Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Snooze (song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snooze (song)

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

Hello! I have listed this for PR with the intent of FACing it in the future.

Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 02:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo

[edit]

Hello PSA, decided to tackle this as soon I set my eyes on it since I know you're an excellent writer. Let me know if you disagree with any of my suggestions. Please do ping me when you FAC the article.

  • All refs are wikilinked and archived, except for ref65, which is a tweet that might get deleted at any given time. Suggestion: since it's a Billboard chart and they usually preserve their archives, isn't there a way you can cite the actual Billboard domain? And also use Archive.today or Ghost Archive to archive social media posts
    • Done archiving. There are no year-end lists for Hits of the World charts on Billboard websites, to my knowledge, so the ref will be kept
  • Ref118 is also an unarchived social media post which I cannot verify if it's reliable or not. Archiving the would be good, but citing the chart from a reliable source or official website would be perfect.
    • Thanks; fixed the archive link. The Facebook page is reliable - this press release PDF uploaded on their official website links to the same Facebook page. Unfortunately, the FB ref will have to do, since RIM seems to have started publishing their charts only this year [1].
  • As for ref154, I think it's better to use Apple Music instead of Amazon Music per this discussion. Thoughts?
    • I don't agree. The discussion you linked began because there were small cracks on AM's reliability on releases. (weeks ago I found this random "SZA collab" listed on her AM profile, but it was just someone who sampled a verse from a leaked song. You are to bring this up on that discussion or any other appropriate venue.) Both the AM and Amazon links are reliable IMO considering they're on her lnk(dot)to.
  • Since there are other versions of this song, I think adding a tracklist would me amazing. Thoughts?
  • I could be wrong, but I thought the alt text was for visually impaired people. If it is, then how does "Justin Bieber perform in a 2016 concert in Poland" help them make out the colour of the picture and so on?
    • Indeed it is. However, the purpose of alt texts is context-based. The image is there to show a picture of Bieber and nothing more, so it does not provide a visual description; contrast this with the cover artworks.
  • Alt text: Cover art for the acoustic version: SZA and an unknown man running towards each other in a large grassland ===> Cover art for the acoustic version: SZA and a man running towards each other in a large grassland.
    • Trimmed. nice catch

dxneo (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dxneo: Thank you so much for your helpful comments and the compliment! I'll be sure to remember this interaction fondly. I hope these responses address your concerns. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 16:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this in timely manner. You the best. dxneo (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not sure how I missed this, but could you please wikilink |magazine=Billboard on refs 136, 140 and 142. dxneo (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@dxneo: Done. Thanks, Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 02:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

[edit]

I was asked off-wiki to take a look at this article a couple weeks ago – I had intended to review the GAN, but was beaten to the punch by an editor who did a great job with the review. So, here I am! This was a predictably great read, though I do have a few comments:

  • jealousy and intense desire can greatly destroy them – bit of a nitpick, but I'm not sure if "greatly" is necessary here.
  • The turnaround time for their song was quick – Should be "short" instead of "quick". (This was called out in our FAC for GitM, which had the same issue.)
    • we co-FAC'ed it and I still didn't catch this mistake... shit man - E
  • Blanco in the lawn – "on" would work better IMO. ("in" makes me imagine him growing from the soil like a plant.)
  • propelled from last week's number-42 position – this reads like it literally happened last week when that obviously isn't the case; recommend rephrasing as "the prior week" or something similar.

