Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Make Me Like You/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 21:43, 18 February 2017 [1].

Make Me Like You edit

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like. It recently underwent a major copyedit that has heavily improved the prose, which was likewise the main reason why it failed its previous FAC. Like I previously said, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to the FA status! Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments by Aoba47
  • I could be wrong, but I think that if you include a quote in the lead, then you still have to cite it even if it is in the body of the actual article. I am referring to "beachy" in the first paragraph of the lead. There is an "attribution needed" tag for the "colorful" quote so I think I am correct on this, but you can always double-check with a user experienced with working on music-related articles.
Done
  • I would suggest revising the sentence concerning the critical response to the video by removing the "colorful" quote and making it more reflective of the response as a whole (as you do cite multiple reviews and this should be touched on in the lead somewhat).
  • If the "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" are counted separately from the "This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour", then please make a note that she performed the single during this tour as well.
Done
  • The phrase "new ones" sounds too informal to me. I would simply say "she began recording music based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton" instead. This is my personal preference, but I think it would strengthen this part, especially since it is the first sentence of the body of the article.
Done
  • I am not sure I understand what you mean by "lyrical transition". Do you mean the transition from writing about Gavin to writing about Blake? What do you mean by it "ended? Could you make the meaning of this a little more clear.
  • I would say "she called it her favorite self-composed song" to make it clear that you are referring to that it was one of her favorite songs that she wrote it.
Done
  • I would cut down the sentence about the Jimmy Kimmel to simply say that Stefani confirmed that the song was about Shelton. You could add that Stefani was initially resistant about answering Kimmel's question or something along those lines, but I do not find the quotes to be entirely necessary to get the point across here.
  • I would replace "and Tranter contributed to" with "with Tranter contributing to" as I feel that it would make the sentence flow a little bit better.
  • What do you mean by "a vibrant melody"? It can sound a little like a peacock term, in that it sounds more like praise for the song rather than an objective observation on the song's production. I would either suggest removing it or clarifying this point to avoid misinterpretation.
  • I would recommend listing the names of her two previous albums in the Zach Gase sentence in the "Composition and Lyrics" with a wikilink and dates for both.
  • The phrase "the pluses of a breakup" sounds a little too informal to me. I understand what you mean and I personally like it, but I am not sure it fits on Wikipedia. Maybe "the benefits of a breakup" instead?
  • The quote "inflect[s] emotion in her voice" sounds somewhat POVish to me. Like I stated with one of my previous comments, I want to advise that the section stays as objective as possible, and this seems a little too strongly written with praise in mind. Who is the person/publication saying this? I would recommend you attribute who is saying this in the article, and use your own words to describe Stefani's vocal performance as emotional to avoid this. When looking at the source, I find the quote to be odd as the reviewer mentions Stefani showing her emotions, but the he also says the audience may ignore it completely so be careful with the use of the source in this context.
  • You use "confront" and "confrontation" in close proximity in the "Composition and lyrics" section. Please change one of these for variety.
  • There are a lot of quotes in the "Critical reception" section. I know that I am very guilty of doing this in my own writing on here, but I would advise cutting back to using quotes in which the word choice is very important and paraphrasing with your own words in other sections.
  • I would add "becoming" in front of "Stefani's least-successful release in that country".
  • You repeat "directed" twice in close proximity in the "Background and development" subsection of the "Music video" section. Please change this.
  • Add "the" in front of "exclusive distributor".
  • I would replace "After it was over" to "Following its broadcast" to sound a little more formal.
  • Do you need to add a reference for the last sentence of the first and second paragraphs of the "Synopsis" subsection? This is more of a clarification question.
  • The construction "with, near the end of the song, image of the singer" is awkward and needs revision.
  • Add that she performed this during "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" in the "Live performances" section.
