Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bad Romance/archive1

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2022 [1].

Bad Romance

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to ask me to define "Lady Gaga", this song would be my answer. It has everything that made Gaga famous—catchy chorus, elaborate music video, outlandish costumes and nonsensical chanting. I have been working on this article intermittently for quite some years now. A few months ago, I digged deep for academic sources and found to my delight many of them. A song called the catchiest in the world by a prominent organization of psychology should have the highest-quality article on Wikipedia. Kinda reviewers, help me make that happen. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

For the RedOne and Francis Lawrence images, I would include the year that the photos were taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers.
I do not think File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg is necessary. A performance image does not fit in the "Critical reception" section and the article already has two performance images.

Apologies for adding yet another thing to my review, but I just noticed that this part was not really addressed, and I would appreciate your feedback about it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aoba, I’d removed it as per your suggestion because it really does seem out of place there but I was reverted by another editor here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I had removed the image and used a detailed edit summary to hopefully clear up this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the citation in the infobox is needed as this information should be present and cited in the article. I do not think it is controversial enough that a person is credited under their legal name for songwriting credit to require this citation.
I would spell out extended play on its first use in the lead to help readers who are not 100% familiar with the concept. I'd look at '"All About That Bass" as an example of what I mean. The body of the article should mention that The Fame Monster is an EP and a reissue, which it currently does not.
I am uncertain about the "full-throated" quote. In the article, it is not given clear attribution in the prose, and I am not sure if a quote like that works in the lead.
I think this part, attraction to individuals with whom romance never works, her preference for lonely relationships, reads a little awkwardly and would benefit from revision. This information could be conveyed more concisely and the phrase "lonely relationships" seems off in particular to me.

You are quite right; "lonely relationships" sound almost oxymoronic to me. I have tweaked it.

I do not think the French bridge is notable enough to include in the lead. I also could not find this information in the article.
This part, The recipient of a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, it was, is not grammatically correct. if read literally, it says that the song won the award, when the award was given to Gaga.
For the Saturday Night Live bit, I'd clarify that Gaga performed the song to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
The "released" is used twice in close succession in the first paragraph of the "Background and release" section.
I do not think the caption for the audio sample is particularly strong to justify its inclusion. The current caption is more focused on the lyrics, which could be illustrated through the prose alone, and I would instead do something about the song's genre or sound.

I played around with it quite a bit and in every scenario, it fails WP:NFC. I have removed it.

Is there a reason for using a university's sheet music over musicnotes.com?

Musicnotes is generally badly received at FAC, and it is usually not known if the sheet posted there is in fact the original or just another version posted by the label/singer. I believe a university source than one which does not even have its own article on Wikipedia should be the better choice, no?

I have seen the issues raised with MusicNotes. From my understanding, these issues are not specific to that site, but they are more about sheet music in general. I could be wrong and it would likely be better to have a more experienced editor comment on this, but the university could have the same issue as the website. The university could have a specific arrangement made for a band that is separate from the version Gaga recorded in the studio. It could be the same arrangement, but there is not a clear guarantee that this is the case. Again, I'd go with a more experienced editor's opinion, but I think the issue is really with sheet music in general. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get super nitpick-y, but I'd revise this part, The song then plays keyboard sounds, as I do not think a song can play anything.
For this part, a postdoctoral fellow in American studies at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, I would remove the university as it is not necessary and it would make this more concise.
I believe the "falling in love with one's heterosexual best friend" analysis would benefit from revision. I would lead with how it connects to Gaga's LGBT audience since I was a little confused by this sentence until I got to the second half of it.
The final two paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section has a lot of great content, but could you tell me how you organized it? I think it would benefit from a clearer structure.

I have done quite some rearranging, with the third one being about unhealthy relationships and the title's meaning (which is the same thing: "bad romance"). The last one is entirely about Horn's analysis. Hopefully, the structure is more comprehensable.

I hope this review is helpful. These are my comments up until the "Critical reception" section. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a clear citation supporting this part, with praise for its chorus, beat and hook.

The citations are the follow-up reviews in that para.

That was not immediately clear to me and I think it looks off when there is a citation in the middle of a sentence, but not at the end. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd avoid one-word quotes like "relentlessly" as they are not particularly informative and they take away from the other quotes.
This Rolling Stone citation has an author, but they are not included in the citation or the prose.
I have noticed some other issues with how critics are attributed in the prose. Pitchfork has an author for the "Bad Romance" entry, but they are not attributed in the prose. While the article often includes critics' names, there are instances like "a critic from Rolling Stone" and "The Billboard review" where the name is not used so it is rather confusing.
While the Boston Public Health Commission stuff is interesting, it is placed in a weird spot in this section. It is in a paragraph that is praising the song, and this does not fit that. It is also not really a review of the song. It is more of a study or analysis.
I'd be careful with the following wording, "They felt it was not on par with them", as it makes it sound like the "not on par" and lacking the "instant catch" is a critique from both reviewers instead of the individuals.

