Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lorde/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [1].

---

Lorde

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) and De88

This article is about Kiwi sensation Lorde, who has released two studio albums and received widespread plaudits from critics and audiences alike. I and De88 have worked on the article since January based on previous PR inputs, and now believe the article is ready for the gold star. — HĐ (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Resolved concerns from Nikkimaria

suggest adding alt text Added File:Lorde_signature.png: signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection in common law countries like NZ Removed after considering its role in the article File:Royals_Lorde.ogg: FUR should be completed Done File:Lorde_wax_at_Madame_Tussauds_Hollywood.jpg is currently tagged for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Removed, awaiting further notifications from Commons — HĐ (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Does the article still need revisions regarding its images? De88 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved concerns from Aoba47

Something about the word “product” in this part (Universal Music commercially released the pair's first product,) sounds strange to me. I have never seen the word used to reference a music release (i.e. an extended play) before, but that could just be me. The same question applies to when you use “product” in the body of the article (i.e. a product of her and Little's collaboration). Reworded to "collaborative effort". May still not be the best word choice, but I hope it conveys the idea better. Thank you for the update. I think it works, but I will leave that up to the other editors as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I would include the year that Feed was first published in the prose. Added I have a question about these two phrase “Year twelve” and “Year thirteen”. I am an American so I am completely unfamiliar with how the education system is structured in New Zealand, but in the articles linked with these phrases, the numbers are both spelled out in numerals. Does that make a difference? I think not. They can either be numerals or spelled out in the words "twelve" and "thirteen". That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure since I am unfamiliar with the system. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I am a little confused by this part (During this time, she began writing songs), because the previous paragraph mentions how Lorde performed original music. Wouldn’t it make more sense to move that sentence (i.e.  She later performed her first original songs at the Victoria Theatre in November 2011.) to connect these two ideas together. I was initially confused when reading the first part, because I had thought that she had already written music and I had to double-check the dates. Revised the flow I would link “EP” on its first use in the lead and the body of the article. Done I would revise this part (After being freely downloaded 60,000 times,) to something like “After being downloaded for free 60,000 times” as the current wording sounds a little awkward to me. The current wording brought up a somewhat funny image for me of people being forced to download the EP, as opposed to when they could just “freely” do so on their own accord. Agreed. Reworded — HĐ (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I have a question about the paragraph on her performances in the “Public image” section. The topic sentence (i.e. Lorde's onstage persona, particularly her signature unchoreographed dancing, has attracted polarised reception from audiences.) is very good, and the two Fader sentences following it provide a very good understanding of the praise for her performances. However, I think you should add a bit about why people do not like her performance style. You mention in the topic sentence that it polarized audiences, but you go on to only mention a positive review. I would find a negative to balance it out. Added bits of information Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Do you think you should include a small part about how Lorde responded to the South Park parodies? I am not sure if that is too off-topic, but I was just curious. I even think the inclusion of South Park parodies is unnecessary. The episodes are indeed mentioned a lot, but the contents of the parodies focus on Lorde's looks i.e. she looks older than she's supposed to. I want to hear your opinion on this anw I understand. That's why I was uncertain about adding the reception. I think the inclusion of the parodies is good as it currently stands, because it is brief, but I would guess that some people may only know Lorde or were at least introduced to her through the show so it would be helpful to keep it if that makes sense. I will also leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Wonderful work with the article. Just make sure to keep updating it as I would believe her career will only continue from this point on. I have only focused on the prose, and I have not looked at anything related to the images or the sources themselves. I hope this helps at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Your comments are very much appreciated :) I have addressed your concern as above. Please feel free to add more comments! — HĐ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. I remember that Lorde was compared to Lana del Rey by music critics, and Lorde said something about Rey's music being "unhealthy". I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article though, but I wanted to raise it to your attention. Hope you have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that information is better suited for “Royals” since that song was a reaction to the hip hop-influenced artists she was listening to at the time (e.g. Kanye, Jay-Z, Lana, etc.) De88 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in pretty good shape, but at times the quality of the prose and depth of coverage fall short of FA standard. I have the following comments:

• "Bearing fascination with aristocracy in her stage name" - this is a bit clunky

• I have yet to find better wording... Would you mind suggesting an alteration? — HĐ (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Drive-by comment by KJP1. Agree it doesn't work at the moment - looking at the source, [104], I think it's saying something like, "Her stage name indicating her early fascination with royalty and aristocracy, she is known for..." It's still not great prose, but it is clearer as to meaning.) KJP1 (talk 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for the comment! I have revised the sentence to make it clearer :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• "She has sold over 5 million albums, as of June 2017, and 17 million songs, as of November 2014" - this seems very dated