  • Make sure to check and see if this song appears on any year-end charts for 2016 in the future. I am not sure if it will chart or not, but keep this in mind.
Done – it didn't chart on any year-end ones unfortunately
  • Was "The Remixes" EP released only in the United States? If not, then revise this.
@Aoba47: Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Carbrera (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: In the "Release history" section, the chart currently shows that the "Remixes" EP was made available only in the United States. I would imagine that this EP would have a broader release considering Stefani is still a major star. If the EP was only released in America then this is fine, but I want to clarify if this is accurate or not. Look at how the "Radio and release history is set up in "S&M" shows how the remix package for that song was released. I just want to make sure that the chart is being as accurate as possible in terms of representing the single's release. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through a few FAs on songs, I noticed that a few of them used a similar structure so it is fine as it currently stands. I apologize for the confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E! Online should be in italics in the "References" section.
Done
  • iTunes should not be in italics in the "References" section (See reference 16)
Done
  • I hate to call this out, but what makes the "Magical World of No Doubt" a reliable source? I would imagine you could find a more reliable source to support the information about Sophie Muller's previous work with Stefani.
  • @Carbrera: Make sure to address this comment as well. This is the last comment left, and once you address this, then I will support the nomination. I would highly recommend removing the "colorful" quote from the lead or add a reference. Removing is probably the best bet. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carbrera: I have done the following two edits here and here to address these points. Let me know if this is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: You have done an excellent job with this article. I have a lot of respect for you in that you are putting a lot of work and dedication in this. Your work actually makes more interested in returning to writing and expanding articles related to music (as I was starting to move away to do articles on television and fictional characters more instead). Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time and then most likely support it for promotion. If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination, and I will send some positive energy your way that it does well this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for the review! I'll be responding to every bit very soon. I will also take a look at your FAC. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you and let me know when you addressed my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Source review—it looks like it's just a few minor points:
    • In note 2, E! is italicized, and but in note 3 it is not. I'll also note that the target of the wikilink says that the online presence is E! Online, not just E!, which is the name of the publishing TV network. If the website is cited elsewhere, the same comments would apply for the sake of consistency.
      • Done
    • In note 8, does that template support |edition=Japanese to get the "Japanese edition" text out of italics?
      • Done
    • In comparing note 8 with note 10, the latter has the artist and label wikilinked while the former does not. Normally you'd only link them on the first usage, in keeping with the concepts behind WP:OVERLINK. I'd just double check and shift links, or drop them, as appropriate.
      • Done
    • There are a few website names that are rendered in roman text as the publisher where I'd expect them to be in italics as the |work= (or |website=, they're aliases). These include Idolator, Vulture, and the like.
      • Done
    • Usually when citing newspapers that lack their locations in their names, that is unlike the Los Angeles Times, we would include that location in |location=. This goes for university student newspapers, where the university is typically the location, unless they're a purely online publication like The Huffington Post.
      • Done
    • In terms of reliability and quality, nothing is amiss here. In short, just a little polishing, and the article is good to go in terms of the sources. Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Imzadi1979: I believe I hit every thing you pointed out, please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for the source review! Best, Carbrera (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
        • @Carbrera: some points are not done though. You didn't address the inconsistency in why some website names are rendered through the |work= parameter (or its |website= alias) and others are. Idolator is not consistently in italics, while Bustle and E! Online are. They're all the names of websites, which are for all intents and purposes equivalent to a print newspaper or print magazine, so we should be rendering them in italics for consistency.

