Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Start Now/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [1].

Don't Start Now edit

Nominator(s): LOVI 33 18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song by English singer Dua Lipa. Probably her most successful single along with "New Rules" as it reached number 2 on both the UK Singles Chart and US Billboard Hot 100. The article was brought to GA status by Coolmarc, who intended to bring it to FA status, but has since retired. I have done some improvements and adds since then and would like to finish his intentions. LOVI 33 18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

I haven't listened to this song yet so I believe I'd provide an unbiased review.

the same team she worked with on her 2017 single "New Rules" → I don't think this is noteworthy for the lede, unless the two songs sound very similar to each other

Removed.

numerous 1980s and disco tropes in its production → Wikilink to trope may be needed to assist understanding; I'm not sure if "1980s and disco" can be in the same sentence, since an average reader wouldn't know what the difference between them is

Added wikilink. I think 1980s and disco tropes just refer to 1980s styled disco or disco in general, and 1980s styled music. I don't know if viewers will know the difference, but I would say that it should be included since the track was also praised for its throwback sound as you can see in the critical reception section. Although, if you think it should be removed then I will remove it.

A post-break up song → Unnecessary

Removed.

the song charted in the top 10 in more than 40 countries → I'd say charted in the top 10 on charts in 40 countries

Rephrased.

I see inconsistent use of the Oxford comma here.

I have fixed it to like this: list item 1, list item 2 and list item 3.

The next morning they decided to write a disco song as "it's the most fun to dance to"; however, the session was unproductive → Reading this, I understand that they only decided to write, but did they initiate the decision right away? I think the bit about the unproductive session can be omitted

Removed unproductive session part. I think the decision was initiated right away. The source says: The next morning, we woke up, and were like, ‘We have to make a disco song. It’s the most fun to dance to.

Although "Don't Start Now"'s bassline sounds live, Kirkpatrick created it with MIDI → Can't MIDI be produced live?

I am unsure but here is what the source, which is an interview with the song's producer says: The bass sounds live, but it’s actually midi.

The caption of the file says synth-pop, but I don't see it sourced within the prose

Added to prose.

"Don't Start Now" is a retro-tinged nu-disco song,[12][13][14] incorporating several 1980s and disco tropes, and elements of dance-pop, Eurodance, and funk.[15] → Grouping of multiple sources to create a statement is WP:SYNTH. Consider breaking it down

Broken down.

Overall a well written article. I'll try to review the rest within a week. HĐ (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop in as I am not the nominator, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH. If different reliable sources separately use the descriptors "retro-tinged" and "nu-disco", and we trust both sources, then it must follow that we believe both descriptors apply to the song simultaneously, and whether we put them both in one sentence or cite them to each source separately, we are simply juxtaposing them and not leading the reader to draw a separate conclusion from their being combined; therefore, I would argue we are not violating SYNTH or WP:OR. That is assuming the adjectives are objective descriptors and not subjective opinions. In the latter case they should be attributed in the text, but the problem then isn't SYNTH, it's a lack of in-text attribution of opinions. I would be interested to know what other people think though. Ajmint (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you say is totally what I mean. I may have not been very thorough in assessing whether it was a case of SYNTH, but the lack of attribution is definitely what I find problematic. HĐ (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LOVI33, any updates regarding my concerns? HĐ (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HĐ, sorry I didn't think I would get a response this soon. I have addressed all your concerns above, and with this edit. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the rest of the article. LOVI 33 03:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss edit

User:LOVI33, The article looks amazing! I am going to support it! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for almost a month without any substantive support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.