Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Your Power/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 promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2022 [1].

---

Your Power

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Try not to abuse your power / I know we didn't choose to change / You might not wanna lose your power / but power isn't pain."

Content warning - this article is about a song dealing with abuse of all kinds. Most importantly, sexual abuse - there is a focus on older men who sexually exploit young women. The lyrics are simple, yet its power lies in its message's simplicity. It's very political (many critics drew connections to #MeToo), but it's also personal (it references Eilish's own experiences with abuse as a child), highlighting the universality of power imbalances. It was considered one of the best songs of 2021, as well as one of Eilish's best songs. Read the article and you will see why!

Now for the meta-commentary - this is the third Billie Eilish-related article I have taken to FAC and fourth overall! This song also is where I got my username, and is one of my favourite songs by her. "Your Power" holds a special place in my heart, and to see its article grow so much has been extremely cool :D Can't wait for what you think. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Media review by Sammi Brie

There are four freely licensed images, all with CC licenses or cropped from CC licenses, and album art with an NFUR. All images have adequate alt text. There is also a 15-second song sample with NFUR.

This article passes on media review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt review on the audio + photos, @Sammi Brie :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "In it, she sings alone" - in it doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
  • How so? "it" refers to the video, i.e. "in the video". Nothing seems off about it.
• Finneas is over-linked in the infobox. I suppose it might have been done intentionally because it does not match his real (full) name in the songwriting credits.
  • You would be correct in that assumption
• "Eilish revealed" - I suggest not using words like reveal as it has an unencyclopedic, suspense-dissolving effect.
  • Changed wording
• "Set for release 3 months later, on July 30" -> "Released (three months later) on July 30". Three months later in parenthesis because I think you could even leave that part out but it's optional.
  • Removed "July 30" instead of "three months later" to avoid overwhelming readers with specific dates. I kept "set for release" because it maintains the section's chronology better than saying "released on July 30" - we'd be jumping to April 27 then weeeeeks later to July 30 then baaaack again to April 28 in that case. By saying "set for release" we can just easily gloss over that future date, which is better because the album's actual release is irrelevant for this article about a song.
• "She talked to the interviewer, Laura Snapes, about how her life had greatly changed since she was a child, the negative aspects of fame, and her struggles with self-acceptance." This reads rather awkwardly because three things are listed; the first one contains a verb but the rest don't ("talked about how her life changed..., the negative aspects...").
  • The list has been modified to fix the parallelism
• Music and lyrics section lists the song as a folk ballad but the infobox only folk. I suggest specifying it in the infobox.
  • "Ballad" is not a genre, which is why the infobox says only folk.
• "stripped-back" is rather informal. If it was used like that in the source(s), I suggest using it in quotes.
  • Changed wording
• "Other critics compared it to songs by the band America[34] or singer Phoebe Bridgers" - why not and instead of or?
  • Fair enough, that's better
• "She sings about being gaslit" - gaslighting is colloquial.
  • Removed the word

More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this FAC, @FrB.TG! Glad to come across you in enwiki again. And congrats on getting Alejandro (song) promoted - seems like getting Fame Monster song articles the bronze star has become your long-term project in the encyclopedia? If so, I wish you well in the endeavour ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Although that is was the plan, I'm not sure how much longer I can keep up. For one thing, I don't have some of the resources to access restricted sources that I once had. For another, I don't have that much time for such an ambitious endeavor. -FrB

• "Your Power" has received accolades for its lyricism. I would get rid of the has as it's unlikely the song will win any more awards at this point.
  • Extremely good point.
• She urged viewers to "protect our young women at all costs", and she reminded them
  • Removed
• "Worldwide, it sold about 8,600 digital copies and was streamed about 64.2 million times." It's not clear if this is first-week sales or overall sales (which I doubt).
  • Considering the presence of "during its opening week" I assumed that folks would get that the entire paragraph was about first-week stats. Though thanks for pointing out this ambiguity. Hopefully that part is clearer.
• "22.2 million", "9.6 million", "4,500 digital"... - WP:NBSP
  • Added the template
• "It also entered the top 10 in Australia"
  • I'd prefer keeping the word so that the paragraph's transition from the song's UK chart performance to the song's AU chart performance does not come abruptly.
• "Like with the music video, she performed the song in the middle of a desert." Was it actually in the middle of a desert or rather a stage that was designed to look like one?
  • The sources say, plainly, that it was in a desert, so I'm confident that they filmed in an actual desert. From watching the video, I don't notice anything in the background that suggests a backdrop.
• "The venue where the video took place was the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles" -> "The video took place at the venue Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles"
• " selected to convey the intimate, Old Hollywood aesthetic that she envisioned" - redundant FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Addressed both, having trimmed the sentence for concision.

I believe all of your comments above have been addressed, @FrB.TG. Feel free to read through the article again if you remain unsure of your final stance. Thank you once again for the helpful comments! ^^; ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Support good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020. These include Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" => "At the age of 18, Billie Eilish won five awards at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards held in 2020, including Album of the Year for her debut studio album, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)" (just reads a bit more tightly)
  • Not done; there are 4 almost evenly-spaced commas, and while the sentence does read more tightly, it also feels more unwieldy and hard to read.
• "Eilish disclosed she would begin" => "Eilish disclosed that she would begin"
• "Eilish announced the album's title" => "Eilish announced that the album's title"
  • Not done for both. The following sentences read okay without the additional word.
• "Set for release 3 months later" => "Set for release three months later"
  • Right, mos:num. done
• "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's instruments" - the credits also mention bass, synths and percussions, so the guitars aren't the only instruments and therefore this should probably be "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's main instruments" or "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments"
  • Done - that was an astute catch!
• "On the singles chart by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" => "On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)"
  • Definitely reads better this way
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for returning the favour @ChrisTheDude, and thank you for the kind words :) I have some free time today this busy week, so I promise to get my review on the Matangi FAC wrapped up soon - really appreciate the continued patience! See you soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert and/or complain if I screw anything up.

• I tweaked a sentence in the lead, but checking the information in the body that supported it I think being cited as 80th best song of the year is hardly an accolade. I doubt I could name as many as 80 songs from most years, and my 80th favourite song of any given year is probably a song I don't like very much. I think I would cut this sort of thing from the lead unless it's a bit more flattering than 80th.
  • Sorry, but I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. Lots of songs from lots of varying artists and genres come out every year - as such, general music magazines with a large editorial team like Billboard will be covering a lot of ground when it comes to what their staff like. It's a different paradigm from an individual person's rankings (such as your personal ranking), who can only process so many releases. Other reliable publications like the NPR, the LA Times, The Fader, and Pitchfork have done top 100s as well. - Elias
    • Yes, it's certainly not a bad thing to be in those lists, and absolutely it can be mentioned in the article. I'm only saying that putting that in the lead isn't really giving the reader an accurate sense of how the song is received. If the song failed to make a top-ten list somewhere, would you bother to mention that? The other change I made that see you've put back in is "publications like"; can we find another way to put this? Perhaps "such as" instead of "like"? "Like" implies the other publications are of similar status (high quality, national distribution, high readership. The Guardian list had it at 7th of 20 which is good enough to mention. How about "Named the 7th best song of 2021 by The Guardian, the song also appeared on several top 50 and top 100 lists from other publications"? That last is in case you feel it is necessary to mention those lower rankings -- i.e. if we make it clearer the praise is a bit less it isn't misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh! You were referring to which rankings were eye-catching enough to be mentioned in the lead. In that case, I more or less see where you're coming from. I will be changing it to "Named one of the best songs of 2021 in Variety and The Guardian" once I get back into my main account at home. Three things: 1) Willman of Variety ranks "Your Power" higher than the list by Billboard, so it seems more appropriate to mention there; 2) I replaced "by" with the preposition "in" - saying "named ... by Variety" feels off because only one critic curated that list; and 3) I re-removed "publications like" to keep things concise and because six lists feels too little a number to warrant a "such as". BTW, I don't deem it necessary to mention the lower rankings since the second paragraph is big enough as it is. - Elias
• "She debuted the first live rendition": "debuted" is redundant with "first".
  • Used more concise, less confusing wording - Elias
• I wouldn't bother to link "verses" (in the lead) and "lyrics" would be a bit more natural in any case.
  • Changed
• "She prefaced...that": "preface" isn't a verb of speech, so you can't use it to report speech in this way. It has to take an object, which is the thing that is being prefaced by something -- e.g. "she prefaced her comments with an introduction".
• "Its lyrical themes discuss...": a theme doesn't discuss anything; lyrics can discuss things.
• "struggles that young women face...such as misogyny, power imbalance, and emotional abuse": those things aren't struggles, they're difficulties, or dangers. They can be struggled with.
  • Reworded the relevant parts for all three comments
• "...revealing its track list and release date. Set for release three months later, it contains...": a bit repetitive re the release date, and any reason not to give the exact date here? And why switch to present tense for "contains"?
  • Re. not listing the exact release date, see above. Also, "contains" is in present tense because saying "the album contained 'Your Power' as a track" implies that the song used to be in the album but was somehow taken off. In other words, "Your Power" will always and forever be a track from the album, so we use present tense. - Elias
    • You make good points, but I think omitting the date feels odd and there might be a way around that be combining the two sentences, which might also let us avoid the tense issue. How about "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, with the release scheduled for XXX XX and "Your Power" as the twelfth song on the track list."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Your suggestion reads a little weirdly IMO (e.g. how can an album title be released?), and to put it short I can't think of a way to combine the two in a way that doesn't come across as clunky. Instead of combining stuff, how about I remove mentions of the release date altogether? "On April 27, 2021, Eilish announced the album's title was Happier Than Ever, and she revealed 'Your Power' as the twelfth song on the track list" hits three birds with one stone. It addresses 1) your concerns about the tense change (which IMO is too nitpicky because I think tense changes for a single sentence in a paragraph are okay under certain circumstances), 2) your comment about the repetition, and 3) my opinion that the album's release date is not relevant for this article about the song. - Elias
• "teased the visuals": I'm sure this is standard usage in some media, but it's a bit journalese -- can we expand it a little?
  • I have a hard time figuring out what you mean when you say "expand it"; I would appreciate suggestions on how to change it
    • I think it means that she released one or images revealing some part of the visual presentation of the album. I'm suggesting a change because this use of "tease" has not yet made it into most dictionaries, though no doubt it will -- it's a modern usage. E.g. see m-w.com or collinsdictionary.com; neither includes this meaning. Some readers won't understand this usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I see - I do understand your point that "teased" may sound a little too unencyclopedic in the context of a song. Changed to "previewed"
• "It is the third single": again why the switch back to present tense -- we were in past tense for the previous sentence? And it sounds a bit odd to say it was the third single, since it was the first one after the announcement. It might read a bit more naturally to say that two previous singles had been included on the track list for the newly announced album.
  • This switch in tense, although somewhat jarring I agree, is necessary. You cannot use past tense to describe facts that will always be true no matter the time frame, as I said above. Don't Smile at Me will always be Billie's debut EP. 1989 was Taylor's fifth studio album the day it was announced, the day it was released, and of course the day you are reading this. - Elias
  • Re. calling it the "third single", when you have multiple music publications 1 2 3 4 calling it the third single (with more calling "My Future" the first instead 1 2 3), you might as well go with this choice especially since it has way simpler wording. Plus, it's not like singles being released to promote an album before that album is announced is an unheard-of thing - "Me!" was released before Lover was announced, for example. - Elias