          Also, "ABC News" is unlinked in note 32, but linked in note 106. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but my comments above were illustrative in a few cases with a suggestion to audit the remaining footnotes for the same issues, like the linking. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          • @Imzadi1979: I apologize. I left out one of the Idolator references on mistake. I also fixed the "ABC News" linking error. Thanks for catching that. Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this review was helpful, you may want to review the prose on other nominations, like mine to help out other nominators. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing the above comment, I would encourage you to either participate in other FACs in order to build good will and connections with FAC contributors (and may draw more attention to this nomination) or asking a few experienced FAC users for comments on this nomination (as you are still working towards getting your first featured article, they will mostly likely be more responsive to helping you I would imagine). Just want to offer some advice to help you this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the tip. In fact, I did leave comments on both Imzadi1979's FAC and Tomica's most recent nomination yesterday. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comments by Cartoon network freak
Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak

Lead

  • The album's second single → state "record's" here for alternation
Done
  • Frediksson; the latter two were its producers → Frediksson, while production was handled by the latter two.
I worded it a bit differently, because there are varying degrees of production and I don't want to confuse the reader. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pop and disco song → use "recording" here for alternation
Done
  • incorporates light rock, with chiming → incorporates light rock elements alongside chiming
I wouldn't use 'elements' as that is not what the article below states. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • reviews from music critics who praised → comma before "who"
This is unnecessary. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 on the Billboard Hot 100 (where it remained for five non-consecutive weeks) → no brackets needed here + comma before "where"
Done
  • The single peaked lower in the charts → The song peaked at lower positions in the charts
I think this makes the sentence too wordy. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An EP with → write "EP" out here
Done

Infobox

  • Gwen Stefani is shown wearing a navy top whilst her hands touch her face; Stefani's eyes are not fully open; the title of the song is shown in a red, cursive font → A photograph showing Stefani wearing a navy top whilst her hands touch her face and her eyes are not fully open. The title of the song is shown to her right in a red, cursive font.
Done
  • Unlink "Sweden" as it's a common term
Done

Production and release

  • she began new pieces → she began conceiving new pieces
Began and conceive are a bit too similar in meaning. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and she called it her → calling it her
Done
  • said that the song was → state "the track" here for alternation
Done
  • The music website Idolator → Music website Idolator
Done
  • with the Swedish production duo → remove overflous "the"
Done
  • to all eighteen songs → to all 18 songs
This is purely stylistic; according to MoS there is no right or wrong way to list numbers. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • than fifteen minutes → than 15 minutes
Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional recording was by → Additional recording was handled by
Done
  • and Serban Ghenea mixed → with Serban Ghenea mixing
I don't want to change the tense here. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • three remixes of "Make Me Like You" by → three remixes of "Make Me Like You" produced by
Done

Composition and lyrics

  • "Make Me Like You" is a three-minute, thirty-six-second pop and disco song. → Lasting three minutes and 36 seconds, "Make Make Like You" is a pop and disco song.
Same as mentioned previously. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Robbie Daw of Idolator, the song "contains → use "the recording" here for alternation
Done
  • Release year in brackets for "Lovefool"
This is typically only done for albums, and when mentioning "previously released, etc."; in this case, it's just a comparison and doesn't use "Stefani's previous xxxxx" Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release year for "Too Young" in brackets
Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the music of indie pop The Bird and the Bee → the music of indie pop band The Bird and the Bee
Done
  • into its chorus: "I'm so → : to ,
I'm looking at other FA "4 Minutes" and it use colons ":" before lyrics and "," before quotes. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • gratitude for Shelton ("Oh God, thank God that I found you") → No brackets needed here + add comma after "Shelton"
Done
  • Stefani refers to first meeting Shelton: "I was → Furthermore, the singer refers to first meeting him, "I was
Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sample > Stefani is heard with "digi-harps" and "feathery guitar riffs" in "Make Me Like You". → A 21-second sample of "Make Me Like You", a pop and disco recording with influences of light rock. Stefani... in the track.
I believe what is now there was originally suggested by a different user in the previous FAC, and I only want to put what the sources say above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • Spencer Kornhaber of The Atlantic compared the song's production → use "the recording's" here for alternation
I hope it's fine if I stay with "song" as "recording" may not appear to the reader as "Make Me Like You" in whole, but just the recording process. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Sheryl Crow (whom he preferred for standing out "strong[ly]") → no brackets needed here + comma before "whom"
Same as below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and "Serious" (2004) (which shared a "spacious, twinkling liteness") → no brackets needed here + comma before "which"
Same as I mentioned a few times above and below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and writing: "Stefani's new → : to ,
Done
  • only ... song that → ... to [...]
Same as stated in "Music video" below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carolyn Menyes of Music Times said that of the two songs which "capture ... the earliest stage[s] of a relationship" (the other was "Send Me a Picture"), "Make Me Like You" was "more exciting" → Carolyn Menyes of Music Times said that "Send Me a Picture" and "Make Me Like You" from the record "capture [...] the earliest stage[s] of a relationship", and ultimately favored the latter one for being "more exciting".
I'm afraid I do not like how that is worded. It's challenging to state what should be said either way, don't you agree? Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan Middleton, also of Music Times, → "of" to "from"
Done
  • "Make Me Like You" was praised by music critics → state "generally" before "praised" as it received some criticism as well
Done