That's all I've got! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620 helpful as always for more context the request was from the unofficial WP:DISCORD server. No worries about giving nitpicky energy; what else is PR for :P all should be addressed Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 02:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me Elias – best of luck with the eventual FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • I think a source that explicitly supports the "well-acclaimed debut studio album, Ctrl" claim can be added
    • The footnote [a] already covers this fact. Per MOS:PF, "All reference tags should immediately follow the text [note that this does not say 'sentence'] to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space"; the essay WP:REPCITE also clarifies "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient."
  • "their 2021 sessions" - I think "studio sessions" or "recording sessions" sounds clearer
    • Done
  • A suggestion is to include the "composition" and the "lyrics" sections into one section called "composition" that's placed after the "production" section; the "composition" section can be divided into "music" and "lyrics" subsections which are currently the "composition" and "lyrics" sections
    • Not done. The current sectioning is cohesive enough.
      • This is probably one of the few times that I see the production section after the music section. Also composition mainly refers to music and lyrics together not just music so I'd double-check these three sections again Medxvo (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did you get that composition mainly refers to music and lyrics? Composers are different from lyricists.
  • "The standard edition was released ..." - the article doesn't say anything about the deluxe edition so I'd just say "the album"
    • Fair point
  • "In News24, Joel Ontong said that "Snooze" featured the album's best instrumental, and he praised its catchiness and recommended that listeners play it on repeat" - I think that can be paraphrased a bit.... I also don't think that Ontong mentioned "catchines" or recommended something to the listeners, they just said that it's "worthy of repeated listens"
    • I don't see how someone can read "worthy of repeated listens" and not see it as an implicit recommendation to the reader that, as the article says, "listeners play it on repeat". Ontong also says "Snooze is followed by the equally great and even catchier Gone Girl", and one can infer from the comparative word "catchier" that he thinks "Snooze" is also catchy.
      • Saying that something is worthy of something, to me, is an opinion not a recommendation. When someone says that something is worthy of a specific award, they are probably sharing their thoughts and not recommending the voters to vote for it; when someone is worthy of respect, they deserve to be respected (personally), but it's not a recommendation for everyone to respect them.... I have no idea how to explain this further, so I hope you got my point. You are free to disagree with me, BTW Medxvo (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not going to lie - this is nitpicky even beyond FAC/PR standards. The scenarios you gave exist in entirely different contexts, which of course remove the aforementioned implications and change how the word "worthy" is used. the first would likely appear in a publication's "predictions" list, mostly involve multiple nominations, and have few if any fan-voted awards, so of course critics or viewers can't do much; in most contexts, no one says "worthy of respect" to an audience of multiple people.
  • "Snooze" was the only single to appear ..." - why "single" instead of "song"?
    I don't think there's a chart specifically made for singles. Even the UK Singles Chart accommodates songs. Take "Chihiro" for an example. dxneo (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo: Yeah, that's why I suggested using "song", because using "single" may indicate that there's probably another song that wasn't released as a single that charted for all of 2023. Hope y'all got my point Medxvo (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside the US, the song reached the top 20 in numerous countries" - shouldn't there be a source for these countries?
    • Yes, there should be - sources added
  • "it had sold over 1.06 billion units, consisting of streams and digital sales, worldwide" - "it had sold over 1.06 billion units worldwide, consisting of streams and digital sales"
    • Not done; just a stylistic preference
  • "it arguably overshadowed the chart-topping "Kill Bill" as SOS's most popular single" - I think Kill Bill is overlinked
    • Delinked
  • Why are the first two music video paragraphs separated?
    • Cohesion.
  • "all four of them play as SZA's love interests" - played?
    • Not done; the rest of the sentence is in present tense. This fact about the music video will remain true regardless of time, so using simple present is okay.
  • Some source I think needs to be changed to publisher parameter instead, like BBC News (6, 22, 96), BET (13), Revolt (24, 35, 100), Today (32), ABC Audio (34), MTV News (38)
    • The documentation for the cite templates says to not do this. One should not bypass the italicization in the work parameter either by adding italics, because it breaks the reference.
      • Says to not do what exactly? I don't think they should be italicized because they are companies, that's why I'm suggesting using the publisher parameter Medxvo (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). All of those are the name of websites.

