Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bikini Porn/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2020 [1].

Bikini Porn

edit
Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Bikini Porn", released as a single in 2020 by Swedish singer Tove Lo. She has stated that the lyrics are about "letting go of your worries", while the title means "tan lines". The music video attracted media coverage due to the cameo made by Finneas, "Bikini Porn"'s songwriter and producer. The single also included another song, "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", which was considered to be totally opposite to "Bikini Porn" in terms of composition.

This is the second article about a Tove Lo song that I nominate for FA, the first one being "Habits (Stay High)", which was promoted in 2017. This is currently a GA, it has received a peer review and a copy-edit by the GOCE. I consider it meets the criteria for FA, and I'm open to receive further comments. Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose comments from Coolmarc

edit
  • O'Connell should be Finneas in the producer parameter in the infobox since he is known mononymously as Finneas.
  • released as a single on 15 January 2020 for download and on streaming services. Needs work. "released for download and streaming services" is an awkward way to say this.
  • "instrumentation" is too formal and awkward for a song about a pop song, just say instruments.
  • According to Lo, the track's title refers to "tan lines" and its lyrics are about "letting go of your worries". Per WP:LEADCITE a citation is needed here, but this could be paraphrased with a little effort.
  • who complimented its composition and noted the contrast between the track and "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak". more context is needed here. What about its composition? What contrast?
  • accompanying music video for "Bikini Porn" use either "accompanying music video" or "music video for "Bikini Porn", not both.
  • "depicts" is very formal for an article on a pop song, "shows" would easily suffice.
  • "dancing in several locations" what several locations? WP:WHATPLACE
  • Critics had different opinions about the clip, with some deeming Finneas' appearance as its highlight what were the different opinions and why was Finneas' appearance the highlight? More context needed here.
  • Tove Lo wrote "Bikini Porn" while drinking champagne during a recording session, feeling she was "in a happy place".[1] She showed the song to her team, who gave it a lukewarm response to it. Grammar issues in both sentences.
  • Lo contacted musician Finneas through mutual friends The source says they met through "a songwriting collective that both were privy to." This is not the same as "mutual friends"
  • he felt honored and excited he wanted to work with her. trivial details. Singers say that about everyone they collaborate with.
  • Mmm, well, I guess she said that because Finneas is a better known artist than her, and he could have picked someone more famous to work with...Anyways, I have removed the sentence. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo told Finneas, "I love writing with you, you're bringing out this other side of me, I think, a lot of people try to push more of a happier way."[5] Awkward placement and could be paraphrased for better context.
  • "According to Tidal" is unnecessary.
  • I'm not a fan of Composition as a section title as the term is more commonly used for music pieces and poems, not pop songs. "Music and lyrics" is a better section title.
  • Its instrumentation incorporates too formal and awkward for an article about a pop song.
  • "On Beats 1, Lo" mentioned twice in the same section - grammar, Beats 1 is not really needed here anyway, I doubt they influenced her statement.
  • What makes this a high-quality reputable source?
  • MuuMuse is run by Bradley Stern, who has written for others reliable publications, such as Idolator, MTV, Queerty, V Magazine, Attitude and Interview Magazine. I consider he has enough expertise regarding pop music journalism, but I want to know your opinion about this.--Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The About us of the website says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. This is not a high-quality reputable FAC source. Cool Marc ✉ 06:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." MuuMuse can be used according to this. Reading this thread might be helpful too. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC criteria is sources to be not only reliable but of high quality. Unfortunately, I don't view this blog as a high quality source. Cool Marc ✉ 06:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is your subjective point of view.--Paparazzzi (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a four-minutes ambient ballad grammar
  • What is "instrumentation composed of background noise"? Such a technical term for "background noise"?
  • In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo stated she had written songs with Finneas, praising his ability as a producer and writer.[13] She told NME in October of that year, "We're fans of each others' music and he's a really good lyricist so it felt like a fresher, freer session – though I can't say anything about the songs".[14] This feels odd in a "Release and live performances" section and more relevant to "Background"
  • Cerys Kenneally of The Line of Best Fit said the hashtag was the title of the new single. is unnecessary, what else could it refer to?
  • There is a lot of back and forth in this article about "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak" which appears to be a B-side or a double A-side but no clarity is given about this?
  • You discuss "Passion" in the Background section, mention it again in Composition but then reintroduce it again in the Release section Lo released the single "Bikini Porn", which includes the title track and the additional song "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", perhaps make one section or subsection solely for "Passion" because it's ruining the flow of an article which is supposed to be about the song "Bikini Porn".
  • She added the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic at the same time.[19] grammar issues.
  • "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak" had a darker thematic had a darker thematic?? This is not the word, the word is "theme"
  • What makes this a high quality FAC source?
  • I have never heard of any of those website before. The About Us describes them as "a group of friends" and an online "fanzine". This does not strike me as a high quality source. Do we know if there is an editor for fact-checking? Cool Marc ✉ 06:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • deemed "Bikini Porn" as a "bouncy", grammar issues
  • I would suggest indicating in the prose that the Hot 40 Singles Chart is an extension of the main New Zealand chart, because the majority of readers will mistake this as the main chart. I constantly see editors mistaking it for the main chart on Wikipedia as well.
  • Finneas, the track's co-producer and songwriter, makes a cameo appearance we know who Finneas is by now, no need to introduce his job title again.
  • The credits and personnel section is not in line with the guideline of WP:PERSONNEL.
  • Ref 8 and 13 are missing article dates.
  • Finneas is in caps in some reference titles.
  • NME, The Line of Best Fit and Billboard are not linked on the first instance in the references, but are on a second or third instance.