Commercial performance

  • Moderately successful, "Make Me Like You" debuted (and peaked) at number 54 → Upon its release, "Make Me Like You" attained moderate commercial success. In the United States, it debuted and peaked at number 54
Since there isn't a flat-out source that support the first claim, it should be left as is. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following week it dropped → comma before "it"
Done
  • leaving the chart the week after that → leaving the chart the subsequent week
To me, it doesn't sound like that would be referring to the correct week? Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It peaked at number 23 on the → The recording further reached number 23 on the
That also may be a bit too wordy for my taste. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Canada the song → comma before "the song"
Done
  • on the download portion → on the download counterpart
Done
  • Stefani's first (and only) → no brackets needed
Same as above and below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • appearance on that chart. After three weeks, it dropped off after it peaked. → appearance on that chart, with it spending three total weeks on that chart.
I'm afraid I don't want to repeat "chart" twice in a row. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • debuted at number 143, peaked at number 81 three weeks later and sold 9,343 copies. → debuted at number 143 and peaked at number 81 three weeks later, having sold 9,343 copies in the country.
I think it should be left as is so the reader doesn't mistakenly believe that it only sold that amount during that particular week. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Australia it debuted → comma after "it"
Done
  • following week, Stefani's → following week, marking Stefani's
Done
  • In the United Kingdom it missed → comma before "it"
Done
  • debuting (and peaking) at number 140 → no need for brackets here
Done

Music video

  • who had directed videos → who had previously directed videos
Done
  • broadcast she stumbled → comma before "she"
Done
  • After it was over → Following the filming sessions
There was only one session. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On February 22, 2016 Billboard → comma after the date
Done
  • with the remainder spent on → with the remainder being spent on
I don't want to change the tense here. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefani's friend (and hairstylist) → no need for brackets here
Done
  • In the second verse Stefani, in a mirrored room, changes into a sequined blazer and enters → In the second verse, the singer changes into a sequined blazer in a mirrored room and enters
Done
  • a piano lounge (another reference to Shelton). → no brackets here + comma before "another"
Same as below. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Stefani, on a platform → no comma here
Actually this works because it is extra information separating it from the final part of the sentence. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "Reception" to "Release and reception"
Done
  • media impressions ... for the campaign → ... to [...]
MoS states this is alright; check the "With square brackets" section. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • couple of seconds" (allowing her to change before the final scene). → no brackets + comma before "allowing"
Interchangeable; purely stylistic. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the June 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity the video → comma before "the video"
Done
  • advertisement (also sponsored by Target Corporation) in which → replace brackets with commas
This is interchangeable according to MoS. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image > The video wasn't really compared to them by one critic
Done (I reworded it because I see what you mean by this!) Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

  • song live in a number of public → "in" to "during"
Done
  • Year of release for both "Danger Zone" and ""What You Waiting For?" in brackets
More below regarding this. :) Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefani with, near the end of the song, images of the singer → Stefani, with shots of her also being displayed near the end of the song.
I'm sorry but I think this is a bit too wordy. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefani also sang it on the July 15, 2016 → state "also performed it" here for alternation
Done
  • "Misery", "Hollaback Girl" and "The Sweet Escape" → release year in brackets
Same as I mentioned above (and "4 Minutes" doesn't use the years, neither does "S&M")
  • Image > Stefani performed "Make Me Like You" → Stefani performing "Make Me Like You"
Done

Track listing

  • Digital download (The Remixes) → Digital remixes EP (It hasn't such a special name to be displayed, so you can change it to my suggestion)
Actually it is called this; iTunes lists it as this additionally in the source. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

  • Credits adapted from the liner notes of This Is What the Truth Feels Like, Interscope Records. → no need for the "Interscope Records"
This is what was previously suggested in the other FAC and kept during the recent copyedit. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink "Sweden" as it's a common term
Done
  • Unlink "Gwen Stefani" here
Done

