number 7 on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart."
    • Not necessary. I feel like readers can glean from context clues that "Hot Rock" refers to a music chart.
  • Any specific order for the list of countries it reached the top 40 in?
    • These are in descending order of the respective peaks

Critical reception

edit
  • Mention what publication Alexis Petridis is from
    • Done
  • Add "the staff of" before the Manila Bulletin
    • That would be inaccurate because the bylines specify the author as the Entertainment column only. Though I have revised this to be more specific
  • "praised Eilish for her" → "both praised Eilish for her"
    • Not done; "both" is unnecessary
      • It is since otherwise, this implies they wrote a review together somewhat. --K. Peake 09:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • But the fact that we mention the writers in different publications goes against this. And even then, this distinction does not matter. Four authors from the same publication said the same thing X vs. three authors from publication A and one author from publication B said thing X, both boil down to "people said X" at the end of the day. "People said X" is the only thing that matters.
  • "the lyrics in "TV". She described" → "the lyrics of "TV", describing"
    • Changed the preposition, but I avoided merging the sentence because it would be unnecessarily long. A short opener is often preferred, plus I think it serves as a break from the lengthy sentences of the previous paragraph
  • "were appropriate for" → "are appropriate for"
    • I split my hairs over this suggestion, but I ended up deciding to stick to the current wording to keep the tense consistent
  • "calling it powerful "as usual"." → "calling it "powerful"." per the source not using the usual part in conjunction with this
    • Good point. Done
  • "commented on the song's guitar instrumentation and found it relaxing: "she" → "saw the song's guitar instrumentation as relaxing, saying "she"
    • Rewrote to fit this suggestion somewhat.
  • "most disillusioned of us."" → "most disillusioned of us"." per MOS:QUOTE
    • Another tricky suggestion!. Well, let's see. If the quotation is a full sentence, and the period's placement "coincides with the end of the sentence containing it", then it would be okay to put it inside the marks.

Personnel

edit
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
    • Amended

Charts

edit
  • Shouldn't you add Billboard next to Vietnam Hot 100?
    • Done

Notes

edit
  • Good

References

edit
  • Copyvio score looks very good at 33.3%!!!
  • Pipe Vulture to Vulture.com on ref 4
    • Done
  • Cite MTV News as publisher instead on refs 14 and 20
    • Well, MTV News isn't a publisher, so it would be weird to brand them as such, plus this says not to "abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= ... in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources"
  • Italicise NME in the title of ref 31
  • Cite Tidal as publisher instead on ref 51
    • Changed to |via= instead of |website. Tidal merely hosts the music, not publishes it.
  • Remove The Official South African Charts from ref 57
    • Done

Final comments and verdict

edit
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TV_(song)/GA1&oldid=1106765552"