Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghost in the Machine (song)/archive1

< 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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2024 [1].

Ghost in the Machine (song)

edit
Nominator(s): PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...), Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is primarily the work of PSA, who did a phenomenal job gathering information on this song. They approached me off-wiki last month asking to collaborate on helping to build the article, and we are both of the belief that it is ready for FAC. This song is from SZA's smash-hit album SOS, and while it was never released as a single, it still became the first-ever top 40 hit for its featured artist, the one and only Phoebe Bridgers. Cited by several critics and by SZA herself as an example of the album's experimentation with genres outside of R&B, the song revolves around themes of relationships faltering due to a lack of meaningful connection, with recurring themes surrounding artificial intelligence. I have greatly enjoyed collaborating with PSA on this one, and we both anticipate the community's feedback. (Disclosure: for my part, this is a WikiCup nomination.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Oppose on prose. I was the GA reviewer, and I said when I passed it that "the prose is a little awkward in places but I think this meets the GA standards". FA prose standards are higher. Here are a few examples of wording that I think needs to be improved.

  • "Elsewhere, it appeared on national charts in Australia, Canada, and Portugal." "Elsewhere" is redundant; the list of places tells the reader it's elsewhere.
  • "many praised the two performers as a fitting match despite their discographies' different sounds, whereas a few found Bridgers an unnecessary addition". "Fitting match" is redundant; "discographies' different sounds" is an odd figurative use of "discography" -- it's their music that has a characteristic sound, not the list of their music; "unnecessary addition" is a bit vague.
    • I've replaced "fitting match" with "good fit", "discographies' different sounds" with "the differences between their respective musical styles", and rephrased the "unnecessary addition" bit. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From April to May 2022, SZA told media outlets that she had recently finished the album": strictly speaking this means she did nothing else but say this during that time, which is not what you want to say.
  • "SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album. The roster included artists like": "roster" is not the ideal word; it means a list of people who have a given duty.
  • "Having been categorized as an R&B artist throughout her career, which she believed was because she was a Black woman,[12] SZA sought to prove her musical versatility and combine the R&B sound that had been a staple of her past works[13][14] with a diverse set of other genres and soundscapes." A bit wordy. And we start by saying she thought she was only categorized as an R&B artist because she was Black, and then say R&B was the main genre she had been working in. What does "soundscapes" add here that we don't get from "genre"?
  • "The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was fast." A time is short or long, not fast (in some usages, such as athletic events, you can say "a fast time", but that's not this usage). I really should have caught this in the GA review.
  • "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that she asks for help even if she feels drained from the romance, which he added was one of the album's recurring themes": a bit hard to parse. Does she feel drained from the romance or not? If she does, why "if"? I think you want "though". And what is the recurring theme? Feeling drained from romance? Or just romance?
    • I've replaced this part with "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that there are multiple instances on the album where SZA expresses desire to remain in a relationship despite feeling drained from it, and cited 'Ghost in the Machine' as an example". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just examples. I'll be glad to revisit if you can get a copyedit and one or two supports on the prose from other reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie, thank you for the constructive criticism. I believe that I have addressed the specific points you have mentioned (replies inline), and will be giving the article a few combs-through to identify other possible issues with the prose. Cheers, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, a fair few edits and a couple of supports since you last looked at it. Do you fancy having another run through? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through again and have struck my oppose; I don't think I can support, but I no longer see prose issues as concerning as I did earlier. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

edit
  • "The lyrics are written" → try getting this out of passive voice, ie "Written in a conversational style, the lyrics express..."
  • I found it very odd that the songwriters and producers are not mentioned in the lead.
  • "Critics primarily focused on Bridgers's appearance on the song" → "In reviews, critics primarily..."
  • "for their synergy " → get out of wikivoice by converting to "as synergistic"
  • "she ultimately won more awards than any other artist that year" → questionable relevance for the lead given the main artist is SZA
  • "was a speedy feat", "had its live performance debut" → this doesn't feel professional
  • "appeared on the national charts in Canada, Australia, and Portugal" → can't rely on refs in other sections
  • overall I think there are slightly too many references to the album. context is great but I think some sentences could be cut. Like "She posted the album's track list on Twitter on December 5, 2022." is really unnecessary I think.
    • I've tried to trim some of the references to other songs (thinking it over, I'm not sure if "Kill Bill" needed to be namedropped, let alone twice, though I believe at least one of those instances was my error) and extraneous references to the album itself. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a member of Boygenius, she also won Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance for "Not Strong Enough" and Best Alternative Music Album for The Record" → this level of detail is also unnecessary I think

Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Heartfox. I believe that I have addressed your comments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or 'a little bit of everything' in her words" → seems unnecessary when the paraphrase beforehand already says the same thing
  • "In a Billboard cover story published", "In an interview with Nessa of Hot 97", "In an interview for CBS News Los Angeles", "SZA told Alternative Press" → all this seems unnecessary. I don't care where stuff was said, I care about what was said.
  • "In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit" → Bisel thought Bridgers would fit in an open instrumental section during the middle of the demo
  • "was trying to make the feature happen" → informal
  • "for escapism, for gratification, to assuage" → for escapism and gratification to assuage
  • ", being the most" → rephrasing with a semi-colon would work better

Further comments, Heartfox (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Replies inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support but I do think the article would benefit from more input from other editors. Heartfox (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

edit

I'll get to this sometime soon (likely within the next few days, I'm a bit burnt out right now). Thank you for the review(s) of Windswept Adan, by the way! Consider this my way of paying you back. :) joeyquism (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joey, and you're welcome! It was a pleasure to review. Take as much time as you need :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Hello again! I've noted some of my concerns below; feel free to refuse with justification:

  • ...with imminent release being considered a possibility as early as 2019... - Is this clause particularly relevant? I feel that the same information is conveyed or to some extent implied by the preceding clause (After numerous delays). I'd suggest removing it, or rephrasing it to where it does not sit awkwardly in the middle of more pertinent information.
  • While some tracks had an "aggressive" sound, certain others were balladic, soft, or heartfelt. - Would it be worth it to note if "Ghost in the Machine" falls into any of these descriptions? I've noticed the gradual buildup to the mention of the subject, and while I do find it engaging, I feel as if this is sort of extraneous as it stands, as there have been no mentions of the track prior to this sentence. That being said, I recognize that it does provide more context as to how SOS sounds.
  • For A. D. Amorosi of Variety... - I feel like this is a different way of wording "In his opinion, [...]". I'd personally avoid this kind of phrasing by indicating that the following text is something that he wrote, and is not something that readers should take as fact, which is how it reads to me right now (I acknowledge that I cannot speak for others here). Something like "Writing for Variety, A. D. Amorosi wrote that the production..." would suffice.
    • and is not something the readers should take as fact – this is intentional, as I wanted to convey that it was Amorosi's opinion that the production sounded like those instruments (neither of which are mentioned in the credits). Nevertheless, I think your suggested phrasing works better, although I did replace Writing for... with In a review of SOS for... so as not to use "writing" and "wrote" only a few words apart in the same sentence (with respect to your mention of WP:ELEVAR below, which I found enlightening). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bisel worked together with Carter Lang... - Remove "together"(?)
  • The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was short. - This is sort of just my personal preference, but I'm not a fan of short sentences. If they're not at the beginning of a paragraph (in which case, I would encourage them, as they punch a lot harder), they disrupt the flow of the reading experience. I'd suggest conjoining this with the following sentence through a semicolon, or breaking the paragraph it belongs to in two with this sentence being the first.
  • The Alternative Press article states that "SZA wanted to weave in the voice of a 'highly conversational' person, or as she explains, someone with a conversational approach to their music like Mac DeMarco, Connan Mockasin or Kevin Parker of Tame Impala." Do you think this warrants inclusion in the article? This seems like valuable information for describing the conversational style of the lyrics. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do note that I did not do a spot or source check; I initially checked this link out to see if there was more to the quote "I feel like there's so much debate about what's good, what's bad, what's this, what's that?"
    • I think this could be worth including, though I'm not quite sure where. Maybe in §Music_and_production, where Bisel suggests to SZA that she invite Bridgers to feature? The Alternative Press article certainly implies this to be a reason that SZA felt like Bridgers would be a good fit. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your instinct is correct here. I'm thinking perhaps some integration with the sentence In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit, so he suggested to SZA that she include Bridgers as a feature; SZA agreed.; perhaps before or after would be alright too.
  • SZA, tired of online drama, sings about... - I think this reads strangely, but I'm not sure of how I would amend it. Leave it be for now, but I just wanted to note that I didn't think this phrase flowed very well.
  • ...the song arrived at its peak of number 17... - Can be conveyed more simply as "the song peaked at number 17"; I'm citing WP:ELEVAR here. Not trying to attack, but don't be afraid to use the same term twice within close proximity of each other at the expense of sounding a bit like you're droning; I struggle with this as well at times.
    • As I alluded above, I had not previously considered that "elegant variation" could be a problem, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I've edited the sentene to reuse the "debuted and peaked" wording. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CJ Thorpe-Tracey for The Quietus... - "For" can be replaced with "of", or the clause can be phrased as something like "For The Quietus, CJ Thorpe-Tracey wrote that he felt..."