• Removed songs sales in the lead — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• It also appears towards the end of the article. It would be much better to update these figures. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Very hard to update figures when Billboard provides nothing and the only figures available happen to be in forums. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe that there have not been publicly-available sales figures for a fairly major artist in over two years. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Trust me, I have looked to the ends of Google searching for any recent sales updates... nothing. I spent several months typing specific keywords to find sources to no avail. Anticipated a sales update for Pure Heroine fifth anniversary and nothing was updated, unfortunately. De88 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Lorde is not very appealing to the mainstream like other big names i.e. Taylor or Gaga, so I don't think this is unusual. But the five million album sales as of June 2017 is fairly updated imo — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• June 2017 is the month her most recent album was released (on 16 June), so it doesn't seem very recent. The downloads figure is very outdated. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• As much as I understand your concern, and I myself want to include the most recent sales figures, I regret to say the current sources are the most recent and reliable ones. — HĐ (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "During this time, Maclachlan tried to put Lorde with a succession of songwriters" - also a bit clunky

• Removed "succession", replaced it with "different". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Put" is worse. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reworded, hoping that this time it conveys the idea better — HĐ (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid not: the current structure is both over-complex, and inaccurate (producers produce, not songwriters). I'd suggest something along the lines of "During this time, Maclachlan attempted to partner Lorde with several different producers and songwriters, but without success". Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Addressed — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• "After being downloaded for free 60,000 times, the EP was commercially released by UMG in March 2013" - the relationship between the two things here is unclear: did the 60,000 downloads automatically trigger UMG to release the EP, or did they sign up to do so when the EP proved successful?

• I added bits of info, hope it helped — HĐ (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• This issue hasn't been addressed. The current wording (with the very exact number) implies that this was automatic. "Maclachlan viewed the decision as sensible because it helped promote Lorde to a considerable number of audiences before establishing her name in the industry" is also wordy for what it does (and "a considerable number of audiences" seems a bit odd - a "range of audiences" seems better). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I reconstructed the whole part — HĐ (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• " Amidst her solo activities, Lorde joined the surviving members of Nirvana to perform "All Apologies" during the band's induction ceremony at the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame in April 2014" - this seems a pretty major achievement (I imagine that virtually any musician born since the late 1970s would have wanted this gig). Why did the Nirvana artists select her?

• I added comments from two of the band's members; I also added bits of info on Pure Heroine's lyrics that led to plaudits from the media and the band — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's great, but "which evoked stark contrast to mainstream radio" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I reworded to "which contrasted with the mainstream music scene" — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• "At the 2016 Brit Awards in February, Lorde joined the surviving members of David Bowie's final touring band in a performance of "Life on Mars" in tribute to the late English singer" - ditto

• Removed "in tribute to the late English singer" and added "tribute" before performance. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not addressed, and "Bowie's son Duncan Jones appreciated her performance as "beautiful"" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do you mean the reason why Lorde was selected? If so, I have added bits of info — HĐ (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided uncredited background vocals" - the source doesn't say that her singing was uncredited.

• Although she is not credited on Gone Now, no source explicitly states "uncredited vocals". Removed this. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "The album produced two further singles" - not sure about this?

• Do you mean the wording? It's perfectly fine imo — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The album didn't "produce" anything: it's an inanimate object. Lorde's label released two other singles from the album. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The wording now implies that there were other singles. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• What reason give Lorde give for cancelling her concert in Israel? As this led to some controversy, she presumably explained her rationale - or if she didn't this should also be noted.

• Her reason was stated in the article: "...an online campaign by Palestinian solidarity activists supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not really - why did she make this decision? (e.g. what were her specific concerns?). Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Added — HĐ (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's good, but "did not explicitly indicate her reasons for cancellation" isn't grammatically correct - "her reasons for cancelling" or similar would work better. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Contemporary critics perceived her music upon the release of Pure Heroine" - this is a bit over-complicated, and written in the passive voice

• I restructured this sentence a bit; I'm not sure if it's passive voice because the sentence is (to me) clearly in active voice — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Still awkwardly worded. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• How so? I think the sentence sounds perfectly fine. That said, I want to have your suggestion — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Melodrama was a departure from the singer's signature minimalist style" - as it was her second album, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that it represented a break in a "signature" style, especially when the article previously notes that Lorde and various critics don't see her music as belonging to a specific genre.

• Reworded to simply "its predecessor" — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "detailing that it was" ... "Vice analysed that" ... "Lorde detailed that the foundation" ... "expressing that she should be" - also a bit clunky.

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Songwriting for "Tennis Court" is the exception; Lorde wrote the song's lyrics on an instant instrumental track" - this is unclear

• Changed "instant instrumental track" to "after its melody was produced". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's less clear I'm afraid, especially given the specific meaning of "produced" in the music context. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to have your suggestion on alternate wordings Reworded — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• "However, the singer clarified herself" - when had she said anything which needed clarifying? She appeared to be explaining her approach.