Hi @PSA: First of all, I really appreciate your work and I was referencing the Happier Than Ever articles that you had brought to FA status while working on How You Get the Girl, for which I've recently opened a peer review request, hoping to nominate it for a FAC soon. BTW, I would really appreciate your comments there if you're interested and you have time! Anyways, this is a really well-written and well-sourced article, just a few issues as mentioned. Have a great day! Medxvo (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intrusion. However, I suggest using the script at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to identify and remove any wikilinks that appear more than once after the lead. The script will add a link on the sidebar that adds a red border around them. dxneo (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are too nice :) appreciate the comments and I'm glad to see people out there who are inspired by what I do. Unfortunately, I cannot commit to a review at the moment due to increasing workload from school. Still, good luck with your future FAC – I see other experienced editors have agreed to give it a look, so you'll hopefully survive i've responded to every comment @Medxvo and disagreed where I felt it was necessary. Once again, thank you! Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 04:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good luck in school! I've replied to some comments above. Also some comments that I've missed—the "s" in Notes section should probably be removed due to having one note, and Citation 47 is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weird @Medxvo, it gave me an error earlier . oh well . Responses above. I note that there were comments where we split hairs over very minor, inconsequential changes. not going to be mad at you for that here, but please be careful about causing more situations like this in any more quality assessment processes in the future. others will definitely be less patient. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA: No one is obligated to have a discussion with the reviewers at the peer review, a nominator can even close the review at any time even if the discussion is still active. I do notice that my comments can be nitpicky, but this is a peer review for a future FAC and I always try to do my best in my comments to make the article look as good as possible. If you think that some of my comments are not constructive or helpful and you don't like discussions then there is no need to discuss them with me from the beginning.
Last comment I'll give is for the "pretty much common sense" that you've said, all I can say is please read WP:NOCOMMON, and superstardom doesn't equal critical acclaim, the most basic example being Ice Spice. If there is no valid argument other than common sense, then it's best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I will not give more comments for the remaining points since you're not interested. Regards, Medxvo (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it sucks when discussion end like this. If the nominator disagrees with the reviewers comments, why can't the reviewer let it go since the nominator might face the same issues at FAC. We are all colleagues and this project is for reviewing the article, not the person. Reviewers do their absolute best to provide constructive comments, not reconstruct the article or destroy it. I once had a disagreement with a reviewer and they were petty to a point where they went as far as to discourage my FAC. Please let it slide. dxneo (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo: I don't control anything related to the article, there is nothing to "let go" because this is not a FAC or a GAN. I just provided some suggestions that I thought would improve the article and the nominator disagreed with some of them so I thought we could have a discussion and I can share my arguments and thoughts and they can share their arguments and thoughts. This is a normal thing, and for me, it is a good thing because this is what peer reviews and reviews in general are for. A nominator shouldn't start a discussion if they are not interested or if they don't find the comments constructive. No hard feelings or pettiness, I just felt disappointed and found the replies uncivil, but I will do my best to reduce my interactions with the nominator in the future. Medxvo (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo thank you. I constructively disagreed where I felt I should disagree; to assume I'm not interested in further discussion is not true considering most of the suggestions were totally okay and I even conceded to the first comment. Medxvo, I am very sorry that your first time reviewing did not go smoothly and I should have used more tactful diction – I offer participation in Wikipedia:Good article mentorship, where someone can help in conducting reviews in GAN (or FAC!) that will produce good-quality articles. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 13:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I note that there were comments where we split hairs over very minor, inconsequential changes. not going to be mad at you for that here, but please be careful about causing more situations like this in any more quality assessment processes in the future. others will definitely be less patient" – which part of this says that you're interested in further discussion? Saying that "you're not going to be mad for that" and "others will definitely be less patient" doesn't really indicate that you're interested, and "pretty much common sense" doesn't seem like a constructive disagreement. PSA, I have done multiple GAN, FAC, and PR reviews, I have no idea where the first time reviewing came from. I will have a first FAC soon indeed, but this is not my first time providing comments for reviews. This further indicates that you should always use more tactful and civilized diction, whoever the reviewer is. That's all I can say. Regards, Medxvo (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Snooze_(song)/archive1&oldid=1257888214"