Charts

  • We need the chart date for Slovakia to make its source reliable
Done

Release history

  • Done changes by myself; feel free to undo if overfluous

Carbrera, here my comments; once you've addressed them, I'll give this a support. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: @Carbrera: do you plan to reply to these comments? This nomination is seven weeks old now and is starting to look a little stale, especially if you are not responding. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: I have addressed all of your concerns in addition to some comments. Feel free to take a second glance if necessary. Thanks a bunch. I can now continue my GA review as well. Have a good day, Carbrera (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Sarastro1: Thank you, I just completed everything. :) Carbrera (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with all my comments being resolved! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks so much for the image review! Are there any steps you would like me to facilitate in order to improve the article? Carbrera (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only things I'd suggest is to add inline citations for the infobox and to boost up the rationale for Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks. I believe the rationale is better as of now, but may I ask you to clarify "add[ing] inline citations"? Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INLINECITE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I did include inline citations on the "Genre" parameter as this is where they are often placed, but when looking at other 'song' featured articles like 4 Minutes and S&M (song), they do not features any at all, so I think keeping it simple is best (although I'm sure you know more that I do about this). Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I have removed the infobox inline citations per the policy that SnapSnap mentioned below. Carbrera (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SnapSnap
  • MOS:FONTSIZE discourages the use of smaller font sizes in infoboxes.
Done
  • I see the use above mentioned inline citations, but WP:INFOBOXREF states that references are not needed in infoboxes if the content is cited elsewhere in the article.
Done I agree. Carbrera (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the location parameter really needed in the first USA Today references? None of the references use it.
Done – This was suggested previously but I agree that it is unnecessary. Carbrera (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference 3, replace "Pitchfork Media" with "Pitchfork".
Done
  • In reference 18, add "(US)" after "iTunes Store" to specify which store it's from, and remove "Apple Inc". I believe "Apple" should be removed from the other iTunes references as well.
Done
  • Remove the publisher parameter from references 26 and 39, for the sake of consistency.
Done
  • Delink USA Today, Slant Magazine, Rolling Stone and Time in references 37, 38, 69, 70, 84, 89, and 92 per WP:OVERLINK, as those were already previously linked.
Done
  • In reference 98, replace "MTV" with "MTV News".
Done
  • Replace "eighteen", "fifteen" and "thirty-six" ("Composition and lyrics") with 18, 15 and 36, respectively, as all other integers greater than nine are expressed in numerals as well.
Done
  • "Light rock, upbeat pop, and funk music..." → "Elements of light rock, upbeat pop, and funk music...", for clarity purposes.
Done
  • Under "Commercial performance", stating the song was "[m]oderately successful" doesn't really sound neutral to me.
Done
  • after her 2015 "Used to Love You" → after 2015's "Used to Love You".
Done
  • Change to "Track listing" section to "Track listings", as there is more than one.
Done

snapsnap (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: I believe I have fixed everything accordingly. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Carbrera: No problems. Nice job. :) snapsnap (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SnapSnap: Would it be alright with you if I placed your comments into a "Resolved comments" box like those above? Carbrera (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Sure, go ahead. snapsnap (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from magiciandude

The article looks great and I don't see any obvious problems with the sources. All the other issues the reviewers were already resolved. My only recommendation at this point is specify who released the song in the lead. Erick (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: THANKS! I just added the note per your suggestion! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No problem. While I can't comment on the prose since I'm not an expert on grammar, I will support this article in good faith. Erick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source reliability and formatting review; the comment above on sourcing is not quite in depth enough to qualify. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thank you! Are you referring to Imzadi1979's comments above? Regards, Carbrera (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, my mistake, I missed that. It's usually best not to collapse image or source reviews. My apologies. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted so (as above, unless I missed it) we should have a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.
I wonder also if Bencherlite and/or Tony1 can quickly peruse this latest version of the article as they had prose concerns last time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in with Earwig's tool - there are a couple of false positives as they all use a quote which inflates the copyvio probability. Else looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Should anything be changed regarding the quotes you mentioned? Carbrera (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, they're fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mymis
  • In "Production and release" section, the only date mentioned is song's release date. Is there another earlier date or even just a year indicating when she started working on the song?
  • I can't find any specific date or time period, like you mentioned. I believe it was placed on the BMI website around December 2015, but I didn't archive that so it cannot be verified. It's quite unfortunate. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 107 is broken.
  • Link 93 is a fansite.