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Critical reception of Lorde is generally positive" - the para then only presents praise. What are the more critical viewpoints?

• "Critical reception" here refers to reception/analyses of credible critics, which is not necessarily negative/disapproving. — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Generally" implies there's been unfavourable commentary, which I believe is the case. The article is pretty positive about this artist, when the article on Pure Heroine notes it received a few 3 star reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pure Heroine was her debut, so a few critics were unsure if she could crack into stardom. I could not find any negative comments regarding Lorde's musical style or lyrics. While the artist has been the darling of music journalists, I opt for "generally positive" because I don't want to sound biased by phrasing it as "universally positive" or similar wordings — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic. Her first album received some luke-warm reviews, and her second album some 4 star reviews, so there's obviously some commentary arguing she could have been doing things better. This should be discussed. If it was to be the case that all commentary has been favourable as you state, the article should also state this rather than present readers off with a misleading statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: Noted, and added a commentary from renowned critic Robert Christgau — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• "her signature unchoreographed dancing" - is it really "signature"?

• I will argue that this should stay in the article. A quick Google search brings up articles from Time, Billboard, The Huffington Post, stuff.co.nz and The New York Times that explicitly note her "signature dance moves". De88 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK fair enough. The use of this in the NYT is particularly compelling. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• "has attracted polarised reception from audiences" - bit wordy ("has polarised audiences" does the same thing)

• Fixed. De88 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Given Lorde's musical style, why is anyone commenting on her on-stage dancing? She's not the type of musician who performs dance routines, and it seems surprising that anyone would expect this.

• You'd be surprised how many think pieces on her dancing exist out there. This was the source of controversy on her SNL performance of "Green Light".

• "NPR placed her at number 12 on their 2018 poll" - if it was a poll, wouldn't she have placed 12th due to public votes, rather than have been placed there by NPR? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Added "readers" before poll. I think that fixes the issue regarding whether it was a poll voted by NPR's writers or readers. De88 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Afraid not. She placed in the NPR poll - unless they rigged it, NPR didn't place her anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Nick-D:, we believe we have addressed your concerns as above. Your comments are very much appreciated :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• As an extra comment, "The media has dubbed her the "voice of a generation"" isn't quite right - the actual line in the news story is "Lorde’s sharp narrative observations – on both the single, and her critically acclaimed follow-up album, Pure Heroine – have led to her being labelled the voice of her generation". The quote is a bit off, and the source doesn't attribute this to "the media", though it's probably not too long a bow to draw. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for further inputs. In the meantime, would you mind crossing out the addressed concerns or grouping them into a collapsed list? That would facilitate our works better :) — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've already identified the concerns I regarded as unaddressed above. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree with HĐ. It becomes very difficult to determine which comments still need to be addressed and which need to be fixed with a laundry list of sub-comments. De88 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not standard practice to strike or collapse FAC comments. The ones I've re-raised above are still "live". Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, we believe we have addressed all of your concerns, except for critics' description of Lorde's music upon the release of Pure Heroine. We would like to hear your suggestion of word choice — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Those changes all look good. I'd like to see a source review before supporting though given that the two sources I looked at didn't fully support what was referenced to them. Sorry for the slow response - my Wikipedia time has been limited over the last few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Would you mind telling us which sources did not support what was referenced to them so we can improve them? De88 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was referring to the two issues above. Both are now resolved, but I think that a full source review is needed. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick, given Brian's source review below, would you say that all your concerns have been addressed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Yes they have been. I'm pleased to support this nomination, and apologise to the nominators for not doing so earlier. Nice work with this article, and with responding to my comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ArturSik

Resolved concerns from User:ArturSik

I would spell out all numbers 0 to 9 in words and everything else in numerals for consistency Done — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "After being downloaded for free 60,000 times," - don't think we need "for free" since we already know that from previous sentence Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Lorde's debut studio album Pure Heroine including the single "Royals"" - I think "containing" would work better Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) There's no mention of her golden globe nomination in the prose. While it appears in the 'Achievements' section I think it should also be mentioned in the section about her contribution to the soundtrack. Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Lorde joined the surviving members of David Bowie's final" - I would reword that since it starts off exactly like the sentence about her performance with Nirvana. maybe something like "At the 2016 Brit Awards in February, Lorde and David Bowie's final touring band gave a tribute performance of his 1971 song "Life on Mars"."? Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "In August, she announced on Instagram that her then-upcoming second studio album had been written and was in production stages" - since the album has already been released I don't think we need that here, it's belongs in the album's article Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "The lead single from the album, "Green Light", was released in March 2017 to widespread acclaim;" - here I would start off this sentence with "The lead single from her second studio album Melodrama, "Green Light"...." Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ... and then I would get rid of "Lorde revealed the title of the album, Melodrama, simultaneously with the release of the single." completely May I ask why? I think that bit should be included — HĐ (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Oops, I got carried away with editing the entire article. I should have consulted with you over this. De88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)\ Haha that's fine. Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) @HĐ: it's redundant; when I was writing my featured article I was given a great advice, to consider what information included in the article will be significant in 50 or 100 years. I personally don't think it's relevant when she revealed the album's name. ArturSik (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "she added an "e" after the name Lord, which she felt was too masculine, to make it more feminine" - add the bolded word I think "feel something + adj" is grammatically correct — HĐ (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) consider replacing the picture in the "2012–2015" section for one that faces the article, there's plenty of choice Replaced — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC) remove link for Grammy Award in 'Achievemtns' section as it's already been linked in one of the previous sections Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