Good job on the article, but there is some work to do. Cool Marc ✉ 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolmarc: Hello! First, thank you so much for your review. I have addressed your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolmarc: I have addressed your comments. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't appreciate the comment "that is your subjective point of view". MuuMuse, Jenesaispop and Scandipop are all blogs and not high-quality FAC sources. This is not a point of view, this is FAC criteria. Cool Marc ✉ 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "high-quality" criteria was proposed to include more printed publications, which are considered to be more reliable/of higher quality than online sources. At least that was the point when that criteria was included around 2009... take a look at the archives and that's what you'll find. With that being said, the high-quality aspect is not explicitely especified and that's why I commented "that is your subjective point of view", never meant to offend you... I already responded above regarding your question about Jenesaispop, yes, they have an editor who reviews everything that's going to be published, and I'm wondering why you are mentioning Scandipop until this very moment... do you have any more comments? Because everytime I address something you come up with something different...Paparazzzi (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose based on the quality of these blog sources and the nominator's attitude above. Cool Marc ✉ 14:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I hope this has nothing to do regarding the discussion we are having at Talk:Dua Lipa (album). Because I already left some comments above and you haven't replied to them. Anyways, have a nice day! Paparazzzi (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to them here. The fact still stands that these are blogs and not high quality FAC sources. I have no time for your sarcastic, disrespectful and condescending attitude, and have nothing left to say here. Cool Marc ✉ 15:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolmarc: Jenesaispop and Scandipop are not "blog" sources. Would you care to elaborate as to why you feel they are such? Because commentary such as this could end up having serious ramifications throughout the FAC process. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: The Jenesaispop About Us describes them as "a group of friends" and an online "fanzine". Scandipop has no about us page - other websites have referred to it as a blog 1 2, Scandipop's own page titles say "blog archives" 1 2, they use a Gmail email address. MuuMuse is a blog run by a Britney Spears fan who says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. Sorry, but these are not high quality professional sources from what I see. I am not sure what you mean by "commentary such as this could end up having serious ramifications throughout the FAC process". I explained this above before you made this comment. Cool Marc ✉ 01:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your points stand. @Paparazzzi: I'd suggest removing (or, where possible, replacing) the MuuMuse source. The content derived from that site doesn't add a great deal to the article anyway. But I'm afraid some of your other points, @Coolmarc:, leave me lacking. "Friends" can't create a popular website with editorial oversight and which features contributions from writers who have been published by several other sources (as explained above)? This is what I meant by saying your oppose has ramifications for other articles: if we all suddenly disregard content created by notable authors, we'd have to immediately demote practically every MilHist FA. Plus, competing websites calling a source a "blog" doesn't mean much. And regarding your point about Gmail, depending on the hosting service you've used to create your website, creating an @WebsiteX.com internal e-mail system (post website creation) can cost anywhere from $500 to $5,000. Unless, of course, you've paid a significant amount beforehand for a hosting service's premium package, which isn't cheap, let me tell ya. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

