This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article new enough, long enough, referenced, neutral and no copyvio obvious. The hook is interesting and sourced. The imaged used is free. QPQ done. One note: the lead section mentioned the singer's last name, but did not specify it's her birth name, which I found confusing, so I suggest noting she was credited with her birth name in writing and producing.
Corachow (
talk)
13:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Swap the EW quote and the key of the song for the correct order
[21] is not needed here when it backs up none of the info
"She sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" in" → "Clark sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" alongside"
"processed vocals which take" → "processed vocals, which take"
"transformed into "bluesy jazz"" → "transforms into "bluesy
jazz"" with the wikilink
"by backing vocalists." → "by the backing vocalists." because it is sourced who they are in the previous section
17-seconds → 17 seconds, for consistency
""Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" → "Lyrically, "Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" per this being a new para
[23] does not seem to back up the info like [7] does, unless I missed something?
double-checked, it does talk about the theme of the album and then about the song.
The quote is "blues for 2021" and actually comes from the
NME interview, so change the first quote to merely following "Clark described" and only mention The Guardian in the following sentence
Done all
Critical reception
"received positive reviews from music critics," → "was met with positive reviews from
music critics," with the target
MOS:QUOTE issues need fixing throughout this section, but this does not apply to full sentences
"Murray elaborated, "just" → "Murray elaborated, writing that "just"
"can pull off" and" → "can pull off", and"
"character she's channeling," → "character [Clark]'s channeling," per this being a new para
New York → Vulture on ref 23, with the target per MOS:LINK2SECT
changed.
WP:OVERLINK of Stereogum on ref 27
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 33
Not done the rest, I have been told by editors at the FLC to wikilink all references since that does not constitute an
overlink.
MOS:REPEATLINK states: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article.". --
Ashleyyoursmile!13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Final comments and verdict
On hold, but I would like to ask if you are really sure this should be a GAN already? I mean it is in good shape, but the song was released literally one week ago and has not had the time to appear on any charts whatsoever, plus the weekly rankings indicate it will likely be ranked amongst monthly and yearly lists, so could this nom perhaps be too soon? --
K. Peake09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
Kyle Peake, thank you for the review. If you really think its too soon, should I withdraw the nomination? I apologise that you had to spend time and effort in reviewing the article. Please let me know what you think.
Ashleyyoursmile!10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile It is fine, I cannot blame you for being enthusiastic since it would be plausible to have the first GA for a 2021 music article. However, taking a look at the
quick fail of Kamikaze back in 2018 by a fellow experienced reviewer, this article falls into the same too recent trap since more information and promotion will probably accompany it in the future, as well as monthly/year-end rankings. I would like to ask though, is the song likely to chart? Because if not, there may be no fail needed or a
second opinion like there was for "Hello". --
K. Peake10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, I honestly don't know but the song hasn't impacted the radio yet. The chartings of all previous singles can be found
here. Would you like a second opinion on this? I could ask one of the GA coordinators in that case.
Ashleyyoursmile!10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile Second opinion requested is the appropriate option for whether or not this article's nomination is too soon to be honest, as I am definitely uncertain now baring in mind the lack of a radio release and should you really reach out to coordinators or should we just wait for someone to pick it up on the GANs page? Note: to you and any reviewers, I am not asking for the article to be reviewed in its entirety, only for an opinion on the aforementioned subject. --
K. Peake10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile That is a good idea but while awaiting response, you can implement the suggested changes since they will be valid in the future even if the article is expanded! --
K. Peake10:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile I understand your reason for not implementing the overlink change like I have seen be cited on a few occasions in the past, but the one issue I have left is regarding the release formats. If you cannot find a source that either leads to a digital download for the song or states it experienced such a release, then just keep Tidal and change to having streaming as the only format. --
K. Peake14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, regarding this being too recent to be a GA, there are a couple of main points I think I should make.
This can meet the GA criteria if you are certain that the article has sufficient coverage based on the current range of sourcing and meets the "Broad in coverage" and "Focused" parts of the criteria. However, that then leads me on to ....
If the article becomes out of date, or stops meeting the "Broad in coverage" criteria (or indeed, any of the criteria), it should be delisted.
A moving target is hard to hit. If news sources are coming out daily, and lots of editors are updating the article, it can fail the "Stability" part of the criteria
Therefore, this can pass GA (assuming the reviewer is happy with your actions), but you need to ask yourself, is this something you want to keep an eye on for the remainder of your career? I am strongly of the view that once you have taken an article through GAN, you should be prepared to keep an eye on it, and ensure it continues to meet the criteria. I don't like seeing an article that passed GAN 15 years ago continue to hold the symbol at the top of the article, when a quick perusal of it shows it clearly doesn't. For example, when
Genesis announced a new tour a few years back after a decade of inactivity, editors were quick on the scene to add detail, but not all of it met the GA criteria (eg: puffery, no sources, over-detail) which meant it meant work for me and the handful of other editors that keep an eye on it. Then, there was a recent kerfuffle at ANI over the article where an editor couldn't get his changes through because they didn't meet the GA criteria, despite several of us explaining that was the case as politely as we could muster.
Ritchie333, thank you very much. Since I've started the article, I'm willing to work towards adding information and ensure that it continues to satisfy the GA criteria. Regarding the article's current status, I'll await to see what
Kyle Peake has to say.
Ashleyyoursmile!14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 Very good for you to offer a second opinion and it is definitely written from a viewpoint that shows both sides, as desired when requesting one without specifically seeking out any user since that could lead to bias.