Mymis (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Thank you so, so much. I have addressed all of your comments. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Maybe add the year when she started dating Shelton or something? To provide approx. time frame to show that the song was composed within the same year when it was released, and not like five years ago.
  • Great work on this article. You have my support. Mymis (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator on this, and I think the prose still needs a little work. Just a few minutes looking threw up a few things that would be a problem; none of them are huge issues but perhaps should have been spotted at this stage. My oppose is not set in stone, and I expect to at least strike it and hopefully support once there has been a little work. I spotted these just looking randomly through the article, and I would recommend someone taking a look for similar issues throughout. These are samples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody": I'm not too sure what a chiming guitar is, although I could just about live with it, but while my musical background is limited, I know enough to question what on earth a "beach-like melody" is. And quoting a critic's review does not make this make sense, either.
  • Done – I agree. I removed "chiming" altogether and (since the melody is also described as uptempo by a different source) I replaced "beach-like" with "uptempo". Carbrera (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • "and Stefani later confirmed that it was inspired by her relationship with singer Blake Shelton": I understand why we have used confirmed here, but as we do not mention that there was speculation, I think just saying that "Stefani was inspired by her relationship..." would be fine for the lead.
  • Done
  • "An accompanying music video, directed by Stefani's long-time collaborator Sophie Muller, was the first to be filmed and broadcast on live television.": The first out of... what?
  • @Sarastro1: Thanks for your concerns. I added "only" to hopefully address your concern. If you'd prefer just "only" or "first of it kinds" (or something in that nature), please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • "The video includes several costume changes and scenes, including one which pokes fun at media scrutiny of Stefani's personal life": I have yet to see any video that does NOT include scenes, so that part is a little odd.
  • Done
  • "received comparisons with similar concepts done by other artists": Again, this is a little odd and seems circular. "Something was compared with something like it" We need a little more about this. Positively compared? Negatively? What concepts?
  • Done – I wouldn't say any of the sources positively or negatively compare it, but rather just the concepts like you pointed out. So I wrote out, "received comparisons to live videos from Imagine Dragons and Death Cab for Cutie." Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After completing several songs dealing with Stefani's divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, she began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton.": This would be better as "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton." I'd even prefer "writing about her relationship"
  • Done
  • ""Make Me Like You" is a three-minute, 36-second pop and disco song.[18][19][10]": Ref order
  • Done
  • "and funk music are paired with "feathery guitar riffs" and digital harps[17] in a vibrant melody": Quotes are all very well in music articles, but are often meaningless used like this. We should either paraphrase what the critic means by "feathery" and "vibrant" or just summarise that they liked the guitar, harps and melody. Or leave it out entirely.
  • Done – Since it is fairly difficult to summarize what the critic might mean, I used "uptempo" as that is pretty self-explanatory. If you'd like to remove it altogether, please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single's artwork, photographed by Jamie Nelson, features Stefani "channeling" Marilyn Monroe's hairstyle.": I'm sorry, a hairstyle cannot be channeled. Why not just say "with a similar hairstyle"? If you want "channelling Marilyn Monroe, you need a little more explanation of how she is doing so.
  • Done

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I addressed all of your concerns above. You may be aware but I'd like to point that the article received a major copyedit on October 29, 2016 that helped the prose greatly. If any more things regarding the prose stuck out to me, I can honestly say that I would've fixed them by now. Thank you for helping make the article better. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Just to reiterate, these were samples only, and it may have had a major copy-edit but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from another going over. I also should point out that the last edits did not really clear up the points. We now have:

  • "was the first and only to be filmed and broadcast on live television"" This still does not clear up "first and only" what? The first...? I assume song from the album, but it is far from clear.
  • "and a scene which pokes fun the media scrutiny": There is an "at" missing here.

