Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saving Light/archive5

< 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) 13 April 2020 [1].

Saving Light

edit
Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 Uplifting Trance song "Saving Light". After numerous featured article nominations, two peer reviews, and help from PresN as a mentor, I am certain that this article is finally ready to become a featured article. The article was also significantly improved and expanded upon compared to its last FAN, including a composition section, more photos, an audio sample and even an entire section on live performances. All in all, the article should be ready to become a featured article. Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed. Is there anything I can replace them with or are they fine as they are now?
You can use |upright= to set a size that respects the user's preference settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added one to the photo in "Writing and production", it seems to be a good size now.
  • Is there a reason to use FilePath for images here?
  • Not entirely sure myself, I think they were put in during a peer review or I just copied them over from a FA. I've removed them.
  • File:HALIENE_performing_at_EDC_2017_live_(cropped).jpg: source should include a link to the source file
  • I can't seem to find the source image, not from the authors or singer's website or social media. To avoid any problems, I've simply replaced it.
Done, borrowed from two FA articles so it should be good now. Micro (Talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you copied a piece that doesn't apply here for File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg - I don't see any mention of copyright infringement in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed that. Fixed. Micro (Talk) 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by David Fuchs: I'll try to give this a full review this weekend (I'm going to read through the old FACs too which will take some time.) In the meantime, a quick hit:
    • Sources:
      • What makes The Nocturnal Times, Your EDM, We Rave You, EDM Identity, Dance Music NW, Dancing Astronaut, DJ Times, EDM Sauce, DJ Mag high-quality reliable sources?

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources used have been previously reviewed in the articles good article nomination. I've determined that all sites used as a source on this article were good and reliable enough to be used on a featured article. This meant to prove and show that each site had staff and editorial oversite to show that the articles weren't just some kind of blogs. Most sites listed their CEO, Editor-in-chief, staff reviewers/writers, etc on their "about" or "staff" pages on their sites. Most sites, such as Dancing Astronaut, Your EDM, and DJ Mag had been determined to be reliable sources by the Electronic Music WikiProject, though the list is far from being completed. Listing the staff of the listed sites:
Founder & CEO - Mark Mancino, Social Media Coordinator - Mason Siegel, Editor-at-Large & Ad Sales - Kris Kallenbach, Senior Editor - Caroline O'Keefe, Writer - Ariana O'Keefe, Writer - Charlie McMillan, Writer - Maria Marcano, Writer - Rebecca Sirota
CEO - Elliot Sachs, CFO - Nick Ward, Editor-in-Chief - Matthew Meadow, Label Director - Greg Sills, Chief Content & Social Media Manager - Lucas, Content Curator - Ben Jacobs, 15 other staff.
CEO & Founder - Yotam Dov, CO-Manager - Tim Olsson, Editor - Shantanu Singh, Instagram Manager - Antonio Di Giorgio, Writer - Abhinav Manmohan, Editor - Florito Maniego, Spotify Manager - Tomas Zboril, Youtube Manager - Petar Lazarevic, Writer - Raymond Murphy, Brand Manager - Branka Maxim, Twitter Manager - Henry Wallis, Editor - Amy Martine Shaw, Writer - Alexander Costello, Writer - Sean Wolfe, Writer - Keith Warren, Writer - James Todoroski, Editor - Jake Gable, Video Manager / Writer - Johan de Kock
Co-Founder / Editor-In-Chief - Grant Gilmore, Managing Editor - Erin Cropper, Content Strategist - Matt Schaitel, Senior editors - Abisola Oseni, Cassey Varvel, Maria Clinton, Editor - Jayce Ullah-Blocks, Webmasters - Connor Taylor, Tim Goth, 8 Correspondents
Founder - Joshua Schweigert, Public Relations Liaison - Valerie White, Reviews Editor - Pete Zachara, Music Journalist - Vanessa Crestejo, Staff Writer - Ashley Kiah Beehler, 19 other employees.
Chief Executive Officer - Senthil Chidambaram, Editor-in-Chief - David Klemow, Managing Editors - Christina Hernandez, Robyn Dexter, Bella Bagshaw, Editor-at-Large - Will McCarthy, Senior Editors - achel Narozniak, Farrell Sweeney, Staff Writers - Chris Stack, Jessica Mao, Harry Levin, Josh Stewart, Mitchell Rose, Rugby Scruggs
Editor - Jim Tremayne, Editor-at-Large - Brian O’Connor, Assistant Editor & Digital Content Editor - Brian Bonavoglia, Chart Coordinator - Dan Miller, Around 20 article Contributors, Art Director - Janice Pupelis, Digital Art Director - Fred Gumm, Production Manager - Steve Thorakos, Director of Integrated Advertising - Paul Bozikis, Advertising Assistant - Rickey Pimentel, Operations Manager - Robin Hazan,President/Publisher - Vincent P. Testa
Founder & CEO - Steven Jacobs, Editor in Chief - Erik Mahal, VP of Events - Kris Novak, Director of Photography - Joseph D'Oria, VP of HR Operations - Bruce Genovese
Managing Director - Martin Carvell, Editor-In-Chief - Carl Loben, Deputy Editor - Ben Hindle, Tech Editor - Mick Wilson, Production Coordinator - Becca Antoon, Commercial Director - Heath Holmes, Deputy Digital Editor - Rob McCallum, Digital Staff Writer - Amy Fielding