I am putting this up as a placeholder. I am currently completing a review for a different FAC and I would like to wait until the above comments from Coolmarc are addressed. I have participated in the peer review and I am glad to see it being nominated here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi! Thank you for being interested. I already addressed Coolmarc's comments but I'm waiting for his response. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. I will look through the article again today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few invisible comments. Is there any reason to keep them?
  • I would replace "letting go of the worries" with "letting go of one's worries".
  • The word "while" does not really make sense in the context, "while others deemed", as it is often used to set up a contrast. However, neither of the two points (praise for the plot and highlighting Finneas' appearance) present a contrast so I would use a different word instead.
  • I think this part, "others deemed the appearance of Finneas as a driver as a highlight", is a little too repetitive of the previous sentence. Maybe eliminate "Finneas appears in the video in a cameo role as an Uber driver" to instead combine that information here with something like "others deemed Finneas' cameo as an Uber driver to be a highlight"?
  • I messed around the "Background" section's first paragraph to work on the flow. How does something like this look to you?
    • Tove Lo wrote "Bikini Porn" while drinking champagne and being in what she described as a "happy place". Although her team had a lukewarm response to the song, she contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective and asked him to produce it. He enjoyed the track and accepted her request. Lo believed Finneas added the necessary "grit and weirdness and bopness" to the song.
  • I would see if there is a way to not repeat "processed" in this sentence: "Its instrumentation incorporates a highly processed, tropical beat and backing vocals that were processed through a vocoder."
  • I find the "In another statement" transition to be rather cumbersome, and I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that information.
  • Changed to "She also described..."
  • For this part, "and the songs from Robyn's album Body Talk (2010)", I do not think "the" in front of "songs" is needed.
  • The MuuMuse source also compares this song to Peaches. Is that notable enough for inclusion?
  • For this part, "Cerys Kenneally of The Line of Best Fit said the hashtag was the title of the new single", maybe a word like "speculated" instead of "said" would more clearly convey that this was just a guess on the writer's part.
  • I am uncertain about including both "releasing" and "released" in the same sentence: "On 15 January 2020, four months after releasing her fourth studio album Sunshine Kitty, Lo released the single "Bikini Porn"."
  • For the last two sentences of the "Release and live performances" section, I would avoid having two sentences in a row with the same verb (in this case "performed"). You also do not need to specify that she performed the song live as done in this part: "Lo performed "Bikini Porn" live".
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: "She performed the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows." It implies to me that Lo performed "Bikini Porn" in a different part of the concert during the first show and then moved it to the encore in the later ones. Is that true? If so, when in the concert did she perform the song for the first?
  • I am a little uncertain of the sentence structure of the first paragraph of the "Reception" section as a majority of it is "X critic says Y opinion". I think some sentence variety would be helpful here.
  • I would keep the chart information in a separate paragraph. It may be short, but I do not think it makes much sense to have it with another paragraph on a different topic.
  • I do somewhat agree with the commentary below that the screenshot s not 100% needed as a reader could already get a solid grasp on the video's plot with the prose. As I said below though, I could see an argument being made to have a screenshot that showed the video's VHS, lo-fi style as some readers may not be familiar with either concept (and even if they are, this music video may be doing it in a way that differs from what they imagine).
  • I would replace it with another screenshot if you are going to try this route. Remember that this is just my suggestion. I am not entirely sure which screenshot could represent this, but it seems like the best point that could be illustrated with a screenshot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find this source from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle that talks more about Lo's collaboration with Finneas. It brings up an interesting point that Lo primarily worked with the same set of producers and that it was unusual for her to work with someone new like Finneas. There may be some helpful information here. Just a suggestion though.

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hello! Thank you for the review, I have addressed your comments (I left some comments as well). Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Hello! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!Paparazzzi (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few new issues with the article. I will keep my support, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.

  • Sunshine Kitty: Paw Prints Edition should be in italics since it is an album title.
  • The information about Sunshine Kitty: Paw Prints Edition is only in the lead and infobox, when it should also be in the body of the article as well. It also needs a citation.
  • I think the information about the single release could be better represented in the lead. Right now, it is somewhat awkwardly tagged on the end of the first paragraph, and I would think of ways to more cohesively present this information in the lead.

