Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Dior (song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Dior (song)

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to become FA. The article got a copyedit and is currently at GA. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • I have two points about the following sentence: The song was written by Pop Smoke and the track's producer 808Melo, and was released by Victor Victor Worldwide and Republic Records as the second single from the mixtape on February 11, 2020.
    • I would reword the first part to Pop Smoke co-wrote the song with its 808Melo, as I think that is a clearer way of wording it.
    • I would put the single release part into its own sentence. After looking at the "Blank Space", I would recommend a similar structure and have it be the second sentence.
  • I do not believe the release dates for Meet the Woo 2 and Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon are necessary for the lead.
  • I would reword the last part of the first paragraph to have the Meet the Woo 2 information in a single sentence as I think that would make it more cohesive. Something like, "Dior" was a bonus track on Pop Smoke's second mixtape Meet the Woo 2 , along with a remix featuring American rapper Gunna. The song's original version was later included on Pop Smoke's posthumous debut studio album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon., might be better?
  • This part, buying the latest designer clothes, including some designed by the eponymous fashion house Dior, seems overly wordy to me.
  • Avoid having two sentences in a row starting with The song received.
  • I would reword the chart parts in the lead by removing his first posthumous solo hit and just letting the numbers speak for themselves.
  • If Pop Smoke is credited under his legal name (i.e. Bashar Jackson) for the song, then it may be beneficial to add a note to the infobox to clarify this to an unfamiliar reader. See how "Bad Blood" (Taylor Swift song) added a note in the infobox as an example. I am not saying it is required, but just wanted to raise a potential option.
  • On a similar note, it is odd to refer to the producer by his legal name in one part and his stage name in another. I would think liner notes (or what is being used) would be consistent with one method.
  • For this part, "Dior" has been regarded as Pop Smoke's signature song., specify who is doing the regarding here.
  • Avoid one-word quotes like "juxtaposed".
  • Avoid vague words like "Various" and "many".
  • What is a a commemorative cypher?
  • I am not really sure what this part, 808Melo explained that he and Pop Smoke instantly knew the song would herald a new wave of music, means, especially since drill music was a genre before this.
  • I am a little confused by this part, Pop Smoke wrote "Dior" in his bedroom in half an hour, since the lead and infobox say he co-wrote this with someone else.

I hope these comments are helpful. A majority of them are focused on the lead, but there are a few on the rest of the article. I hope this is a good start. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would encourage you to reexamine and rewrite the "Background and release" section. I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a featured article. For instance, a majority of the first paragraph starts with "Victor . . .". There are instructional essay under the "Guidance" section of the Template:FA sidebar, but I have admittedly never looked at them in-depth. But they may be helpful.
  • It is not clear who Steven Victor is when you mention him.
  • I have similar concerns about the prose in the "Music and lyrics" section. The sentences come across very list-like as they are all structured very similarly (i.e. A said B). I would be careful about leaning too heavily on quotes as there is a lot of them in this section.
  • This part of a quote, throwing bars effortlessly, reads more like a positive review and is thus out-of-place in this section.
  • To continue off this point, things like has a "mesmerizing" hook read more like a review and does not fit in this section.
  • I would put this sentence, In November 2020, Pop Smoke's brother Obasi Jackson showed an unreleased version of "Dior" on an Instagram livestream and played unreleased lyrics from the song., in the "Background and release" section since it is more about an aspect of the song's release. This bit, and played unreleased lyrics from the song, seems unnecessary to me as I think it would be safe to assume an unreleased version of the song has unreleased or different lyrics.
  • The "Music and lyrics" section mentions the song's lyrics being about "gunplay", but this is not represented in the lead.
  • I have a few issues with this quote: "repurpos[es] lines like 'Bitch I’ma thot get me lit' and [throws] in a lazy and unneccesary and homophobic one-liner"
    • It assumes the reader know where these lyrics were repurposed and the particular one-liner. As someone who has never heard of this song, or any of Pop Smoke's music, I found myself to be very confused here.
    • The quote reads more like a negative review and feels out-of-place in this section.
  • For this part, stated the song sees, I think "sees" does not really make sense in this context.
  • I have prose concerns for the "Critical reception" section as well. There does not appear to be any structure, and a lot of the sentences seem to follow "A said B" structure. I would consult this essay for guidance on how these sections could be improved. Also, in the lead, you mention praise for this song being a New York anthem, but I do not really see that represented here.
  • I would recommend changing the YouTube citations slightly. Instead of having YouTube in the publisher parameter, I would use the "via=YouTube" parameter and changing the publishing to whatever company uploaded the video to make the information clearer in the citation.

