Talk:Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chchcheckit (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 15:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna work on this (GARC). // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well-written

The demo that became "Step by Step" was originally an instrumental, and "at some point" during the duo's process of finishing the demos, they thought to send it to Panda Bear, who wrote a song to go with it. Could this be written better? Done
Earwig copyvio: highest % is 27% (pitchfork step by step video)
Filmed in Tokyo, it includes footage from Onodera's early skateboarding days as well as shots of him winning awards and landing tricks. A friend of Braxe's, Tokikawa had the idea of showing the growth of a child from a very young age through the practice of skateboarding, something that Braxe and Falcon accepted instantly since they had skateboarded from their youth. almost word-for-word copy of article: put what it says into your own words Done
The overall grammar is fine

Accuracy/Verifiability/Spotchecks

"Step by Step" was the first of these demos to be completed, crucial to the duo since it was a "downtempo ballad with acoustic drums", a departure from the traditional French house 125 beats per minute format which they wanted to avoid for their return.[1] The article says they wanted to show that they got away from the genre since they were "one that already and are not excited by that type of music anymore". This could be explained/reprsented better; the nature of the song is not the reason it was important, but rather the change from their previous works. Done
The demo that became "Step by Step" was originally an instrumental, and at some point during the duo's process of finishing their work, they thought to send it to Panda Bear, who wrote a song to go with it.[1] The duo sent Lennox the instrumental without any comments, only references of the musician's material that they liked, telling him "you're free to do whatever you want to do".[1] Could be rewritten better: i.e. the duo sent the instrumental to Panda Bear , only references of the musician's material that they liked, telling him "you're free to do whatever you want to do" Done

Spotcheck:

pending
does not use any unreliable sources

Broad

The article discusses background and recording, music video, release and reception, but what about composition? Sources independent of the article i.e. track reviews would be better/are preferred when it comes to describing the song.
Although the areas that could be written/expanded on are limited by sources, it does the job i think

NPOV

pending

Stability

Nominator is basically the only person who's written this as of late; no edit conflicts etc

Illustrations/Images

Not too sure about the cover artwork but the other photo is good. pending A fellow editor looked at this, and agreed that the cover work would be public domain in the USA for its simplicity, but tagged it as probably not so in UK/France, where the threshold of originality for copyright is lower. BarntToust 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I keep rolling into with this article is: 1. a lack of attribution and 2. too similar to the interviews/sources being cited. Regarding artwork: okay, thansk for clarifying. Sorry i've been tired/fixating on other stuff. also i ce'd the lead. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chchcheckit, about the similarity, I've got to ask: any sentences in particular that are too similar to a given Pitchfork / KCRW / Resident Advisor article? it's my understanding that the content of articles should generally not deviate from what can be reflected by reliable sources, just should not be cut-paste businesses. I'll look into the sources for composition, so I can get ya a nice paragraph or two on the sort of synths they used and whatnot; I however believe I've exhausted sources about Lennox's work.

O'er all, take care, rest well Barnt Toust 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it's worth a mention that there may not be as much specifics as to the composing part as you'd prefer, seeing as how these grey-haired producers made this music last decade: I suppose you'll have to understand if they don't remember what synths and samples they came up with back when Vine still existed. Barnt Toust 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to think how best to put the article given those, but not in requirement of, those circumstances. Also, for composition, do the reviews help at all? Some stuff i.e. vocal repetition, or how in the picthfork interview ("a blockbuster AOR anthem you’d hear as credits roll on a John Hughes coming-of-age film") could be used but agh idk feels like a stretch. also tried copyediting the background/recording. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, the interviews and reviews that do everything save compare this song to literal LSD have been the quirkiest stuff I've seen for a song. I think there's a source by MusicTech I can maybe look at, check that out for content. Thanks for your help! Barnt Toust 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much else can be improved tbh. The reviews could be, though. ideally use one pitchfork review instead of two. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got reservations about removing one of the pitchfork refs. #1: that helps to establish WP:SIGCOV; #2: it's regardless of being the same publication that it is still critical coverage.

On another note: You'd said you'd like to see some more coverage on the composition: On that note, I've added a source from Resident Advisor that covered their use of modular synthesisers in the production, and their ideas behind that. Barnt Toust 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise @Chchcheckit, I've sort of reformatted the lede à la the good article "Music Sounds Better with You", in order to provide a more comprehensive outlook on the song, if all's well with you about that. Barnt Toust 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but do you have a reference for the song's acclaim? // Chchcheckit (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also that resident advisor reference is about the ep in general, not the song // Chchcheckit (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and on an unrelated note I decided to use that to contribute to a draft for the EP, though as part off the EP, its constituent enough to stand as relevant, methinks. Barnt Toust 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably change it to "several publications ranked as one of the best songs that year" or something because I've got that right there. I'll look for that for ya Barnt Toust 12:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference, <ref name="KCRWneverMusic" />, which describes it as "frontrunner for song of the year", so that's a clear enough indicator of acclaim. Like I said, the journalism here surrounding this song, while all legitimate, is quirky to say the least. KCRW, Pitchfork and Resident Advisor definitely entertain a niche all to their own, y'know.

Thanks for working out the things here with me, @Chchcheckit! There anything else I can address concerning the article? Barnt Toust 13:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and Scott Lapatine, a writer for the publication, listed it at #3 out of 10 on his fifth of Stereogums 50 Favorite Songs Of 2022 a little confusing Done — reworded
I should probably change it to "several publications ranked as one of the best songs that year" or something because I've got that right there. don't, because it's kinda WP:WEASELy. I guess if you were to add that, you should name the publications. In the third paragraph of the lede, would "the song appeared on several year-end lists of music publications" work out as a summary?
The song received acclaim. the cited source appears to be the publication/source's opinion of the song but not a comment on its wider reception by other publications; which is needed for something like that. Done — No longer lists acclaim, just tells about what it received praise for

All being said, it's basically like 95% done now. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's good to hear. I'll work on addressing this stuff so things can get past. I can just not say acclaim and just describe their opinions on the song. Barnt Toust 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chchcheckit, what you have written above has been addressed, though I wonder about the publications listing it on year-end lists. If what I've written in paragraph three of the lede isn't satisfactory, feel absolutely free to remove it.

Thanks again! Barnt Toust 13:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've CE'd some stuff. but we're done. congrats. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]