Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lights Up/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 June 2021 [1].

---

Lights Up

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Harry Styles's song, "Lights Up", released as the lead single from his critically acclaimed second studio album, Fine Line (2019). Co-written by Styles after a period of self-reflection, "Lights Up" is about self-acceptance and was praised by critics for its pop and R&B sounds, as well as its unconventional structure. It became Styles's second top-10 hit in the UK following his debut single "Sign of the Times" (2017). The song and its music video, released on the National Coming Out Day, attracted debates about the singer's sexuality. The article went through an extensive peer review over the last few months and I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. I would like to thank HĐ, Panini, The Ultimate Boss, Bruce1ee, Aoba47, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Atsme, HJ Mitchell, HumanxAnthro, and Heartfox for participating in the peer review, and Twofingered Typist and Baffle gab1978 for copy-editing the article. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Full disclosure: I participated in the peer review, but haven't edited the article. Versioned reviewed.

Quality

• In the i-D article, the author appears to source the director/music video filming from a PopCrave tweet... I don't think this meets the "high-quality" sources requirement in WP:WIAFA #1c. Is there another source that lists the director?

• Unfortunately, I cannot find another source that mentions the director. I have used this source for my FL Harry Styles discography.

• What makes Atwood Magazine a high-quality source; auspOp?

• removed Atwood. Replaced the latter.

• E! Online, Insider, and Evening Standard's reliabilities are currently listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSP. I don't have a particularly high opinion of WP:RSP unless there has been an RfC, but do you think there are better sources that can be used instead, or maybe not cite them at all if you don't really think they add anything to the article?

Formatting

• I believe The New York Times is actually url-access=limited, not subscription; they do give you a few free articles.

• revised

• All of the Rolling Stone refs are url-access=limited. I did get a few free articles but then it paywalled everything.

• revised

• fn 12: maybe helpful to specify it is Vanity Fair Italy.

• revised

• fn 15 is Vulture, not New York. Also url-access=limited.

• revised

• The Atlantic url-access=limited.

• revised

• The Cut url-access=limited.

• revised

• fn 36: this is a press release from Sony, as seen at the byline at the bottom. It should be formatted as cite press release (not web), with via=<website name>. I don't know where "Radio Airplay S.R.L." comes from; the bottom of the page says "Airplay Control S.R.L."

• revised

• fn 40: the article title italicizes Saturday Night Live.

• revised

• fn 97: don't link to the page directly, as only people with Newspapers.com subscriptions can view it. Instead, link to the clipping I made here which anyone can see.

• revised

• fn 119: I would argue this does not indicate a UK-wide release, as only one radio station/network is cited. It may be more accurate if used in-text, specifying BBC Radio 1, not "United Kingdom". There are other radio networks in the UK like Capital FM that may not have playlisted it.

• revised

Spotchecks

• Will do shortly. It is currently 3 am ET and I should be going to sleep :) Heartfox (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D

I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards at present and some claims I spot checked weren't supported by the source. Some comments (intended to be illustrative) are:

• "Styles conceived the song's lyrics, which discuss self-acceptance and Styles's embracing of his own identity, after a period of self-reflection." - awkwardly worded and meaningless
• "The song was written by Styles, and producers Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon, and on 11 October 2019, Erskine Records and Columbia Records released it for digital download and streaming as the album's lead single. "" - also clunky
• "Critics have compared the track's production to the music of Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake." - are these the same critics? These artists have quite different styles.
• "the video attracted debates about Styles's sexuality" - clunky
• "To promote the song, Styles performed it on several television programmes, including Saturday Night Live and Later... with Jools Holland." - doesn't need to be in the lead: musicians routinely promote and play their music.
• The first para of the 'Writing and production' section should be in past tense
• "both of whom had collaborated with him on Harry Styles" - awkward
• "Styles described "Lights Up" as "the most unorthodox song" he had ever made" - as this is from only his second album, this seems vacuous. I'd suggest thinning out the references to Styles talking about himself, as they're not very useful.
• "It was written via voice notes with Tyler [Johnson]. He'd send me a track and we'd send voice notes back and forth" - does this contradict the claim that it was written as part of a burst of inspiration?
• "Media publications including Time and Paper noted a melancholic edge to the lyric" - only Time and Paper are then referenced, so the claim that there were other "publications" who "noted" this isn't supported (also, are these the editorial views of the publications, or of their critics?)
• "Music critics lauded Styles for experimenting with pop and R&B sounds, exploring a new musical direction that showed his versatility as an artist." - not in the source, which seems to be the view of a single author.
• I gave up at this point given that the same problems kept coming up. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw the nomination as I do not have adequate time to address all the issues, and from the above comments believe that the article still needs a lot of work. Apologies for any inconvenience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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