Ashleyyoursmile I am glad you have agreed to keep an eye on this and I would suggest adding to your watchlist if you haven't already, plus over time, look out for rankings on critics' lists and maybe commercial performance to add. --
K. Peake14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article new enough, long enough, referenced, neutral and no copyvio obvious. The hook is interesting and sourced. The imaged used is free. QPQ done. One note: the lead section mentioned the singer's last name, but did not specify it's her birth name, which I found confusing, so I suggest noting she was credited with her birth name in writing and producing.
Corachow (
talk)
13:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Swap the EW quote and the key of the song for the correct order
[21] is not needed here when it backs up none of the info
"She sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" in" → "Clark sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" alongside"
"processed vocals which take" → "processed vocals, which take"
"transformed into "bluesy jazz"" → "transforms into "bluesy
jazz"" with the wikilink
"by backing vocalists." → "by the backing vocalists." because it is sourced who they are in the previous section
17-seconds → 17 seconds, for consistency
""Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" → "Lyrically, "Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" per this being a new para
[23] does not seem to back up the info like [7] does, unless I missed something?
double-checked, it does talk about the theme of the album and then about the song.
The quote is "blues for 2021" and actually comes from the
NME interview, so change the first quote to merely following "Clark described" and only mention The Guardian in the following sentence
Done all
Critical reception
"received positive reviews from music critics," → "was met with positive reviews from
music critics," with the target
MOS:QUOTE issues need fixing throughout this section, but this does not apply to full sentences
"Murray elaborated, "just" → "Murray elaborated, writing that "just"
"can pull off" and" → "can pull off", and"
"character she's channeling," → "character [Clark]'s channeling," per this being a new para
New York → Vulture on ref 23, with the target per MOS:LINK2SECT
changed.
WP:OVERLINK of Stereogum on ref 27
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 33
Not done the rest, I have been told by editors at the FLC to wikilink all references since that does not constitute an
overlink.
MOS:REPEATLINK states: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article.". --
Ashleyyoursmile!13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Final comments and verdict
On hold, but I would like to ask if you are really sure this should be a GAN already? I mean it is in good shape, but the song was released literally one week ago and has not had the time to appear on any charts whatsoever, plus the weekly rankings indicate it will likely be ranked amongst monthly and yearly lists, so could this nom perhaps be too soon? --
K. Peake09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
Kyle Peake, thank you for the review. If you really think its too soon, should I withdraw the nomination? I apologise that you had to spend time and effort in reviewing the article. Please let me know what you think.
Ashleyyoursmile!10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile It is fine, I cannot blame you for being enthusiastic since it would be plausible to have the first GA for a 2021 music article. However, taking a look at the
quick fail of Kamikaze back in 2018 by a fellow experienced reviewer, this article falls into the same too recent trap since more information and promotion will probably accompany it in the future, as well as monthly/year-end rankings. I would like to ask though, is the song likely to chart? Because if not, there may be no fail needed or a
second opinion like there was for "Hello". --
K. Peake10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, I honestly don't know but the song hasn't impacted the radio yet. The chartings of all previous singles can be found
here. Would you like a second opinion on this? I could ask one of the GA coordinators in that case.
Ashleyyoursmile!10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile Second opinion requested is the appropriate option for whether or not this article's nomination is too soon to be honest, as I am definitely uncertain now baring in mind the lack of a radio release and should you really reach out to coordinators or should we just wait for someone to pick it up on the GANs page? Note: to you and any reviewers, I am not asking for the article to be reviewed in its entirety, only for an opinion on the aforementioned subject. --
K. Peake10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile That is a good idea but while awaiting response, you can implement the suggested changes since they will be valid in the future even if the article is expanded! --
K. Peake10:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ashleyyoursmile I understand your reason for not implementing the overlink change like I have seen be cited on a few occasions in the past, but the one issue I have left is regarding the release formats. If you cannot find a source that either leads to a digital download for the song or states it experienced such a release, then just keep Tidal and change to having streaming as the only format. --
K. Peake14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Okay, regarding this being too recent to be a GA, there are a couple of main points I think I should make.
This can meet the GA criteria if you are certain that the article has sufficient coverage based on the current range of sourcing and meets the "Broad in coverage" and "Focused" parts of the criteria. However, that then leads me on to ....
If the article becomes out of date, or stops meeting the "Broad in coverage" criteria (or indeed, any of the criteria), it should be delisted.
A moving target is hard to hit. If news sources are coming out daily, and lots of editors are updating the article, it can fail the "Stability" part of the criteria
Therefore, this can pass GA (assuming the reviewer is happy with your actions), but you need to ask yourself, is this something you want to keep an eye on for the remainder of your career? I am strongly of the view that once you have taken an article through GAN, you should be prepared to keep an eye on it, and ensure it continues to meet the criteria. I don't like seeing an article that passed GAN 15 years ago continue to hold the symbol at the top of the article, when a quick perusal of it shows it clearly doesn't. For example, when
Genesis announced a new tour a few years back after a decade of inactivity, editors were quick on the scene to add detail, but not all of it met the GA criteria (eg: puffery, no sources, over-detail) which meant it meant work for me and the handful of other editors that keep an eye on it. Then, there was a recent kerfuffle at ANI over the article where an editor couldn't get his changes through because they didn't meet the GA criteria, despite several of us explaining that was the case as politely as we could muster.
Ritchie333, thank you very much. Since I've started the article, I'm willing to work towards adding information and ensure that it continues to satisfy the GA criteria. Regarding the article's current status, I'll await to see what
Kyle Peake has to say.
Ashleyyoursmile!14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Ritchie333 Very good for you to offer a second opinion and it is definitely written from a viewpoint that shows both sides, as desired when requesting one without specifically seeking out any user since that could lead to bias.
Ashleyyoursmile I am glad you have agreed to keep an eye on this and I would suggest adding to your watchlist if you haven't already, plus over time, look out for rankings on critics' lists and maybe commercial performance to add. --
K. Peake14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply