Wikipedia:Peer review/Chromatica/archive1

Chromatica

After a significant overhaul and a successful GA review, I'm bringing Chromatica to PR to improve the chances of a successful FA candidacy. For now (and for me personally), I believe the article falls short of satisfying the FA criteria for the minimal coverage of the pandemic's adverse impact on the album's global rollout, significant in the industry context (for obvious reasons). Any insight to further improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced, DAP 💅 19:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done it for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

I am slowly catching up after three weeks of my computer being out for repair; I will get to this soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not yet having read the article (just scanning captions), I don't know what this means ... Hong Kong tram advertising showcasing the album's various physical copy iterations ... and what does the word "various" add? (Redundant?)
• MOS:DTAB on table in the "Certifications and sales" section
• There have been concerns expressed in other FACs about AllMusic's reliability, so be prepared to explain why this article's use of AllMusic meets WP:RS, or search for other sources (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1).
• "作品詳細画面 J-WID LOVE ME RIGHT". ... MOS:ALLCAPS, and use trans-title= parameter on citation templates to provide the translation. (There are other non-English sources where the trans-titel= parameter could be used.)
• I cannot find anything here that indicates Adam Antar meets WP:SPS, and Medium.com is not a high-quality reliable source. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Medium) Antar, Adam (May 28, 2020). "Chromatica: a review and analysis of Lady Gaga's new album". Medium.
• I cannot determine if this source is reliable, since clicking on it sent me into endless loop hell of trying to sell me things. "The Official Top 40 biggest albums of 2020". Official Charts Company. Retrieved January 4, 2021.
• What makes this a reliable source ? https://australian-charts.com/weekoverview.asp I stopped checking sources there, and suggest that this sample indicates a thorough check is needed. You will need to be prepared to defend the reliability of sources at FAC.
• You can install User:GregU/dashes.js to keep your MOS:DASHes vs. hyphens in order.
• You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep your date formatting consistent.
• See overuse of however and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing (also is almost always redundant) and User:John/however. Both are present. Similar for "in total" (redundant).
  • As of reading this a month later, "However" is only used twice. "Also" is used eight times but once per section its used. "In total" is only used once. A definite sign this article is moving in the right direction. I'll be on the lookout for other repeated words, Sandy. ;) 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• This as the second sentence in the lead seems oddly placed ... disrupts the flow, and it is not apparent why this needs to be mentioned so prominently before other info. Interscope postponed the album's release as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Cannot see what "nonetheless" relates to ... Nonetheless, Interscope released three singles
• Be sure to have a look at WP:RECEPTION for tips on writing "critical reception".
• See MOS:QUOTEPOV
• Very long quote in "Title and artwork". See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
• veteran photographer Norbert Schoerner, best known in the industry for his campaign photography with Prada, ... can "best known" be cited, and is this description of him here necessary or off-topic? He has a link.

I hope these brief comments get you started and knowledgeable music editors will fill in the content review (not my specialty); no need to get back to me on any of this, but ping me if anything is unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

The nominator has stated the article could be expanded in some ways, such as COVID impacted its release, so I'll happy to research that. I will make comments on the prose I currently see:

Lead

• " Gaga supervised the production with longtime collaborator BloodPop, Blackpink, Ariana Grande, Elton John, and a variety of producers" Why is BloodPop categorized but not the other producers? Were the other people in this list all newcomers? I would specify that to make this sentence more readable and less awkward.
• Also, Ariana and Blackpink were producers on the album?
• "Gaga resurfaced with a flamboyant cyberpunk-inspired persona to coincide with her experimentation." I suspect this mean she changed her image for the album, but I feel we could be a little clearer with that.
• Since "Dance-pop" is music WP:JARGON, link it
• "Through often dark introspection of the subject matter, songs on Chromatica manifest Gaga's personal views of themes inspired by failed romance and mental health struggles in her private life." I find this sentence fluffy.
• "Said sensibility" What sensibility? That of how the the lyrical themes are executed? Because all I read was that the themes were presented in a dark matter, which doesn't mean sensitive or having a sensibility to it.
• The sentence with that phrase also uses non-encyclopedic phrasing that may be appropriate in some professional writer's enthusiastic review for a major publication, but not in an encyclopedic article and would look odd to casual readers. The description of the instrumentals being upbeat is perfectly, but then there are phrases like "ringing grooves" and "thumping instrumentation". It may not help that you had to use sources that, while reliable, used creative, informal methods of describing the album's sound and style, but we have to make the tone as encyclopedic as possible.
• "adversely affected in the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic." Shouldn't this say affected by, or is there consensus stating the sentence should be written this way?
• "including the US Billboard Hot 100 top five "Stupid Love" and number one "Rain on Me" featuring Grande" I see no hyphens here, so its odd-looking. I get this means the single were top-five and number-one hits on the Hot 100, but I suspect it won't come off that way to introductory readers.
• "Its craftsmanship drew plaudits from several publications in their end-of-2020 lists" So how the album was crafted was praised in the text of specifically year-end lists? I just gave the the reception section a quick read-through, and only reviews of the album are stated to praised the craftsmanship. All the Accolades section did was state who listed the album in year-end lists. Major contradiction between body and lead.
• Why does the last paragraph of the lead go from critical reviews to awards back to critical reviews? Feels unorganized

Refs

• A lot look well-formatted and seem to have all necessary info, though that's only from a skimthrough.
• I would add CAT number for Ref 19, which you can find on Discogs.

I still willing to read this article more, but so far the issues in the lead might indicate this may need more work. I could be wrong, though, so I'll keep reading. Quite ambitious to take on a topic as big as this, and I'm hoping for the best. :) 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Background

• I don't think the image alone will indicate how Gaga's image changed in the mid-2010s to new readers. I think a multiple image template will be needed that shows what Gaga's image was before her acoustic period.
• Likewise, I don't see an explanation for how oddball her image was before Cheek to Cheek, which again, it may not be obvious to new readers how Gaga's professional was different from her Born This Way and Artpop era. It only abruptly mentions in the middle of the sentence about her image change her previous look was "outlandish."
• "Her existing commitment to A Star Is Born, however, soon took precedence," I would specify the timing. The RS cite states it took precedence after Joanne was released.
• " Gaga's progress on a standalone project intensified." From what I have read in the two citations for this phrase, it started the same time she began working on A Star is Born. I don't know what it means for the progress to be "intensified," or how whoever wrote this would interpret that way. Did I miss anything?
• I echo Sandy's concern about the dependence on quotes even if it's for a few instances. For example, Gaga's quote in this section of the last paragraph could be paraphrased.
• Otherwise, well-written section that describes a lot of things in an understandable way.

Recording

• The peer review nominator admits the article is not comprehensive in one area, how COVID impacted the album's release. There's another reason why this article doesn't meet 1b. This section. It only discusses collaborators, the studio location, writing, and vision of the sound and style. It has nothing about... you know... the recording. Specifically how this album was recorded and mixed, which is covered in reliable sources such as Sound on Sound and Mix magazine. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Chromatica is co-executive producer BloodPop's second album with Gaga." Why is this is present tense? No one produces something forever, it gets released and that's that.
• " They detailed basic ideas but had no immediate professional commitment until a listening preview of a rough "Stupid Love" demo ignited their interest." When was all of this?
• "Gaga's reassurance in her music output marked an important transition in the recording process, though she faulted some of the difficulties of recording on her fibromyalgia." Spotcheck question. How did it make recording difficult? I've read the Paper mag, which used interpretations from the writer and Gaga herself about how Gaga's pain (caused by fibromyalgia) relates to the lyrical themes and composition of the album, but it never discusses it impact on recording. Since I can't access the Zane Lowe source since I don't have iTunes, is it discussed in the Zane Lowe source at all, and at which time in the episode?
• I see nothing about the start date for the creation of the demos, which is in Ref 15: "After the Joanne tour and during/after the filming of A Star Is Born, we started working on demos at her home studio."
• The section mentions Sophie as a rejected producer, but her rejected collaborations aren't specified, which they are in Ref 15: "We worked with SOPHIE very early on. [She was] the first collaborator of those sessions. Those days were fun. We set up six microphones and recorded [Gaga's] Lamborghini exhaust, and SOPHIE cut it up into samples. [Though they didn't make the album], we still plan to finish those songs and present something special within the Chromatica universe."
• Also, Ref 15 doesn't state Interscope chose Sophie as the album's first producer, just that she worked on the album early on. It also mentions nothing about Interscope being the one choosing Sophie.
• Boys Noize is mentioned as a contributor to the album, but he is not credited in Personnel or Track listing. Was his work also rejected? Please clarify.
• "Other key contributors on Chromatica are Ariana Grande, K-Pop girl group Blackpink and Elton John, hired as the album's vocal collaborators." Another sentence that's a little fluffy. I think just stating they contributed vocals would do it
• More fluffy sentences that could be condensed: "According to Gaga, they were eager to take up the task when she called them for the request.[21]" "The starting point of the final track, "Sine from Above", was an initially unreleased track Axwell and John produced seven years before production."
• "Gaga cites John, one of the singer's longtime mentors, as a driving force in her sobriety, and their friendship was an important factor in his hiring.[15][22]" Since how this sentence is fluffy may not be too clear, I'll reveal how I would write it:
  • "John's longtime friendship with Gaga was why he was hired and helped her become sober."
• The last paragraph is worded questionably. It starts by stating the album was completed and in "definite form," but then states orchestral instruments were added after that. If there's still more to add to an album, then it's not complete. What does it mean for the album to be in "definite form"?
• The paragraph also suffers from vague wording and jargon. What is "main melodic themes", the repeated motifs between the orchestral tracks? What type of "source material" did they used? Old recordings? Specific compositions? Songs?

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Title and Artwork

• You may want to check this article for any other fluffy sentences in this article, because I just noticed one at the beginning of this section. "Gaga proposed Free Woman as a tentative working title from her fondness of the identically named album track, but the singer felt her internal struggles called into question the proposed title's integrity." I'll give you one definite issue. "tentative" is redundant. "Working title" means a name that is not definitely going to be used but is only used for temporary identification purposes. Tentative, while not the same type of word, does strongly connotate "indefinite" or "not sure," making the word pointless.
• There's another fluffy sentence in this section, but because I want you to be an active copyeditor, I'll let you figure out which one it is.
• Another long quote that could be paraphrased.
• "Gaga re-emerged for the album cycle with a flamboyant cyberpunk-inspired stage persona, continuing her trademark of artistic reinvention" More vague language. What is "The album cycle"? Was she doing live shows introducing this?
• Second paragraph also has sentences that could be a little less fluffy.
• "early April 2020" Why not give the specific date, April 5, 2020?
• " The treatment of the cover, and the artwork's cyberpunk sensibility," This is where the fluffiness becomes blatant. Why not just say "The artwork"? Why do you have to identify again that it's the cover art within the same sentence and after the first clause that identifies it? Why not just "The cyberpunk-style artwork has garnered comparisons to..."

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Overview of "Music and Lyrics"

• "the album forgoes contemporary R&B and trap crossover trends popular in mainstream music of the period" AllMusic cite: "Chromatica willfully ignores trap and the other dour pop trends of the late 2010s for exuberant disco and house". Source does not mention R&B styles being the only trends in popular music, it mentions trap and "other dour pop trends of the late 2010s," which could mean anything. It also states the album has a disco style, which I don't see in the Wikipedia article's prose, this section included. Was there more widely-agreed upon genres in other sources?
• I repeat the concern in the lead about non-encyclopedic composition and sound descriptions
• Why are we connecting Gaga's and the producers' method of obtaining their sound with AllMusic's unrelated subjective analysis? That's a WP:SYNTH issue
• Avoid incomplete sentences. For example, "And in doing so," "Yet the songwriting's often"
• What are "stylistic debts to a spectrum of genres"? She paid tribute to them, or was she just evoking them?
• Paper mag quote is another long quote that could easily be paraphrased and condensed. Like I said, I echo Sandy's concerns.
• Section has first mention of the COVID-19 pandemic, which doesn't name the pandemic but only describes it as an "unforeseen pandemic" with pandemic pipelinked to the article about COVID. The COVID-19 article is linked again in the Release section, this time specifying the name. MOS:BUILD states that you should generally link only on the first instance of the word or phrase. I would recommend doing a regular link to the pandemic article without a pipelink.
• The second paragraph has multiple issues:
  • (1) It continues a problem that is throughout this article of fluffiness in prose. For instance, "upbeat, diverse musical style," I know that "upbeat" contrasts with dark, but how does "diverse"? It is already established in the first paragraph the album encompasses multiple styles.
  • (2) It is redundant and feels non-encyclopedic, specifically WP:EDITORIAL. Lyrical themes are repeated in two separate instances, both before and after the phrase of the instrumentals being upbeat. "Chromatica is a concept album that examines the pursuit of healing and unwavering happiness." " the album's upbeat, diverse musical style, manifesting Gaga's personal views of themes inspired by failed romance and mental health struggles in her private life." (1) How does a style "manifest" topics? Aren't these just more themes in the lyrics? This feels like another statement only a music magazine review or a professional blog would write. (2) Shouldn't where the lyrical themes came from be in the same sentence introducing this as a concept album?

👨x🐱 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments on Music and lyrics

• I urge yet again to watch out for fluffy sentences in "Songs" as well.
• I have zero issue and encourage analysis of the album from professional critics, but there are a few quotes and opinions that are either redundant or too obscure in itself to fit in with the rest of section:
  • "Kory Grow from Rolling Stone referred to the music of the album as "therapy pop".[45]" I think the previous sentences made this obvious, so this quote is unneeded.
  • "Reminiscent of Gaga's more contemporary work on Artpop,[49]" Isn't it already obvious before the album is like her pre-Joanne dance-pop albums? Why give this description for one track?
• Spotcheck issues:
  • "The lyrics of "Stupid Love", set to the backdrop of a disco-flavored beat," Vanity Fair doesn't interpret the song as having anything disco on it or about resilience. Variety does describe the song as "disco-infused" but does not interpret its lyrical themes.
  • Idolator: "Stupid Love" "is about summoning the bravery to love again after getting your heart battered". Oh, there's the lyrics for the song. Ah. OK. What's the point of the Vanity Fair cite if it supports neither claims about the song?
  • Also, Elle cite gives a much wider lyrics description of "Rain on Me" than "resilience after heartbreak", that being "persevering through hardship, healing, and finding beauty in the pain, heartbreak, and life."
• I find the "Songs" section is repetitive in the format that it categorizes tracks: "disco-flavored" "French house-inspired" "electronica-inspired" "French house-flavored" "hi-NRG-inspired" "Eurodance-fused".

👨x🐱 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments on Refs

• Not that this is needed, but any reason why ref 41 isn't Archived?
• Ref 48: Metro is not a reliable source
• AllMusic cites present "AllMusic" as work names when they're not.
• Ref 162 is to a Junkee source but the work name is "The Guardian". What? Also, make sure Junkee is italicized once this is fixed.
• Ref 164 falsely italicizes source name that isn't work, and the table where the citation is also does not italicize "NJ.com"
• Same issues with Dancing Astronaut, PopSugar, Uproxx, and Yahoo! cites
• "Yahoo" --> "Yahoo!"
• Ref 90 presents CDJapan as "cdjapan.co.jp", but Ref 93 presents the same publisher by the name itself. Keep consistent and use Ref 93's way of formatting names. Also, check if I missed any other instances liked this.
• Only because I'm not familiar with the source, is CDJapan reliable?

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DAP389, pinging in case you didn't see the comments above. If you need more time to address the comments, please close the PR and you can reopen once the corrections are complete. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Since DAP389 didn't respond to the above comments, I am going to close this. DAP can open a new PR once the concerns above are addressed. Please message me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)