Again, I am not taking back my support, but these things should be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, but I don't know if the correction to the release information was how you expected it to be. Thanks for notifying me about the changes, I was waiting for more information to be published (the reissue came out today actually) but an IP added the information. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paparazzzi: Given the current opposition, it may be best to withdraw this nomination. I would recommend putting this up for a peer review once the current one for "Cool Girl" is completed. The peer review for this article probably should have been kept up a while longer to get further feedback. It may be wise to ask the opposing voters for further feedback at a possible peer review (and reach out to editors who have worked on featured articles about songs). Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy

edit

I do not believe that File:Bikini Porn mv.png meets non-free content criteria #8. The text does a perfectly adequate job of explaining the various situations that the musician is in during the music video, and I don't see how the inclusion of the image is critical to the reader's understanding of the topic of the article.

To be honest, I really don't see a case for including File:Bikini Porn cover.jpg either - the album cover itself is not discussed at all in the article, so it can't possibly be vital to understanding the subject matter. However, the community expectation of a non-free image in the infobox regardless of the NFCC is so entrenched that arguing for the removal of that image, I suspect, is a lost cause. However I do urge you to consider whether its inclusion is necessary.

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of File:Bikini Porn mv.png and the lack of a strong case to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?.

Please note that non-free files are the only thing I comment on at FAC. If the matter is addressed, I'll strike the Oppose, but I won't be offering a full review. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Regarding the inclusion of the artwork, it is one of the parameters of template:infobox song. Coupled with this, MOS:LEADIMAGE states, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Yes, I believe its inclusion is necessary. I strongly disagree with your comment about File:Bikini Porn mv.png. Maybe you understood perfectly the plot of the music video just by reading the text, but we can't be sure that others readers will. I'm going to ping reviewers @Coolmarc: and @Aoba47: to know their opinions regarding this situation. Paparazzzi (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style is a guideline. The non-free content criteria is a policy with legal considerations. When the two come into conflict, the policy has absolute priority. In other words, when the question is whether a file meets the NFCC or not, everything else gets put on hold until that question is addressed.
The standard at WP:NFCC is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". While that's up to interpretation, that's a significantly higher bar tahn "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page".
I don't think that the music video image significantly increases readers' understanding. Other people might, so I welcome the other reviewers weighing in. However, I don't see anything about that image that the second paragraph of "Music video" doesn't already describe. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image should be permissible per Paparazzzi's comments above on that matter, but I understand the Squirrel Conspiracy's concern on the music video image. The section already provides a clear summary of the video in the prose so I could understand why the screenshot, which is from my understanding actually four separate images put together, is just repeating that. To be on the safe side, it is probably best to delete. However, if you really want to include an image in the section, maybe you can pick one that shows how the video has a "lo-fi and VHS style"? That is just a suggestion though. Apologies for not looking at this during the peer review. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not opposing on the grounds of the infobox image. I know that's a lost cause. I'm only opposing on the music video image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: @Aoba47: I have already changed the picture with one that illustrates the VHS and lo-fi style of the music video. I hope this is better. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this. I think the new screenshot is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @The Squirrel Conspiracy:. I have changed the picture to another one that illustrates the VHS and lo-fi style of the music video, something that not many people could understand just by reading the prose. I want to know your opinion about this and if you still oppose to the nomination. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. I'm still not a huge fan of including an image from the music video, but this photo is much better as it very clearly illustrates what the article means by "lo-fi and VHS style". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Ealdgyth

edit
@Ealdgyth: I have already stated the use of those blogs in the article, I opened a thread in the Wikiproject: Albums where MuuMuse was deemed usable for Wikipedia, but I might understand it may not be suitable for a FA. Jenesaispop is a Spanish website that is widely used in the Spanish Wikipedia and has been recognized by RTV; it consists of a group of experienced editors who have worked for other Spanish publications, and the content is reviewed before being published. Coolmarc did not specify why he deemed Scandipop as a blog... I think it would be worth mentioning that I had a discussion with said editor at Talk:Dua Lipa (album), so I don't know how neutral his opinion is at this point. He did not respond to my comment about Jenesaispop, so I would like to know your opinion. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I formed my opinion on the merits themselves. I do not see that MuuMuse fits the FA criteria of a high quality source. Spanish wikipedia's practices don't really impact English wikipedia's FA criteria. As for Scanipop, I'm not seeing anything beyond a bunch of playlists with some limited commentary - what makes their opinion worth noting? As an addition - what makes OutNext a high quality source? Likewise, Consquence of Sound? Idolator is named as a blog in our very own article on it, so why is that something that fits the FA criteria? And Inquisitir is listed as a news aggregator - what makes that a high quality reliable source? There are entirely too many sources with huge question marks. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for intruding on this conversation. I am by no means an expert on sources, but I wanted to provide an answer for Consequence of Sound at least. It is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Its About Us page includes a list of editors, which indicates editorial oversight, so I think these two things make it reliable enough source for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources also lists Idolator as a reliable source. The site is published by SpinMedia, which publishes solid publications like Spin and Vibe. There have been a few discussion on WP:RSN about Idolator, and they have judged it as a reliable source. With that being said, I could not find a clear about page on Idolator or a list of editors. The closest I could find was this which includes a rather vague reference to some form of "editors". Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly not familiar enough with the other sources being questioned to really comment on them. The only real strong opinion that I have is that Consequence of Sound is a reliable and high-quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A wikiproject listing is not going to show that a source meets FA criteria requirements, honestly. "reliable enough" is not the standard, "high quality" is. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had also included other reasons why Consequence of Sound is considered a high-quality source (i.e. the editorial oversight) outside of the WikiProject listing alone. I am less certain about Idolator and cannot vouch for that one, but I do not see a clear reason why Consequence of Sound is being questioned? Consequence of Sound has also been cited in other publications like The A.V. Club and American Songwriter. That points to it being a higher quality source, particularly for music articles. I also did not just say that this source was "reliable enough", because I also said it was "reliable and high-quality". Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Aoba47. Those are high-reliable publications used in many music FA, that I'm surprised its use is being questioned here. Paparazzzi (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The fact that random users have come across and added a link to "blog" in certain articles does not in and of itself make these sources "blog". Scandipop, Consequence of Sound, Idolator, and several others mentioned, are all reputable websites used on multiple other music FAs. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments by Aoba47 and Homeostasis07. Many of those sources are used in other music FA, if they can't be used in this article because they are not "high-quality sources" then they should be removed from every other FA that uses them. Regarding Out Now, it is a digital magazine that was also printed. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove MuuMuse and Inquistr. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: @Homeostasis07: @Ealdgyth: I have removed MuuMuse, Scandipop and Inquistr. I still consider that the rest of sources are reliable and high-quality as expressed above by Aoba47 and Homeostasis07. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, has the latest assuaged your concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still several other sources I highlighted that have not been removed. I remain opposed. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: it has been already explained why those other sources remain on the article, not only by me, but by other reviewers of this nomination. Those sources (which have been used in MANY FAs and GAs) are reliable and of high-quality. I don't know how much Ealdgyth knows about music articles, you may ask @Aoba47:, @Homeostasis07:, @MaranoFan: and @Cartoon network freak: about those sources. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Which sources would those be precisely? Because all the ones you previously mentioned – aside from Consequence of Sound – have indeed been removed in subsequent edits. Per @Aoba47:'s response above, CoS is a high-quality source used in many other music FAs, so I'm a bit perplexed about this myself. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the above users about the reliability of Idolator and CoS. Especially the former, which is used on every music-related featured article I know. To see it be questioned is a bit baffling. This FAC being failed because of it would be a grave injustice, given that coords have passed dozens of articles including it. (For e.g., this version of the Lady Gaga article, which passed, can clearly be seen with two instances of Idolator).--NØ 04:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not see a reason to question CoS's use here. The publication has editorial oversight, has been cited in other publication, and is a high-quality source for music articles (as context still matters). These are three points that support CoS being a high quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, could I trouble you for a further opinion on the source quality? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also question the use of Idolator, as well as Jenesaispop. I'm not able to access the About page for OutNow so can't at the moment assess it. With regards to COS, what is known about the author of this specific piece? They're not listed on the masthead and their author page provides no information. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the sources you mentioned have been already explained above. Paparazzzi (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the above. I don't see an answer to my specific question re: COS - do you have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Bacior was part of the News Writers at the moment of the publication of that specific piece. You can see that here. Paparazzzi (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

