Talk:Stupid Love (Lady Gaga song)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stupid Love (Lady Gaga song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To celebrate the FA promotion of "Bad Romance", I’ll review this. FrB.TG (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace:, you haven't made a single edit to this article. Did you consult the main editors (Sricsi for example) before nominating it for GA? FrB.TG (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided doing this. There's at least four people who could be identified as the "main contributor". Sricsi added a quarter of the content, Another Believer added a fifth, Spongeworthy added about a seventh and Lil-Unique added a tenth, Debyf only slightly less. The remaining fifth was written by an array of people. This was an article written by the community (many such articles exist), and it would be inappropriate to ask a single person if they're "OK" with this nomination, when the majority of content was written by others.

Of course, there are many articles where this rule would apply (a primary contributor exists: I've authored some such articles, albeit shorter), that's clearly not the case here. To be honest, this rule was always loosely enforced anyways, not that that matters :P. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

However, I'm not opposed to adding the contributors I mentioned as nominators, specifically Sricsi, who comes up on my watchlist editing this article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanna make sure that you’re familiar with the subject (which seems to be the case given your contributions to several pop music articles) and that the article has no issues with source-to-text integrity. The latter can happen very easily if one doesn’t thoroughly check the sources (especially on an article that one hasn’t written). If you’re sure of this, we can start with the review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I can only vouch for the parts that I wrote in the article, but I'm glad it is being considered for good article status. :) --Sricsi (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a very high regard for several of the biggest contributors to this article, and I have read most of the article's sources. So I think the review is ready. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't implying that one or more of the main editors intentionally added unsupported claims. Just talking from personal experience that writing an article this big can lead to accidental misinterpretations of sources. Since you have read the sources, we can start the review.

Lead

• "It was written by Gaga, BloodPop, Tchami, Max Martin, and Ely Rise, with BloodPop explaining that it was the song that started his work on Chromatica with the singer." Let's get rid of the "with" connector and simplify it as "...Ely Rise; BloodPop explained". More concise would be something like "BloodPop cited the song as the beginning of his work on Chromatica with the singer Gaga".
• "The song garnered positive response from music critics, and it was favorably compared to the singer's earlier works." Two things. Get rid of the unnecessary "it" and replace "the singer" with simply Gaga.

Recording and composition

• ""Stupid Love" was written by Gaga with the help of BloodPop, Tchami, Max Martin, and Ely Rise." -> "Gaga co-wrote "Stupid Love" with the help of BloodPop, Tchami, Max Martin, and Ely Rise."
• I would avoid using "the singer"; it's very journalistic and non-encyclopedic. Just "Gaga" or "she/her" should suffice.
• ""Stupid Love" has been described as a return to the dance-pop,[5][6][7] electropop[8][6][9][10] and house[11] sound of Gaga's earlier career, with influences of dance,[12] disco,[13][14] and electronic.[14]" It sounds as if it were a return of the genre when it's Gaga doing these genres again after many years.
• "Dan Adler of Vanity Fair noted "Lady Gaga's.." - comma after noted.
• "Talking about the song, Gaga further elaborated: "...When we all decide to be vulnerable [...] it's very scary for a lot of people and there's all kinds of laws and constructs and things that have built all around us... I'd love for it to collapse as many of those walls as possible and people to be saying, 'I want your Stupid Love. I love you.'"" Use a {{' "}} in the nested quotation in the end. Watch out for MOS:QWQ in source 4. A timestamp for the quote is needed for this part as the video is too long.