Micro (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good they have staff and aren't just blogs, Featured article criteria requires a higher threshold than just that sources meet WP:RS; specifically, "high-quality" reliable sources. Essentially, what makes these publications the best available in the field? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what WP:FACS indicates what a high-quality source is:
  • Do the sources represent the best available for this particular subject?
Yes. Other sources that say the same information exist do exist, but are considerably less-reliable. These sources most notably included EDMTunes, which writes and is generally similar to to the other sources used, but was determined to be of worse quality. Sources currently used, including Your EDM, DJ Mag, DJ Times, Dancing Astronaut, and EDM Sauce are the best sources within the list and all have been operating for years (DJ Mag has been since the 90s). More notably high-quality sources, such as MixMag, Triple J, Complex, and Stereogum do exist and would have been used, but they never wrote about this song.
  • Is the source that supports each point the most appropriate for that point?
Yes. In a lot of cases, text is supported by multiple citations when needed, usually in bundles of two to four to make sure the information is absolutely 100% reliable and verifiable. For example, the text that’s says that Saving Light was the highest-selling trance song of 2017 on Beatport has two sources on it, while the text that says that the lyrics are about standing up to bullying and prejudice, suicide, and being a victim's "saving light" has three sources on it.
  • Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen.
Definitely. Most sources were written usually a couple days to a few weeks after the song, it’s remixes, the acoustic version, etc, were released. A few articles though were not written in conjunction, though are still relatively new and up-to-date for the subject, usually no more than 2 years old.
  • In the case of anything contentious, are primary sources being used in accordance with the secondary literature?
Yes. A few Primary sources exist, but are always accompanied by a third-party source. An example of this is the part that’s says the dog marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award. A State of Trance (primary source) was used alongside Your EDM (secondary source).
  • Do the sources appear collectively to provide a comprehensive account of the subject, or is there over-reliance on a particular source or group of like-minded sources? Reviewers should be aware that even the highest-quality sources can be used selectively in a way that affects the neutrality of the article.
A lot of sources are used multiple times and some standalone articles are used two or three times. The most used single reference is the only Billboard one, with it having used 11 times throughout he entire Wiki article (it is used alongside various other sources/reference as a verified/extra source many of those times) and the most used single source is Your EDM, which has 7 articles used throughout.
This should be good enough to prove that they are good enough to be used in a featured article.Micro (Talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I'm sorry to see articles languishing at the bottom of the list - I fear this is not a topic that catches the imagination of a lot of FAC regulars!