I don't particularly wish to do a line-by-line review at this stage of an FAC, so I would recommend someone taking a close look at the rest of the article to see if there are any other points, whether that is the nominator or someone else. Just addressing each point I make is unlikely to convince me to strike the leaning oppose or to support. In any case, I will take another look in a day or so. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I appreciate it very much. I looked at your two comments and fixed them anyway. Thanks for your time, Carbrera (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Prose needs work:

  • "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton"
  • "The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton, which she called her favorite self-composed song"
  • "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton"
  • "Mattias Larsson and Robin Frediksson of Mattman & Robin recorded Stefani's vocals at Wolf Cousins Studios and Maratone Studios in Stockholm and Interscope Studios in Santa Monica, California."
  • "According to Stefani, about 30 minutes before the video's live broadcast, she stumbled at the end of the piano lounge scene and received a minor head injury."
  • "During the video's final rehearsal, she missed her exit to a rising platform while inline skating and her stunt double accidentally turned to face the camera. According to a Music Times review, Stefani joked that the mistakes "'knocked some sense' into her".[77] The video went off without a hitch, which Gabe McDonough of Music and Strategy called "a best-case scenario" in a Billboard article."

These are samples only. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Thank you for your comments. I have tried my best to address your concerns. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It needs a full copyedit. For instance the second para of the "Commercial performance" section has the word "peak" or "peaked" in all but one sentence, and it appears thirteen times in the section. I agree with Bencherlite and Tony1's comments in the first FAC. Since that time the only copyedits made were from a GOCE member. Follow Tony's advice, try some of User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises and work the prose. I realize I didn't explain what was wrong with those sentences, nor did I suggest alternatives, because I thought it would be good to for you to see the issues. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Oppose on prose. Sorry, Carbrera, since I know you asked me to review hoping I could help, but I don't think this is ready, and it's been at FAC long enough that I think it should be worked on away from FAC before being nominated again. I'd be willing to work on the article with you if you like. Some comments below; I went through the lead and first section and glanced through the rest of the article.

  • Suggest making it "comparisons to live-streamed videos" in the lead, as otherwise it's not clear how this can be the first video filmed on live TV. Or you could just cut this detail -- is the comparison to those videos really worth mentioning in the lead?
  • "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new ones based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton. The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton." I don't see anything in the given sources about Stefani writing songs that relate to Rossdale, and I also don't know what it means to say "the lyrical transition ended". Can you explain?
  • Why do you list Mattman & Robin as Larsson and Frediksson in the lead, but as Mattman & Robin in the body? Then you give both names in the next paragraph, this time with an explanation.
  • Why do we need the details of the report and confirmation of who the producers were?
  • "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton." This is just a detail about the sequence of question and answer by which we know that the song is about Shelton. Does this need to be in the article?
  • I think the first paragraph of the "Production and release" section is poorly structured. Currently it's like this:
    • Stefani's songwriting, reason for writing MMLY
    • Subject of song
    • Production
    • Other info about the album MMLY is on
    Was the single made as part of the recording for the new album? If so (i.e. if it wasn't a one-off, later incorporated into a subsequent album) then I'd suggest
    • Background info about the album -- events leading up to it (e.g. divorce, relationship with Shelton), plans to record the album
    • Songwriting team, specific information about writing/producing MMLY
    Currently it jumps back and forth between subjects.
  • Looking through the rest of the article, I think there's a bit of work needed to get the prose to FA quality. For example, the critical reception section is listy, and the commercial performance section looks like it might benefit from at least partly being made into a table, perhaps organized around the various charts. I also saw a couple of bits of trivia that I don't think are needed such as McDonough's comment about a "best-case scenario", which is essentially quoting someone about something that didn't happen and had no effect. And do we really need the text of her statement after the video? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Following Sarastro's and Victoria's comments, I agree with Mike that further work should take place outside FAC. Tks everyone for your input and I hope to see this re-nominated before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Make_Me_Like_You/archive2&oldid=1138466252"