Apologies for jumping in with some additional comments already. I just noticed some issues I wanted to raise first. While I can tell a lot of great work has been put into the article, I am not sure if it is fully prepared for a FAC (but I will leave that up to other reviewers). Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. This was nominated just now after a PR so resolving the issues shouldn’t be a major problem. I’ll see if this can be done within the FAC scope. If not, well I’m sure we can figure something out. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47, for your comments. I have done quite some rearranging in "music and lyrics" and "critical reception" sections. See if you wish to continue your review or stand by your current viewpoint, either of which is perfectly fine. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses and for being understanding about everything. I will continue my review later today or tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing the music video synopsis is sourced with the video as the primary source; would that be correct? The synopsis seems a little on the long side, and I am wondering it could be made a little more concise.

That is correct, as per WP:FILMPLOT. I have trimmed the subsection a little. Hopefully, it is more concise now.

This part, for its fashion, choreography, futuristic set-piece and costumes, does not have a citation. I am guessing that this part is supported by the citations later on in the paragraph, but it does look odd to have a sentence with a citation in the middle and none at the end.
For the "Reception and thematic analysis" subsection, would it be worthwhile to separate the reviews and the analysis? This subsection looks quite long and I think that further structure may make it looks less intimidating to readers.
I am not convinced that File:Praying mantis india.jpg is necessary, especially since the "insect" dress is not being shown so there really is not much of a comparison being made.
The university in this part, sociologist Mathieu Deflem of University of South Carolina, is not necessary so I would remove it.
I am uncertain about the sentence starting with this part, Calling it a "culture-breaking moment". This sentence is pushing together two different Billboard articles by two different writers and it gives off the impression that they were either written by the same person or downplays the individual reviewers.
This is more of a note than anything. I'd be cautious about the size of the "Live performances" section in the future. It is pretty much guaranteed that Gaga will continually perform this song throughout her career due to its popularity so I'd be wary of this section becoming too big or overly detailed.

You are absolutely right. I did some trimming and removed some superfluous information and rearranged the structure a bit. It's much more condensed now.

The information from the "Personnel" section (i.e. the production and recording processes) should also be written out in the prose of the article, likely in the "Background and release" section.
I am not sure what "actor" means in the "Personnel" section?

Neither do I. It must have been vandalized at some point and nobody noticed.

Both MTV or if MTV News are used in the citations for the same website. Citations 2, 109, 112, 135, and 138 use MTV while Citations 63, 64, 73, 107, 114 use MTV News. I would be consistent with one way or the other. I'd go with MTV News as it is more specific.

Citation 140 is missing the author.
Citation 229 should have its title translated to English. This is true of any citations with titles in a non-English language.

Done wherever possible. In some places, the ref. is automatically generated as part of {{single chart}}, which cannot be modified.

Simon Price should be linked in the article and in the citation.

This should be all of my comments for my first read-through of the article. I hope that this review was helpful and not too nit-picky. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Aoba. It was not nit-picky at all and was very helpful. The article has improved in leaps and bounds now. Hopefully, this is now enough to convince you of the article's quality at the FA level. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article again a few more times tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the sheet music citation up to other reviewers. I am not fully convinced, but I will focus my review and support on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

This article has been at GA level for some time now and has been written at a high level of narrative quality and thoroughness. One comment I would add here is that I think this was used in the context of the very last show which Alexander McQueen did before the end of his life and that there are reliable sources for this. Since Lady Gaga was a follower of his designs, mentioning this as his very last full fashion show with reliable sources might be a good addition to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added, as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a fine Covers section in this article along with the well done Video section which accompanies the song article; I'm sufficiently familiar with this article since the GAN was done by another editor that I'm supporting the FAC nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

I had a look at this article while it was at PR and it seemed to be in solid shape. I will give it the customary reread and then add some comments here. Btw, I would greatly appreciate if you could review my current FAC, although it is totally fine if you do not have the time or interest.--N Ø 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the abbreviation "EP" is not used again, it does not need to be mentioned.

In the lead, the infobox uses the abbr, and in the body, it is used in "Track listings" section.

The oxford commas should be consistently used (or not); Not used: "chorus, beat and hook", Used: "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show"

I generally try to do without it as I find it unnecessary but in places like "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show", I have intentionally used it to not confuse with the and's (and residency shows is used to not repeat while the second and is preceded by a comma to clarify that it's part of the main listing of places Gaga has performed the song at.