edit
Lead
  • Link "single" to Single (music), also in the body  Done
  • I'm just a little bit confused, shouldn't the other song be listed as a B-side? And also briefly mentioning it in the lead may be a good thing to do  Comment: Digital singles don't have B-sides. That's a term used for physical singles. And I mentioned the song in the lead
  • with tropical instruments → I'd rather say something like "which is orchestrated by tropical instruments"  Done
  • "Music critics" should be linked to Music journalism, both here and in the body  Done
  • its sexual lyrics and its upbeat composition → remove the second "its" Done
  • and it was released on 17 January 2020 → which was released... Done
  • and others deemed Finneas' → while...  Comment: another reviewer told me that "while" express opposition between two sentences, which is not the case here
Background
  • Image > Finneas, co-writer of "Bikini Porn" → Finneas contributed to "Bikini Porn" as a co-writer and producer Done
  • She also commented about → ...commented on Done
  • working with different people than her usual team of producers, saying, "It's important to work with new people, because it challenges you and brings out new sides of you, writing-wise. → The quote kind of repeats what you already wrote, hence why I'd shorten to "saying "it challenges..."" Done
  • and that "Bikini Porn" is the track he dreamed about producing for her → and that "Bikini Porn" was... Done
  • though I can't say anything about the songs → This seems very unnecessary to me  Done removed
  • It feels odd to have all credits in the last paragraph. Usually these are the very first things mentioned here  Comment: I left them in the last paragraph to better explain the dynamic between Tove and Finneas, since the latter was not among the initial writers/producers of the track, but I still want to know your opinion about this... Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • a highly processed, tropical beat → I don't see the need for a comma here  Done
  • were modulated through a vocoder → shouldn't it be with a vocoder??  Done
  • Lo said the song's title means "tan lines" → the song's title references "tan lines" (sounds better to me)  Done
  • and the "weird" lifestyle in Los Angeles she → and the "weird" lifestyle in Los Angeles that she  Done
Release and live performances
  • She stated she liked writing with Finneas because he encouraged her to be more vulnerable → Unless she's explicitly talking about the writing process of "Passion...", I'd remove it  Comment: She's talking about writing the song with him
  • and noted on it some elements → no need for the "on it"  Done
  • reflect Finneas' minimal, alternative sound → reflect Finneas' minimal and alternative sound  Done
Reception
  • while compared its "monotone" → while comparing its "monotone"  Done
  • Writing for the same website, Raúl Guillén → which website? You don't mention it  Comment: Jenesaispop is mentioned in the previous sentence
  • the sexual thematic of the track, considering it features Lo "at her cheekiest" point → the sexual theme of the track and opined that Lo was "at her cheekiest" point  Done
  • at number 76 on the Veckolista Singlar chart[32] → the references should be at the end of the sentence  Done
  • I don't get why there needs to be an extra paragraph for the commercial performance. It's one-line only and it looks extremely aesthetically unpleasing.  Done
Music video
  • describing the clip as sexual and funny while not every scene is → describing the clip as sexual and funny although not every scene is  Done
  • What do you mean exactly by "flattering"?  Comment: that's Lo's description of the video. Watching it, I guess she is talking about not looking completely perfect, since the video shows you it didn't have a big budget and edition which would hide any of Lo's "imperfections"
  • Twenty-one hours later → numbers above ten should be written as numbers  Comment: According to MOS:NUMNOTES, Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure: Use: There were many matches; 23 ended in a draw. Or: There were many matches. Twenty-three ended in a draw. Not: There were many matches. 23 ended in a draw." Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
  • Just saying "Digital download" would suffice  Done
  • @Paparazzzi: In conclusion, I don't see many reasons why this shouldn't be approved for FA status. It's really well-written and for the most part well-structured. I see there's a dispute whether some sources can be used, but (although I don't have sufficent knowledge) I tend to agree with Aoba47 too. Once you address those, I'll support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: Hello! Thank you so much for your review. I have addressed all of your comments, and left some opinions above. Regards! Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been solved and elsewhere appropriate explanations have been given. I thus support this for promotion. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

edit

I'll leave the prose to other reviewers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the video in the file's description. Thank you for your review. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan

edit

Thanks for the invite. The article looks well-written to me, so I'm inclined to support. However, a bunch of comments:

  • "On his Instagram account, Finneas said he became a fan of Lo after hearing her song" - Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify that he said it in an Instagram post (not a story), to be more specific.
  • "'Bikini Porn' was the track he dreamed about producing for her" - I believe the word "exactly" (with quotes) is needed after "was", because it currently reads as if Finneas wrote the track and dreamed of producing it specifically for Lo.
  • John Hanes, not Hannes. Also, link Serban Ghenea.
  • Overlinking of Instagram in the prose. This article seems to have a unique structure, as the Release section is usually placed above "Music and lyrics", but not directly a problem nonetheless. The section about PAPTTSWIW also looks unusually placed, but I can't think of anything better.
  • Add Michael Love Michael as the author for Ref #30. Also, I can vouch for the reliability of Idolator and Consequence of Sound. Coords should note that they're used on countless featured articles (Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Mariah Carey, Taylor Swift, etc.) Good luck!--NØ 13:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review! I have addressed your comments. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

edit

I made a few source quality-related comments in previous sections of this FAC, which have hopefully been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, so I offer my support source-wise. But I figured it's only good manners to do a full review at this point. I did have a couple of comments about the lead section, but I see these have already been discussed here, so won't waste everyone's time rehashing.

Background

  • Although her team had a lukewarm response to the song, she contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective and asked him to produce it. He enjoyed the track and accepted her request. → After reading the source, I think it would be better for this sentence to be expanded and rephrased to something like this: "The composition was initially poorly received by Lo's team, who said it was "cool, but we don't really feel it ... I think you're kind of imagining that it's something [better than it is]." She then contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective the two were members of and asked him to produce the track. Finneas agreed, saying "This is awesome, let me do my thing". Lo complimented his production, saying that he "gave it so much life, like all the grittiness and the pop punkness ... He nailed it." But feel free to rewrite/paraphrase some of the quotes.  Done--Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo believed Finneas added the necessary "grit and weirdness and bopness" to the song. → If I were you, I'd end this quote at "weirdness" and paraphrase "bopness". Urban Dictionary says bop is "used to reference a good song; to say that a song is really good". But then look at the usage/activity sidebar on the right of that webpage, and it seems like the term peaked in the popular consciousness in February, before mentions of it dropped off sharply. Until a phrase like that enters common usage, I don't think it's a good idea to use - without explanation, at least - phrases that people will need to look up. Keep it simple.  Done
  • In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo stated she had written songs with Finneas, praising his ability as a producer and writer. → I'd remove "stated she had written songs with Finneas", as it's a bit redunant to the article; it's obvious reading this that she and Finneas collaborated. Perhaps change to "In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo praised Finneas's ability as a producer and writer."  Comment: the reason why I included this was to showcase that Lo previewed their collaboration way before the release of the song. However, if you feel this doesn't make it valid then I will remove it. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • Made a minor edit here, feel free to revert.

Release and live performances

  • The single features an additional song, "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", written by Lo and Finneas. → I'd change this to "The single features the b-side "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", written by Lo and Finneas."  Comment: Digital singles don't have B-sides. B-sides only exist in physical singles. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo described it as a "beautiful, kind of, more poetic ballad" than "Bikini Porn". → Grammar just seems kind of jarring here. I'd change this to "Lo described it as "beautiful, kind of", and a "more poetic ballad" than the a-side."  Done except for the "a-side".Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She told Nylon she found passion and hate in a passionate relationship to be "really close", where "all of a sudden, [that] turns into more pain than it does love". → Quite a loaded sentence here that I feel needs elaboration. How about something along the lines of: "She told Nylon that she obversed a "really close" connection between passion and hate within a fervent relationship, explaining "Sometimes when you're in something very passionate, you kind of lose sight of— it usually comes with a lot of drama and fighting… all of a sudden, [that] turns into more pain than it does love." Feel free to trim/paraphrase as you see fit.  Done Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything to complain about prose-wise in 'Reception' and 'Music video'. 'Track listing', 'Credits and personnel', 'Charts' and 'Release history' are all sourced and accurate. So I'd be happy to support (both in terms of source quality and prose) once my points have been dealt with. I thought it was an informative and well-written article. Good job so far, @Paparazzzi: Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Thank you so much for your review! I have addressed your points, and I left some comments above. I hope you have a nice day. Regards! Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. I'm satisfied with the changes you made and your responses to my other points. Happy to support this article for promotion based on both prose and source quality. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Have a nice day. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from SandyGeorgia

edit

Strong oppose for a FAC that should have been closed a month ago on poor sourcing alone. Jenesaispop and others well discussed above are not reliable sources. But there is more. It is little surprise that the writing is tedious, as it appears that few high quality sources had anything of interest to say about this song. Unless something new turns up, this is not material that can be repaired, spruced up, smoothed over and resubmitted to FAC because there is nothing of interest in reliable sources. We can’t string together a lot of uninteresting direct quotes and call it featured material. There is line after line— whether from reliable sources or the poor non-reliable sources used— that say nothing. It would be a pity to subject Wikipedia’s mainpage readers to a series of uninteresting factoids like:

  • Finneas told Radio.com in November 2019 his collaboration with Lo would be released in early 2020. So what?
  • It became available for download and on streaming services,[10] via Universal Music ... not sure whether to say wow or ugh for passive voice.
  • She sang the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows. Why do we care ? We don’t know because apparently neither do the sources, which tell us nothing of interest about this song.
  • She stated the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic in her music. This leaves me yearning for a WP:WTA. So she said that, but there is precious little from sources about what is said by others about her, the song, or the video. Perhaps this is why the writers have had to resort to non-reliable and blog sources to try to eek out a few words about this song.

Will the people who filled this page with “done” checkmarks please read the FAC instructions and remove them?

And please review MOS:LQ.

I will not be striking this oppose as no matter how much the prose is massaged to try to eek out something more pleasurable to read and MOS issues are repaired, or non-reliable sources removed, the story told here is nothing but a string of uninteresting quotes and meaningless factoids that cannot be featured material. And a good portion of the article isn’t even about the song.

There is not consensus to promote; please close this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear some points about the "tedious" prose of the article:
  • "Finneas told Radio.com in November 2019 his collaboration with Lo would be released in early 2020. So what?" That's detailing the background of the song; it did not appear out of nowhere, there's a process behind every song and anyone with a sense of logic would know that
  • "It became available for download and on streaming services,[10] via Universal Music ... not sure whether to say wow or ugh for passive voice." You can say both if you want to. Anyways, it has been fixed.
  • "She sang the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows. Why do we care ? We don’t know because apparently neither do the sources, which tell us nothing of interest about this song." Yes, we do care, mentioning the live performances of tracks is something important in music articles, anyone with minimal insight into the music project would know that.
  • " She stated the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic in her music. This leaves me yearning for a WP:WTA. So she said that, but there is precious little from sources about what is said by others about her, the song, or the video. Perhaps this is why the writers have had to resort to non-reliable and blog sources to try to eek out a few words about this song." Basically the rest of the section consists in comments from reliable sources discussing about the song, you are just contradicting yourself...
  • "And a good portion of the article isn’t even about the song." That just shows your ignorance regarding music articles. Read well, a single and a song are not the same thing...
And regarding the sources you mentioned above, they have been proven to be reliable, not only by me, but by other users who write music articles. It's alright if you don't want to strike your oppose, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but sometimes the motives behind are really clear, considering the aggressive language and the baseless comments about the content. Que Dios te bendiga y que tengas un maravilloso día . Paparazzzi (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (particularly on the Spanish Wikipedia, where just about anything goes, even in BLPs-- that is not the standard on en.Wikipedia nor for featured articles). My point about the single v the song is that there is just nothing of interest said about the song; why should we be telling our readers (PUFFERY) that this woman *thinks* she is smart, confident, poetic and sexual? Her opinion of herself in the article is of less interest than whether any music review thinks she is those things. I would be tempted to turn "state" to "claim" there, and wish WTA allowed us to do same, but we can't. You can't get an interesting article out of nothing of interest reported in sources. Yes, I have lodged a strongly worded oppose (what you call "aggressive"); I have rarely encountered at FAC an article that I found so unappealing (and when looking at the sources, found they gave only passing mention and had little of interest to offer), and have almost never entered such a strong oppose. De todas formas, igualmente le deseo todo lo mejor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, just to be clear, I'm not generally persuaded by whether an oppose is "strong" or not, but by the arguments being advanced. I can see some of the problematic sources have been removed but clearly there are still concerns. I appreciate the frustration when sources that have been considered acceptable in one FAC are questioned in another, but the fact that we might've been less discriminating before doesn't mean we should continue to be. I'm also persuaded by the connection Sandy makes between the quality of the sources and that of the content presented, all of which is supposed to add up to the best WP can offer; we don't have consensus that that's the case here, so I'm going to call a halt now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2020 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bikini_Porn/archive1&oldid=967147145"