I have definitely not adhered to the "no style policing" expectation, but I do feel that some of the prose can be improved to further benefit the reading experience; additionally, most of the concerns that I had before were addressed by the other reviewers and corrected. Overall, I think it reads quite nicely; it just needs some touch-ups to really flow. I'll let you know if I have any further comments; as of now, I have no established position on where I stand for support or oppose. As always, feel free to let me know your thoughts with a reply. Hope you're having a great weekend, and I look forward to hearing back from you soon! joeyquism (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Joey :) I hope you had a great weekend too! I'll start working to address these comments after I get home later today. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Joey, I think I've addressed everything – replies inline! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits, Dylan620! I have left one more comment above regarding the placement of the SZA quote from the Alternative Press article; once that is addressed, I'll read over the article a few more times and likely support. Thanks, and have a great rest of your day! joeyquism (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Joey, hope you have a great rest of your day as well! I've replied to your comment above. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better! Support on prose review. joeyquism (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

edit
  • So you don't mention anything about the song's chords, which is just two chords - Gb major 7 to Ebminor (sometimes Eb major). Can you find any references to its chords or tempo, as in beats per minute? It feels like a steady tempo throughout the whole song.
    • Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any sheet music uploads by the song's publisher. I did find this at musicnotes.com, but it's an arrangement by a third party, which I assume doesn't pass muster for inclusion (though of course I hope I'm wrong here). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dylan pretty much said what I was going to say. Musicnotes.com composition is not guaranteed to be the same composition as the original studio version's, so the information was decisively left out. - Elias
  • I guess I gotta ask, where is the sourcing for the credits?
  • The liner notes for the vinyl; I've added a ref. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was addressed at GAN: "credits are assumed to be cited to the album's liner notes, which WP:ALBUMSTYLE tells me usually does not need an explicit citation". I have removed the citation accordingly. - Elias
    • It took some digging, but I've found an image on Discogs where the text is clear enough to be of use for verification.
  • All in all, the writing is pretty good in my opinion.
  • I also used a random number generator to spotcheck references.
  • 37 - I don't know if this reference accurately. It doesn't mention " she believes has been overtaken by self-centeredness and lack of empathy. ", nor does it mention that Sadhguru was "the founder of the Isha Foundation". Otherwise the reference seems formatted fine.
  • I mulled over whether to cite the Isha Foundation tidbit to a Vox article linked in the source, or to remove it outright; I opted for the latter because at the end of the day I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand. (PSA, feel free to correct me here.) I've also removed the sentence you quoted (partly per your concerns, and partly because I think it might have been a little redundant to the sentence before it) and moved the paragraph break to start the next one at "The song also discusses artificial intelligence". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a WP:SKY/WP:NOTCITE situation IMO. Namedropping Sadhguru without context because the description would otherwise have to be cited is like saying I should cite that SZA is an American singer-songwriter in the prose for GiTM. The articles about those people already cover those descriptors. - Elias
  • 40 - "The lyrics were interpreted by publications as being about her then-boyfriend, Irish actor Paul Mescal" the references more hint it was a breakup. Was it?
  • 46 - this reference doesn't cover the information at all, which is supposed to be about the album being released on 12/9/2022
  • This had been a supplementary reference for the "three years of delays" clause of that same sentence - I've pulled the ref (and a couple more) forward to that comma. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56 - the source says "Versatility largely wins out. Only SZA could find room for Travis Scott on a slow jam ballad, Open Arms, as well as Phoebe Bridgers (Ghost in the Machine)," - I guess "wins out" covers the information, but it seems to be a bit biased in my opinion in its current wording.
  • This was supplementary to ref 57, but I've restructured the sourcing in that paragraph, and separated this ref as citing how the song contributes to the album's diversity. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really? I don't see how "cohesive" is a biased word to use. - Elias
  • I was mostly remarking how " many praised the collaboration as successful" was biased, since I didn't think source 56 would call that praise. The Guardian said "Clocking in at 23 tracks, SOS might well register as a distress signal, with SZA searching for a through line connecting her album’s multiple producers, its grab bag of genres and disparate featured guests," "it treads a fine line between swashbuckling versatility and a lack of cohesion.", and "Better sequencing might have smoothed the bumps." The Guardian review very much read as mixed, not quite as successful. To include it with " many praised the collaboration as successful despite the two artists' different musical styles" feels contrary to the source, and makes me worried that the article might be biased in its point of view. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60 - yea that covers it
  • 68 - that covers it
  • 76 - that works

Thanks, I replied, mostly still the same few concerns, regarding the beats per minute, the credits (mostly want to verify just for FAC purposes), and about the one source being contradictory to what's written in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Apologies for taking so long to reply, but I think I've addressed your further comments. Please let me and PSA know if you have any more feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support now. I can see that there aren't a lot of good reliable links out there about the song's composition, which is a shame, but it's understandable. You've addressed my concerns satisfactorily. Best of luck finishing up this FAC! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

edit

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, all the sources are properly formatted and from good enough quality sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, SchroCat. I've replied inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620 @SchroCat, I am incredibly sorry this is late, but there are some things I have to say: in title case, when a preposition is part of a phrasal verb, the preposition is capitalized (see MOS:TITLECAPS). For "SZA's Out for Blood", "out" here functions not as a preposition but an adjective, which is why I capitalized the word. Wrt the certifications, it is the standard for music articles to use the Certification Table Entry template so that updating certs and certification dates is easier. An inconvenience if you want archive links and consistent capitalization, but the people who regularly update this stuff are probably going to be unhappy this was changed. I might raise the archiving issue at the template talk eventually. For now, I have recapitalized the prepositions and reverted to the templates. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable Elias – hopefully it's okay with Gog (courtesy ping), in response to whom I had changed the certification table. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian single certifications ..." etc
@Gog: I attempted to address the capitalizations for the certification refs by replacing the table-generating templates with this, which seemed to work. According to Elias above, it is customary to use the relevant templates ({{Certification Table Top}}, {{Certification Table Entry}}, and {{Certification Table Bottom}}) because they make it easier to update the certifications; the entry template uses sentence case for its refs, which unfortunately contradicts the title case used for the other refs in this article. Is it still okay to use the templates in this case? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

edit

To follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No lead image, but also no obvious candidates -- the song doesn't seem to have been yet released as a single, so the standard practice of using the sleeve art under FUR can't be used here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, UndercoverClassicist. We're on a similar wavelength with our views of alt text. I'm currently working on preparing Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season for FLC, and have tried to make the track map and satellite photo alt texts as descriptive as possible. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. I'll try to think of something to spruce up the alt texts here. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • References: article titles should either all be in title case or all in sentence case. Regardless of how they appear in their originals.
Yeah, it looksas if cites 79, 80 and 81 are autogenerated to be non-MoS compliant.

Down to Lyrics. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gog—replies inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was motivated to write the song out of exhaustion around the constant fighting between people". Maybe 'exhaustion caused by the ...'?
  • "the perceived lack of meaningful human connections". This seems to hang in space. Do you mean '... on the internet', '... in modern life', or something else?
  • "including "Ghost in the Machine"." Do you mean something like 'including one for "Ghost in the Machine" ? Or perhaps 'including "Ghost in the Machine" for the Best Pop Duo/Group Performance award'?
  • "at the Madison Square Garden". Optional: personally I would delete "the".