  • I assume this is meant to be written in British English, but I'm seeing lots of false titles and some Americanisms
  • "to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and get it to the top of the Beatport charts. The song achieved this on 16 February 2017." This could be smoother
  • "critics praised Haliene's vocal performance and its sound and composition" Could also be smoother - both this quote and the one in the bullet above have unclear its. What is being referred to?
  • "on van Buuren's mix album, A State of Trance 2017." van Buuren has multiple mix albums - you need to remove the comma.
  • I'm seeing a lot of names (producers, performers, albums, etc.) with no links. Are they notable? Don't be scared of redlinks - if they're notable, you should have a link.
  • "and depicted a schoolgirl" Plots of music videos should be written about in the present tense. It depicts, rather than depicted, surely?
  • "The video received positive reviews and praised for its depiction of bullying" was praised?
  • "The official remixes of "Saving Light" featured Notaker and Nwyr, and was released in August 2017." were released?
  • "Transcendence and Emery included it on his Laserface setlists. " Why italics? Two names but his?
  • "Gareth Emery arranged songwriters Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra to conduct" to conduct? Clumsy
  • "Roxanne Emery suggested that they write a song about suicide and the four composed the lyrics in under an hour and Haliene provided vocals" Which four? In the lead, you credit five songwriters. And do we need to have discussion of vocals in the same sentence?
  • " They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" This does not strike me as brilliant writing
  • "and thirty-six seconds; Its extended" Caps
  • "Writers for Earmilk and EDM Identity described the song as emotional; the former wrote" This doesn't work, grammatically. To say the former, you need two things, but you've only got one - "writers for Earmilk and EDM Identify". At best, you've got "writers for Earmilk" and "EDM Identify", but I take it you want your two things to be "writers for Earmilk" and "writers for EDM Identify" - or, more precisely, a single writer from each. This may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's a nice example of where the writing just isn't quite where it should be.
  • "production speak to "each level of talent involved."[7][8" See MOS:LQ - there are other LQ issues further down, I think
  • "Saving Light" debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016" This is probably just me not understanding, but you said in the previous paragraph that the song appeared on DJ sets?
  • Both statements are from the same interview and re-reading it, it seems Gareth Emery tested them in DJ Sets in general(including home and private mixes), not referring to live sets (at a club, venue, or stage). I've slightly re-written the previous paragraph to be more general.
  • "were to comprise his mix album, A State of Trance 2017." As before
  • "to help create a storyline on the subject to make sure the depiction of bullying was as authentic as possible" Wordy
  • The music video section feels repetitive
  • "The Saving Light tour, alongside North American dates" What does this mean?

I've not looked into the sources, but I suspect there are a few that would raise eyebrows among experienced FAC source reviewers. I see this is talked about above, so I'll say nothing more right now.

Oppose. Sorry to be a voice of doom, but I feel that the quality of writing is below what we are typically looking for at FAC. I recommend you look into fixing the issues I've identified, and then seek out an experienced copyeditor before renomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Note: I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've touched on some things you've mentioned, but most seem to be out of my understanding. I have no idea how to fix Americanisms, the proper uses for titles/false titles, how to smooth out sentences, etc. I tried my best to fix your concerns, but for the most part, I rely on actual copyeditors (which I've already had 2 or 3 go over the article, alongside 2 peer reviews) to help me and fix those issues. Micro (Talk) 02:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False titles are things like "music producer John Smith" or "Wikipedia editor MicroPowerpoint". They aren't real titles like "King John" or "Mr MicroPowerpoint". You can remove them by simple adding the: "the music producer John Smith". When I talk about smoothing out sentences, I just mean editing them to be more readable. For example, "They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" could be "They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" - why approved of it? That's a strange way to say that he liked it - and I assume that's all you were trying to say. And "later" is vague. Are we talking that same day or months later? And why "showcased the project"? I assume you simply mean "played the song". This all feels needlessly complicated. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. I've changed that particular bit to be better, I think. I'm not too good at identifying these kinds of problems though. I'll definitely read up on that Spade essay to help though. Micro (Talk) 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (sorry): the spade essay is more about editor-to-editor interactions, but it does hit upon something important about writing. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Based on the above I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements be undertaken outside the FAC process; you can renominate after that (and a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions) but I would suggest conferring with Josh and David beforehand to get a feel for how it's looking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 13 April 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/Saving_Light/archive5&oldid=950701576"