Release and promotion

• "Gaga did not perform "Stupid Love" during her AT&T TV Super Saturday Night pre-Super Bowl LIV show in Miami, despite requests from audience members." When I started reading this sentence, it was not immediately clear to me why Gaga not performing was unexpected. I would shift "despite requests from the audience members" to the beginning.
• "After the song leaked, she and her manager had a discussion if they should choose another song for the lead single, even though they spent months developing the music video and its choreography, but they decided to go with the original plan." This is way too wordy and can be condensed in several places. For starters, "discussed" instead of "had a discussion".
• Los Angeles should be de-linked as per MOS:OL.
• "In the hours after its release, both the song "Stupid Love" and Lady Gaga herself were the top two trending topics on Twitter worldwide." Prose redundancy. The source does not mention the trend happening worldwide so I would just leave that part out.
• "The song was placed at the top of Apple Music's Today's Top Hits playlist, Spotify's New Music Daily playlist, and Spotify's Today's Hits playlist." According to the source, New Music Daily playlist, and Spotify's Today's Hits are Apple Music playlists whereas Today’s Top Hit is a Spotify playlist.

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception

• A general impression of the section: it suffers a little too much from "A said B, C said D.."; it is better done in summary style where each paragraph focuses on a certain theme and the opinions of critics. It doesn't need major revamping for GA, but some rearranging is in order. Another problem we have here are unnecessary amount of large quotes that can easily be paraphrased or removed altogether. Examples are "Her fans began dissecting what it told us about the upcoming album. Gaga herself, however, wasn't having it", "mix between 'Bad Kids' and 'The Edge of Glory' with a beat that instantly recalls the joyous electropop of 'Do What U Want,'", "the type of song you can easily imagine both blasting out of an expensive sound-system at your local gay club and out of a car speaker as it speeds down the highway with its top down in the summertime."
• Since author and publication date are written for other sources (where applicable), the same should be done for source 33.
• ""Stupid Love" received positive reviews from music critics; with many noting" - it should either be "critics, with many noting" or "critics; many noted" but I prefer the latter - more concise and without the "with" connector.
• "Upon the song's official release, Michael Cuby of Nylon described the song" - "song" repeated twice in close proximity.
• Duplicate linking of Consequence of Sound, Billboard and Rolling Stone. While we're at it, the first of these is now called just Consequence.
• recalls the joyous electropop of 'Do What U Want,'" - use {{' "}} for the nested quotation marks in the end.
• yet welcomes Gaga's return and "the goofy, indomitable spirit that made her so refreshing in the first place." - see MOS:LQ about the full stop being placed before the quotation mark.

Chart performance

• "In the US, "Stupid Love" debuted at number five on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Gaga's sixteenth top ten, twelfth top five hit, and her highest-debuting..."
• Nowhere is it mentioned in source 44 that the song was Gaga's twelfth top five hit in the US.
• "Stupid Love" also became the first song to debut at number one on the chart. First of all, I'm not sure if it was the first song ever to debut at number one on the chart or Gaga's first song to debut atop the chart. Either way, it's not mentioned anywhere in source 45.
• "The song was certified Platinum by the Music Canada (MC)" - the abbreviation can be removed since it's not used anywhere else.
• ""Stupid Love" debuted at number seven in Australia and number 23 in New Zealand" - it should be "number 7 ... and number 23" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
• "Official Charts Company reported, that the song is challenging for UK number one based preliminary sales and early streaming reports" - was, not is; unneeded comma; add "on" after based.
• "the song is challenging for UK number one based preliminary sales and early streaming reports. "Stupid Love" was just shy of 1,200 chart sales behind the number one spot, occupied by The Weeknd's "Blinding Lights" after two days of downloads and streams." Copyvio problem here. Compare with the source: challenging for UK Number 1 single, Stupid Love is just shy of 1,200 chart sales behind the Number 1 spot, currently occupied by The Weeknd’s Blinding Lights after two days of downloads and streams.

I am stopping here as it's clear the article has too many prose, MoS and sources issues. The last part, which is what I feared before reviewing, is especially of concern since every source I've checked so far does not partially support the claims in the article. And the copyvio part is especially problematic. I suggest that you resolve the issues above and check every single source for source-to-text integrity before bringing it back to GAN as I am failing this. FrB.TG (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.