Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Habits (Stay High)/archive3

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 [1].

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Habits (Stay High)"—and its remixed version—by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, both of which became hits in 2014. This is the third time I nominate this article. The past two nominations failed because it struggled to receive reviews from other users, so no consensus was reached. I addressed every comment from every past review, so I think it's ready and I'm open to receive more suggestions. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal

There are 8 images in the article. Have proper description templates and are either under fair use or under CC licensing. All but one images have ALT text. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added ALT description to that image. --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, and the images are in great shape too. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

In the body of the article, I would put EP in parenthesis after the phrase "extended play" so that way you clearly define the acronym for an unfamiliar reader and can use it throughout the rest of the text. I believe the first time you use EP in the body of the article is in the "Background and release" section.
I am a little confused by the following sentence in the lead (the song under the title "Habits" on 25 March 2013 as her second single.). You say that Lo self-released the song as her second single (from what I originally assumed was the EP Truth Serum), but the next sentence says that the song was released on a different date as the second single from the EP. I am just a little confused by the timeline of events in this scenario. I think you say "as her second independently-released single" instead of "as her second single" that would make help to clarify the chronology.
Something about the phrase "she got over the breakup after writing the song" seems a little bit too informal, specifically the verbage "got over". Also, would it be more accurate to say that she dealt with the breakup "through" the song? Comment: I changed "got over" to "recover", since she says in the interview that she "got better" after writing the song.
In the following sentence (The second version was filmed at a Swedish club for three days), I would say "over three days" as opposed to 'for three days".
I would link Tove Lo again in the "Background and release" section.
In the phrase "to re-released it with proper promotion because", change "re-released" to "re-release".
I am not sure you need the following quote "still [had] a lot left to give" and I think you can paraphrase and change the sentence to the following and preserve the same meaning (Then, the label representatives decided to re-release it with proper promotion as they believe it still had commercial potential.)
I would suggest adding a topic sentence for the second paragraph in the "Critical reception" section.
Please add the year in which "Chandelier" was released to the same section.
Not really a suggestion, but I have respect for you for putting the Roosh V review piece in as it is good for comprehensiveness, but that review does make mad and disappointed. Removed
You have Kesha linked twice in the "Critical reception" and the "Recognition and accolades" sections. You can unlink the second instance.
On the same note, you have Queen of the Clouds and studio album linked in two sections as well. It only needs to be linked on its first mention.
Make sure to include the year in which Queen of the Clouds was released when you first mention it. Same applies to Truth Serum.
In the phrase (lost to "Blank Space" by Taylor Swift (2014)), I would move the (2014) part to right after "Blank Space" rather than after Taylor Swift.
Allmusic should be written as AllMusic.
Would it be beneficial in the "Critical reception" subsection of the "Hippie Sabotage remix" section to separate the paragraph into two parts, with one focusing on the positive feedback and the other on the negative?
When you mention "Out of Mind", please include the year in which it was released.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope that this receives more attention in this round. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. I just left one comment above. Thank you so much for your review. If you need something, count on me. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from edwininlondon

I reviewed it last time around and the issues that stopped me from supporting have now been resolved. The two music blogs are no longer used as source. Nice work. And admirable persistence. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

I made a few edits; as always feel free to object if you think I did something wrong. Just a couple of comments:

Carrie Battan is quoted from a review where she calls the singer "Nilsson". Since the fact that this is Tove Lo's birth name is not mentioned otherwise, this was confusing. Suggest that either you should mention the name prior to this quote, or it may be simpler to just replace "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" inside the quote.
The "Composition" section quotes several reviewers regarding the lyrical content, and in the process re-quotes a dozen lines of lyrics. More lyrics are quoted under "Recognition and accolades". I'm concerned that this is too much of the lyrics for fair use, which has as one of its criteria "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (emphasis added). Pop songs generally and this one in particular don't have a lot of lyrics, so overall we've quoted a significant fraction of them. I think we're fine on all the other fair use criteria, and maybe I'm being a bit conservative here, but I would be more comfortable if some of the quoted lyrics could be paraphrased instead. For example, the lyrics about binge eating could be described by saying "as indicated in lyrics about having the munchies, eating Twinkies, and throwing up" instead of quoting the lines directly. I'm not saying we can't quote any of them (we definitely can), just trying to balance against the fact that we are quoting from a short text.

Overall this looks very thorough and appropriately written. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Hello, and thank you for your comments. I replaced "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" and paraphrased two of the quoted lyrics in the composition section, including the one talking about binge eating. Have a nice day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the prompt response. Those were my only concerns, so I support this on prose and comprehensiveness. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Source review requested! Thank you and have a nice day, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

@Paparazzzi: Hi there! Sorry for the delay, but I was really busy this week. I have read through the article and I think it meets the FA criteria. Already as I passed it to GA back in 2016, it was of a very high status, but now with the other users' comments being resolved, I can't help but give this my support. You are close to getting this promoted. Best regards and congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources

Ref 34 carries a "dead link" tag, but as far as I can see the link is working. The external links checking tool does not highlight any other non-working links. Done
I noticed a number of inconsistencies in italicization of sources. As a general rule, italics should be used for print sources or their online versions, but not for website publishers. "iTunes Store" appears in both italicized and non-italicized forms. Done Done. The reason behind this was that many of the sources were listed on the "website" parameter, which automatically makes the words appear in italics
So far as a general sources review is concerned, aside from the italics issue, formatting generally looks sound and consistent. However, I don't have the expertise to judge whether all of the very large number of sources used qualify as high-quality and reliable; deciding whether sources such as "We Listen Here", "Refinery29", "A Music Blog Yea" and many others is beyond my knowledge. It needs an editor with considerable experience of popular music articles to step forward and do this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments. Regarding the use of Refinery29, We Listen Here and A Music Blog Yea: the sources of the three of those websites were used because they contain interviews made by the singer. They are not blogs, so they look good to me. Still, we need another user's opinion here. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the experienced pop music editor that Brian asked for, but since this has been lingering, I thought someone should at least try to do some next-level vetting. I started with first 25 refnotes to see what it looks like. From that slice, I can see why Brian wants expert help -- this will be quite a slog for anyone can't quickly spot the dubious sources. It required a fair amount of checking to decide that, for example, the A Music Blog Yea site that Brian questioned above is probably OK. From my investigations, I do have concerns about the following:

We Listen Hear - This is an apparently defunct blog that described itself as the equivalent of a fanzine. There is only one ref sourced to it, and only one sentence in the article that depends on it as the only source, but that sentence is WP:BLP information about Lo's past romantic relationship. This should either be cited to a better quality source or removed.
Scandipop - This website doesn't seem to give any info explaining who runs it or if there is an editorial process. One ref that is used four times; only once is it the sole source, for commentary on the first video.
NuWave Pony - This appears to be an anonymous blog. Barring additional info, this is very unlikely to meet WP:RS, much less be appropriate for an FA.
So So Gay - Has some sort of staff, but I couldn't find any info about editorial process and there is "submit a post" link, which suggests that any rando could post a review. The half-baked website doesn't inspire confidence, nor does this AFD.

Possibly there is other information that would show some of those to be RS, but it wasn't found by me. @Paparazzzi: you might want to consider soliciting at the Songs or Pop music WikiProjects for help with sourcing feedback. Based on the rate of concerns from the first 25, I think a thorough review is needed, and from the time it took me, going through 305 citations is going to be a challenge for a non-expert.

One last note, not specifically about reliability, but I noticed that several web sources were pre-emptively archived even though the original is still active. This is fine, but in such cases you should add '|dead-url=no' to the template so the original link is given precedence. --RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RL0919:. Thank you so much for the review. I want to say that I removed the websites you mentioned above since they are of doubious procedence, among others that were similar. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the changes you made to the sourcing were improvements and seem to have resolved the bullets above, so absent some other assistance I'm going to continue to try to grind this out. This time I reviewed through ref 110, with the following concerns:

Ref 36 -- This is Patrick Metzger's personal blog, which as best I can tell doesn't meet WP:RS. I removed this when it was first added as a "millennial whoop" source, and it was re-added by the same editor. Removed
Ref 44 -- Looking at the site for "Relationship Center of Silicon Valley" (since renamed), it's a "healing center" run by two partners, one of whom is the blogger whose post is cited. Effectively this is no better than a personal blog. Removed
Ref 79 -- Has an access date but no URL; was there supposed to be a link? Added link
Ref 104 -- I followed the search instructions given, and the outcome was "Keine Ergebnisse für Ihre Suche..." (no results) Fixed (the track appears as "Stay High" instead of "Habits (Stay High)")
Ref 105 -- I followed the search instructions given and got a chart listing, but "Habits" (or anything by Tove Lo) does not appear on it. Comment: I guess you are talking about the Swiss certifications website, it shows the information required.
Ref 110 -- I followed the search instructions given and got a chart listing, but "Habits" shows at position 48, not position 5 as is claimed. Comment: You have to select the "Singles Digital – Top 100" chart alongside the date. I tried to add that clarification, but probably for technical reasons the note does not appear on the cite.

I'm pausing there so you can look into the new items; will circle back to continue with refs 111 forward in the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thank you so much for the support! I have addressed your comments. Regards, and have a nice day, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe the reason you can't enter a note on the Slovakian entry is because the search instructions are hardcoded in the template. The instructions would need to be clarified by editing Template:Single chart. For now I was able to verify the information, so I've continued moving down the list. Thanks to repetition in already-vetted sources, I was able to make it to Ref 190 with only one issue:

Ref 141 -- "Discopop" appears to be a personal blog published under a handle; not likely to be a WP:RS. Same blog is also used for Ref 214.

That gets us about 2/3 of the way. Probably won't pick it up again until tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @RL0919: Thanks! Regarding Discopop, it is a blog runned by Mark Savage, who is a experienced editor of BBC News. Because of that, I thought it could be used. I have removed the website for now. Thank you for your support on the article! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA calls for "high-quality" sources, so removal was probably the right call even if this blog could be shown to fall within the lower margins of RS. The remaining sources did not produce any significant issues, just a couple of publisher name tweaks that I went ahead and did myself. It's taken a while, but I believe we can consider the source review done. --RL0919 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thank you so much for the source review, I'm really grateful for that

. Have a nice day and hope to see you around again, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Source review done! I don't know what else is needed to promote the article. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There are quite a few duplinks which someone should look at, but it's not worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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