A well put together article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog; I think I've addressed everything in this latest batch. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. An impressive article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I would attribute the quote in this part, (while some tracks had an "aggressive" sound), to clarify to the reader who is saying this.
  • In this part, (During the build-up to the album's release, SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album), I would avoid repeating the word "album". I am unsure what the word "build-up" is referencing, as in promotion for the album or something else? Did SZA actively and publicly reach out to other artists for collaborations while promoting the album? Maybe I am just being dense at the moment, but I would like some clarification about this.
  • The image of Rob Bisel includes the year that the photo was taken while the images of Phoebe Bridgers and SZA do not. I would be consistent with whether or not this information is included in the captions.
  • I am uncertain about "hushed" means in this context, (on hushed electronic production). I think something like "muted" would work better in this context.
    • I'm not quite sure if I agree with this. According to Wiktionary, the definition of 'hushed' is Very quiet; expressed using soft tones, while the contextually relevant definition of 'muted' is Quiet or soft. They're similar, but 'hushed' feels just that little more specific and fitting, especially since the production actually does make use of soft tones. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have just never seen "hushed" used in regards to music, particularly with production, but I could be wrong. When I think of the word "hushed", I more so associate it with voices (i.e. the "hushed whispers" example provided in the Wiktionary entry). It is not a major point, but personally, I just have never seen the word used like this before. However, since no one else has mentioned this, I could just be over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the use of "meanwhile" in this context, (Meanwhile, Alex Hopper of American Songwriter and Andrew R. Chow of Time). The word implies that this action is occurring at the same time as the events of the previous sentence so it does not really work in this case. I would use a different transition word.
    • That is a very good point and one that I wish I'd thought of myself. Reading it again, I'm uncertain if a transition word is actually necessary here, so I've chucked 'meanwhile' without replacing it with anything. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I do not think "personally" is needed in this part, (SZA personally contacted Bridgers), as that could be understood without that word.
  • I think a link would be helpful for the "AI Art Generator" quote, like one to the artificial intelligence art article.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47, I hope your weekend is starting well too! I've replied inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies and for the kind words. The "hushed" part is not a major issue and will not hold up my review. As I have said above, I just have not seen that word used in this kind of context, but that could very well just be me. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I just want to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Yes, that works for me! Please let me and Elias know if you have any more queries. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I do not see anything further for me to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I am glad that I was able to help with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit

Sources spot check

edit

OK, I've done just over a third of the citations. I've been really picky on a couple of these, but I think I need to be, as you seem in a couple of places to slightly over stretch what the source has said, even though you're in the same sort of ball park. There's also the possibility I missed a bit, particularly in those multiple citation points, so I'll let you point out where I've not seen what I've been asking for.