that's it from me. ArturSik (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Took care of each suggestion, except for replacing the image in the "2012–2015" section". I'll leave it up to HĐ to revert or change any of the edits I made using these comments. De88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing all my comments. I support this for promotion. ArturSik (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your comments are very much appreciated. Thanks so much for your input :) HĐ (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from SatDis

Resolved concerns from User:SatDis

Well done with the article - it's succinct and informative, and not too long. All of the references appear to be without issues also. Just a few comments, mainly nit-picky grammar points. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. Make sure there is always a comma before "including" or "such as", especially in the lead. I'm seeing some inconsistencies with "Maclachlan" - is it lower case or upper case "L"? Consider placing the accent above "cafés"? Does Year thirteen need a capital for "Thirteen" as it is in the link? Same for Year twelve. Also, perhaps don't say "finishing" Year 13 if she didn't start it? Maybe "return to attend" or similar? For Melodrama, can you rephrase "record charts" to something like "album charts"? I interpreted "record" as an "achievement"; a bit confusing. It's worth considering having the dates for the tours read as (2013–14) and (2017–18) for ease of reading. That's just my preference, of course it's up to you. Just out of curiosity, has Lorde been pursuing any projects post the Melodrama tour? SatDis (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @SatDis: Thank you for your comments. Went ahead and took care of pretty much all the suggestions you pointed out sans the one about the year dates for her tours. Normally, I would place year dates on tours but it feels kind of odd to do so when her tours are referenced as common nouns (e.g. "international world tour"), rather than proper nouns (e.g. Pure Heroine Tour, Melodrama World Tour). I do not know if there is a Wikipedia policy that mentions this. If so, let me know. De88 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @De88: Looks good! Apologies, I was referring to the "Tours" section at the bottom of the article; I should've been more clear. I agree with you on the common nouns.SatDis (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @SatDis: Oh, yes. I know what you mean now. Going back to your last question, Lorde pretty much vanished from social media after she faced several controversies and went into hiding since her tour ended. The only news I heard was that her next record would be "born around the piano". No future collaborations in the works, though some suspected a song with The 1975 after their manager liked a tweet mentioning Lorde and the band. Nothing ever came into fruition. De88 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @De88: Thanks for the reply and for addressing the comments. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could provide a quick review for my article at Hi-5 (Australian band)? It would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just a few comments. Regards. SatDis (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Quality and reliability

• The sources are largely made up from newspaper and magazine articles (on and off-line), major broadcasters, and a few well-chosen websites. They appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

• Verifiability

• I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Most checked out satisfactorily; a couple of minor issues:
• Ref 61: "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided background vocals for American indie pop band Bleachers's song "Don't Take the Money", taken from their album Gone Now". No mention of Gone Now in the source.
• Ref 89: "During the recording process, Lorde stated that Frank Ocean's 2016 album Blonde inspired her to experiment with using an "anti-chorus." No specific mention of experimenting with "anti-chorus" in source.

• External links

• All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool

• Formatting

• There is inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates for archived links. In many such cases retrieval dates are omitted for such links but in others (refs 11, 16, 106, 109, 110, 111, 128) retrieval dates are included. I would prefer to see retrieval dates added in all such cases (there have been past discussions about this) but in any event it is necessary to be consistent.

• Regarding retrieval dates for archived links, we only add them for currently "live" links. For permanent dead links (or potentially so), we leave out retrieval dates. — HĐ (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I don't think it makes much sense to have a "bibliography" with a single entry in it. This source has two citations, both to the same page. It would be tidier if these refs were formatted along with the other footnotes.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Took care of your comments. Switched out sources to match descriptions of Don't Take the Money's inclusion on Gone Now and re-wrote sentence about "anti-chorus". I will leave the last two comments to @HĐ: De88 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe your concerns have been addressed by now. Thanks so much for the suggestions. — HĐ (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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