Apologies if any of my comments come across as rude or harsh. If I am being honest, I do not think the prose is at a featured article level. I have noticed prose issues in the first three sections, and I would encourage you to really look over the prose and see how things could be improved. I am not really good at offering advice on how to improve prose so apologies for not being much help. Maybe @SandyGeorgia: could provide some pointers? Anyway, I will stop my review here. I hope this was at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could also leave a request at WP:GOCE, a group that specializes in copyediting. They could catch stuff that you might've missed. Panini🥪 12:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, how does the article look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is looking better. I will leave this for other reviews. Maybe @Panini!: could pitch in (sorry for the ping here)? It may be helpful to ask for help from editors who have worked on music FA/FACs recently. That being said, I am confused by your focus as you have this peer review, a FAC, and this post on my talk page where you asked for my help on a third article. I would recommend that you put your focus on one article and I think you would get more help that way. That's just recommendation though. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the peer review instructions, only one can be open by a user at a time. Because of this, and since you have recently asked me to review Cups (song), it is your choice on which of these two you'd like me to review. And I promise to get to it eventually: I have recently been busy IRL and when I have a lot of free time on the site I choose to spend it on my current open projects, so sorry about delays. Panini🥪 02:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Panini

edit

Thank you for your patience. I'll go over this today. Panini🥪 12:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some beginning thoughts from a quick look through:

  • Why is Dior in quotations every time it appears?
  • Apologies for jumping in. Dior is in quotations because it is a song. A song is always presented in quotations, like how a movie or a video game is presented in italics. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accolades section is very small and could rather be merged into the critical reception above without the need of a subheader.
  • Is it normal to call Bashar Jackson by his professional name? Or should he sometimes be noted as Jackson? It's mentioned in a hatnote at the end of the article and since that's the only instance where it appears it doesn't benefit much.
  • He is credited under his real name for the songwriting. For the rest, he is known as Pop Smoke.
Background and release
  • "Pop Smoke co-wrote "Dior" with 808Melo in his bedroom in half an hour." What specifically? The lyrics, the music, or the whole thing?
  • "Pop Smoke co-wrote "Dior" with 808Melo in his bedroom in half an hour. Pop Smoke first showed "Dior" to record executive Steven Victor." Repetitive, could be changed to -> "Pop Smoke co-wrote "Dior" with 808Melo in his bedroom in half an hour, and first showed the song to record executive Steven Victor."
  • "At first, Victor thought the song was interesting but did not think it would be successful until a colleague listened to it and had the impression the song would be one of Pop Smoke's biggest hits." Run-on sentence that could be divided. Maybe split to -> "Victor's first concluded the song was interesting but did not think it would be successful; when a colleague listened to it, he then had the impression the song would be one of Pop Smoke's biggest hits."
  • "how much" is leaning towards editorializing, and could be removed.
  • Four references at the end of the second paragraph, these could be cite bundled.
Music and lyrics + Critical reception
  • I'd suggest reading WP:RECEPTION for this one. Nearly every sentence is structured as "A said B", which means they all appear as "This person from this organization said this, and this person from this organization said that". Shake it up a little bit! If multiple reviewers liked one specific thing, they can be combined into one sentence with "multiple reviewers liked this, with B's A saying this". I have this for guidance, and although it's intended for video game articles I bet you could find some use from it.
  • Aoba helped improve the reception drastically. I don't want to ruin their work.
Commercial performance
  • "After Pop Smoke was murdered at the age of 20 in a home invasion" Not sure why this is important to note for the following info after it. This could instead be used in the legacy section.
  • I think it is important to the section because the song became more popular after Pop Smoke was killed.
Promotion and legacy
  • I'm not sure why these two unrelated sections are combined. Maybe move the promotion info up to Background and release, and keep legacy where it's at.
    I usually follow other FA music articles. I think these sections together are fine.
In popular culture

No comments about the table.

Hope my comments help at all. Panini🥪 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dior_(song)/archive1&oldid=1009357751"