"Gaga explained that she generally felt lonely in her relationships and was attracted to unhealthy relationships" - Perhaps there would be a way to avoid the repetition?
Thanks for replacing Musicnotes. I'll leave it to the source reviewer to determine if the university source is okay
Does its inclusion in the list of "Top 10 List of Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients" fit the "Music and lyrics" section? I found this placement kind of random

I think so. It's more of a themes analysis (which is what the music and lyrics section is about) than an "award", but unfortunately I couldn't find the main source, which I am sure has a thing or two about why it's in the list.

"and Rolling Stone critic Jon Dolanfelt that song made her name a "Teutonic chant" - Space before "felt" and the word "the" should be there after "that"
Do you think it would be beneficial to include the release years for "Tik Tok" and "Empire State of Mind"?
Seems to be missing alt texts in the music video section. Not sure if intentional
Do we need a wikilink for rubles? Seems like a well-known term to me
While I do think Elle is generally reliable, is its opinion reputed and important enough to be highlighted in a quote box?

I think Elle definitely counts among reputed sources; it has been referenced in CBS News, NY Daily News and Time. The author herself has written for Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Vogue, Esquire etc. As for the quote itself, I think it truly captures all the successful aspects of the song (genre combination, lyrics, music video and Gaga's voice), which no other source does.

Love the inclusion of various research studies which truly gives the article a comprehensive feel. After these are addressed, I will go through the article once more to see if I got everything. Regards.--N Ø 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marano. I think I have addressed everything. Let me know if you are not satisfied with something. FrB.TG (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with the way this has been handled and it totally looks like an FA to me. Great work!--N Ø 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

The article appears to be well-written and has an in-depth coverage, especially on its analysis of the themes from scholarly sources. As the article's prose has already been PR'd and reviewed by experienced editors on this topic of interest, I have very little to add. Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

"Bad Romance" was acclaimed by music critics -- suggest linking music critics to music journalism
and was included in yearly "best-of" -- I think annual instead of yearly is what’s commonly used.
making Gaga the first woman to have three number-one singles in one year -- perhaps it could be specified as first female act or artist, as woman is a bit vague.
The song was certified quadruple platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 280,000 copies of the single. -- I think we can omit “single” at the end as it is understood that the song shipped X copies.
and 12 million in total, becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time -- I assume this figure is to date? If so, it would be worth clarifying.
with more elaborate sets, including sets outdoors. -- perhaps a little tweaking, to remove mention of “sets” twice’'
Glee cast performed -- Although it’s linked to the article, I think it's worth mentioning Glee as a musical tv series.
That's all I have. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Pseud 14. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie - image review

Please note this is my first FAC review of any variety. I will be claiming this for WikiCup. Please tell me if I make any comments that are off track.

This article has seven total images. One is in the infobox and is the album cover. It has an appropriate fair use rationale and alt text.

There is also one other fair use image, which is a still from the music video showing the choreography of the song. I agree with its fair use as irreplaceable content discussed in a critical manner in the article.

Of the other five images:

One has a VRT ticket confirming approval for use under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
The remainder were ported from Flickr, where they were posted under various CC licenses (confirmed by Flickreview).

Two images need alt text: File:The Monster Ball - Bad Romance revamped3.jpg and File:Glee-Born This Way.jpg. The latter should also be displayed on the right size as it currently bumps a section header. Its caption is a complete sentence and must end with a period.

Moved one paragraph upwards.

All of the images have good captions other than the missing period.

I intend to pass the image review when the missing alt text is supplied and the one image is shifted from left-side to right-side display. Pinging the nominator, FrB.TG. Other reviewers are encouraged to leave me feedback on this review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the detailed image review, Sammi Brie. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I identified have been fixed, and the image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ippantekina

I have very fond memories of this song.

"with a full-throated chorus" "full-throated" is somehow POV in my opinion; can we reword it?

I think if it sounds POV-y this way, it will sound POV-y any other way. I have simply removed it from the lead.

"Lyrically, it explores ... the paranoia she experienced while on tour" I think the lyrics per-se don't explore this, but rather were inspired by this?
"A 2017 journal, published by the American Psychological Association, called the song the catchiest in the world." interesting, but I'd also want to know on what metrics (is it song structure or melody or something else?) were used
Background and release—Do we have the date the song was leaked?
I am doubtful about the reliability of the sheet music provided; it is the sheet music to the drum arrangement of the song, and the personnel listed are not credited as producers/engineers of the song.

Since two reviewers have objected to this source, I have restored the one from Musicnotes.com.

Critical reception—"by Pitchfork—which called it "epic in construction"—MTV News" perhaps a comma after the quote "epic in construction"?

I think the em-dash functions as a comma; the reason I used it instead of a comma was to clarify it is not one of the publications calling the song one of 2009's best.