  • FN1-5: What, in the five sources, covers "themes like heartbreak" and the acclaim for "SZA's vocal performance and songwriting and for the musical style"?
    • Ref 1 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's "raw, candid writing" and calls it "one of the high marks of the confessional R&B of the past decade"
    • Ref 2 (at time of writing) calls that album "one of the decade's best" and highlights her voice and songwriting (the latter of which is presumably referred to when the reviewer remarks on "her emotional aptitude for being vulnerable and playful at the same time")
    • Ref 3 (at time of writing) describes the praise Ctrl received for melding R&B with elements of other genres, including "indie, alternative, [and] trap"
    • Ref 4 (at time of writing) implies that Ctrl is "wonderfully experimental" (more specifically, it describes SOS as an "expansion" of this, and, not counting singles, Ctrl was her last major release before SOS)
    • Ref 5 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's genre malleability and lyricism
    • I will concede that none of these sources verify "themes like heartbreak". My next edit will be to rectify this by incorporating some sources I found on the Ctrl article. Will report back shortly. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As promised: there are five new sources, and I replaced "heartbreak" with "facets of love and identity" roughly in line with the sources. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • So there are now ten sources to deal with three and a half lines of text? We're into Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. I think you need to rationalise this by either removing those that are just doubling up on what others say, or using the relevant citations at the end of each sentence. Please try to remember that the text should follow what the sources tell us, we shouldn't be hunting down and adding sources to justify what we think is correct.
          Do these new sources state that the album "received widespread acclaim", or are they just examples of positive reviews? If the latter, they fall foul of WP:SYNTH. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're into Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. – Right, I was worried that could be the case, but I figured the approach was worth trying. The purpose of the five new sources was mainly to verify the lyrical content of Ctrl, which is not mentioned by any of the original five sources in that footnote. "[F]acets of love and identity" felt like the best way to sum up what those sources said about the lyrics without overloading that sentence with commas. I started making that edit with the intention of using them for a separate small batch of citations immediately after "identity", but found portions in those sources that also verified the other information in that passage.
            I have just made a couple tweaks to the background section in an attempt to resolve your latest comment. I employed both of your suggestions. I took two sources for the lyrical content of Ctrl out of the footnote and placed them where I had originally intended (adding a third in the process). I further reduced the number of sources in the footnote itself back to five by removing three sources that were redundant to the others in the group. I also replaced the Ctrl review sources from Exclaim! and The New York Times with retrospective pieces from NME and The New Yorker, which I believe are more appropriate for a passage that mentions the lasting impact of Ctrl. Courtesy-pinging PSA. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's much better now. The only quibble I would have is the half sentence that CTRL "received widespread acclaim for SZA's vocals, songwriting, and musical approach". While you've given examples of critics who have praised those aspects, that's not the same as saying there was "widespread acclaim". I think you need either a source that says this (a sort of meta review-style piece), or rephrase what you have to follow only what the sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've rephrased this portion as it was commercially successful and received considerable acclaim, as the sources do verify that the album was well-regarded (several Grammy nominations, nods from fellow musicians, "ascended to classic status", "opened a portal", etc.), even though they don't specify that it was acclaimed for those particular qualities. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: OK
  • FN7-9: What, in the five sources, covers that she "sought to prove her musical versatility by imbuing her established sound with elements from multiple genres". The sources all say there are multiple genres, but I think I'm missing the statement that it was a conscious decision to "prove her musical versatility"
  • FN10-11: What, in the five sources, covers that she "envisioned it being an amalgamation of various disparate musical styles"? The two sources say the album has several disparate musical styles, but not that she envisioned it.
    • I've addressed both of the above bullets by removing the statements of intent; I rephrased the relevant portions as SZA imbued her established sound and The album incorporates various disparate moods and musical styles, respectively. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN12: Empire doesn't talk about diversity but versatility, which is a different thing
    OK, that's much better. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13: OK
  • FN14: OK
  • FN15-16: OK
  • FN11, 17-18: Where does is describe a "hushed" electronic section for SZA's parts?
    "mellow and blissful" is not the same as "hushed". "Hushed" refers to volume, not mood. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. I've replaced "hushed" with "peaceful". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN19: OK
  • FN20: OK
  • FN19,21: OK
  • FN22-23: OK
  • FN24-25: OK
  • FN26-27: OK
  • FN28: OK, although I think you should call it "indie-pop angst", per the source
    Great, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN29: OK

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG and SchroCat: Is it okay if I get to these new comments tomorrow or the day after? I've been working on reviewing an FLC and I promised myself I'd try to finish tonight. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm off to bed but I've begun to work my way through. Should be all set within the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dylan620. I'm happy with these changes now - all good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, FrB.TG, the first third of the refs are all okay now. The issues were limited in nature to only a few of the citations, with a little overstretch on the claims - no huge problem overall. I'm happy to either draw a line under this with a pass, or do some more, if you feel it would merit it. Your call. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schro. These should be enough, although I do have one last concern of my own. The article says "Bridgers's verse begins with the lyric, "You said all my friends are on my payroll..." but the cited source (43) says "You tell me my friends are on my payroll". Which is the correct lyric? FrB.TG (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: "You tell me" is a typo in the Guardian source; I have added two citations to sources containing the correct lyric directly after the quote. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:26, 2 August 2024 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ghost_in_the_Machine_(song)/archive1&oldid=1238345795"