"Kaufman lauded the drastic transition into a bombastic "Erasure-esque throb" during the chorus, called catchy by Rolling Stone's Jody Rosen, one of Gaga's best by MusicOMH's Michael Hubbard" am I missing something or is the grammar a bit off here?

It was supposed to be about the chorus being called xy: "..during the chorus, (which was) called catchy". I guess the transition from the active to passive voice is a little awkward here.

Serial quotations, especially short ones, make it hard to read; I'd paraphrase some
Commercial performance—"second artist to have three singles [...] each sell five million digital copies" also who is the first?
Pipe Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)
Personally I don't think we need to mention which week the song reached number one in Sweden and Ireland. We can simply group them into the countries where the song reached number one (Austria, Denmark et al)
Music video—"hoping to work with her again" unless they did collaborate on some later projects, I'd leave this out because it comes off as trivia
"Gaga created a pair of razor-blade sunglasses" did she really create them? Just to make sure...

More to come... Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ippantekina. Unless I have explicitly stated otherwise, I have implemented your suggestions. I look forward to the next batch of your reveiw. FrB.TG (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I love the depth of research in the Thematic analysis section, but am a bit lost on the organization because it reads a little staccato... like a simple display of disparate opinions without flow. Maybe a brief introduction sentence at the beginning of each paragraph, or grouping some similar opinions (for example, I see some opinions having the same concern regarding sexuality) would help?
"winning ~~for~~ Video of the Year,"?
I am unsure if the Elle commentary is significant enough to be singled out in a quotebox

I don't know, I like it a lot. This touches on all the aspects of the song that made it so impactful. Do you think it should be removed altogether or just not highlighted like that in a quotebox?

I think it's fair to keep it in the prose, just not the quotebox. If a quotebox should be useful, I'd go for an opinion from a reputed critic or academic, and the Elle journalist, while reliable, is just not the best option imo.

"Gaga sang "Bad Romance" during her residency show, Lady Gaga Enigma + Jazz & Piano (2018–2022); on her Enigma show, she performed it in a champagne-hued gold outfit,[142] and on Jazz & Piano, she did a stripped-down version" so Enigma and Jazz & Piano are two shows or one.. I am confused
I think the Glee version entered some charts; should we mention them?
For the track listing section, I doubt if it is necessary. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single track listings they say that it is not standard practice to include such a section unless the track listings received extensive commentary. Given that none of the remixes listed here are discussed in prose, I'd remove the section altogether.

I don't know it's unusual for a song to have this many versions with different durations. It can be part of prose if necessary (in Background and release section for example).

I personally don't find the track listings helpful, but I'd leave it to other editors.

I think it's better to include table captions for separate years; i.e. one for 2009 year-end charts and one for 2010 year-end charts...

I'm not sure that is necessary since it was released pretty late in 2009, and the song's peak was somewhere between 2009 and 2010. For 2017, for example, it makes sense since it and 2009 are several years apart.

I do think it is helpful to include table captions for separate years. While it may be clunky, it helps with accessibility.

This concludes my prose review. Apart from my comments I made some minor edits that are hopefully beneficial. A great read overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ippantekina. I think I have addressed the rest of your comments. Let me know if you disagree with something. FrB.TG (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I have a few remaining concerns, but they are minuscule to the quality. Great work! Ippantekina (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources are reliable and properly formatted
Spot checks performed: ref 5 just gives me a load of "plug in not supported" messages, am I doing something wrong? 17 doesn't mention Boney M. 30 OK. 42 OK. 43 OK. 56 shows the song at number 20 in Ireland, so doesn't support the claim that it topped the chart there. 64 OK. 73 OK. 83 doesn't seem to say anything about "robotic, zombie-like arm movements and morbid theme". 99 OK. 109 OK. 118 OK. 127 OK. 138 OK. 155 OK. 265 OK.

Ref 5: it returns the same error for me; replaced with another source.

Ref 17: the comparison to Boney M. was supposed to be from source 17. Corrected attribution; thanks for catching it.

Ref 56: the source next to it (now no. 56) is supposed to support the claim that it topped the Irish chart. Not sure why this one was even placed there. Removed.

Ref 83: the claim comes from the NYDN review, which is cited earlier in the sentence but not in the end. Corrected.

Is the publisher of ref 191 really "Top Digital Download"? I can't see those words in the source

It seems to be the chart for the singles and is automatically generated by the use of {{single chart}}.

Refs after "the works of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and Michael Jackson's Thriller." are not in numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, ChrisTheDude, for the source review, and sorry for the mix-up of the sources. I rearranged a lot of things a few months ago but messed up some parts. Thanks for catching these. FrB.TG (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Okay for me to start another nomination? FrB.TG (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.