    Well, you agree the tense change is a little jarring, right? Technically correct statements can still read oddly, and rephrasing so that the problem goes away can make prose read more smoothly. Yes, it's the third single from the album, no question about it. I'm not going to press this point -- you clearly think carefully about your prose and I don't want to spend too much time on stylistic nuances that are deliberate choices on your part, so I'll strike this and another suggestion above where we're having a similar conversation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• "Eilish called it one of her favorite songs she had written to date": could shorten this to "Eilish said it was one of her favorite songs" -- "called" seems unnecessary variation, and the rest is surely understood by the reader.
  • I'd prefer we keep the current wording there because by removing those parts, we lose the sense that Eilish is clearly referring to the favorite songs she made. When someone reads about X singer's favorite song, their first thought is not "ooh what's the song they had the most fun making?" - for all we know X singer could have a favorite song (by anyone) that isn't by them. So saying it's one of her favorite songs, no other clarifications attached, can be misleading. We also lose the sense that an artist can continue making new bodies of music and find their new favorite creation in the process. - Elias
    • Yes, fair comment that one wants to make it completely clear she's talking about her own work -- because of the context of the paragraph I thought it was obvious but perhaps you're right that it's safer to be explicit about it. But "to date" is unnecessary; we don't expect her to say her favourite song is one she'll write next year. I still don't like "called it", either. Can we structure the sentence so that a single verb of speech handles both halves, making it possible to just use "said" or "saying"? E.g. "...Eilish said it was one of her favorites among her own songs, and that its candid and personal lyrics..."? Not saying that particular phrasing is the way to go, just that we could splice the halves that way. Having a second verb of speech in the middle slows the sentence down a bit. This is probably another stylistic disagreement, though, so it's fine if you don't want to change it. Though I really think "to date" should go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
      • It is probably for the best to remove "to date" given its redundancy. And ftr I do like your suggestion - I'd just remove the comma before "and" per this essay on comma usage. Somewhat tangential, but I re-split the "this is about..." quotation into another sentence - to connect the two in a single sentence implies that the quotation directly demonstrates what is being described in the former half of the sentence. And that quotation does not exactly communicate that she felt vulnerable about the song or that she called it one of her favorite songs she wrote. - Elias
• Not crazy about "mentioning how its candid..." -- "that" would be better than "how": "how" implies we'll be told the manner in which it made her feel vulnerable, which is not the case. And "mentioning" again seems unnecessary variation -- "said" would work. "Said" is almost invisible and rarely needs to be varied.
  • Agreed with you that "that" is better than "how". Although I won't change "mentioning" to "said" because you already suggested we substitute it for a previous word in the sentence :") - Elias
    • Well, you haven't changed *anything* to "said" yet! But I would argue two uses of "said" in consecutive sentences in just as invisible as one. It absolutely disappears for a reader, which is what you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh, I haven't... yeah, you're right! brainz too fried lately - Elias
• 'She continued: "This is...' I think you could cut "She continued" and just use the colon to connect to the previous sentence.
  • Done
    • Actually, I changed my mind about this... - Elias
• I don't think "worldwide attention" is fully supported by the citations. Yes, she broke a record for Instagram likes, and I'm sure they came from everywhere but North Korea, but a reader isn't going to interpret "worldwide attention" that way. In fact why are the first two sentences in that article relevant to an article about the song?
  • After further thought I realize that yep, that detail is absolutely not relevant. Removed
    • I was also thinking that we didn't need to mention the interview at all but I was wrong -- the interview is the source for the quote so it's reasonable to mention it. But I think we could cut the interviewer's name; the reader gets nothing from it, since the lack of a link tells me Snape is not notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
      • You're right. Any chance to cut down on words is a chance I'd take. Her name has been axed - Elias
        • Looking at this again, "talked to the interviewer" is redundant with "gave an interview"; can we rephrase to eliminate one or the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Trimmed - Elias

More later, or possibly tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

All pending comments above have corresponding replies now. - Elias, 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've responded or struck above; I'll wait to post more till we've settled a couple more of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And the replies have their own replies now! The replies are making friends! :D - Elias, 05:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Continuing:

• "Acoustic guitars serve as the song's primary instruments": suggest "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments".
  • Done - Elias
• "Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and the sound of Eilish's older works": suggest "Critics observed a difference between its acoustic sound and that of Eilish's earlier works".
  • Changed "older" to "earlier" to make it seem more natural, though I kept "the sound of Eilish's..." because "its acoustic sound and that of..." implies "the acoustic sound of Eilish's earlier works". Which is not the point being communicated by the source - Elias
    • So the earlier work was not acoustic? It's a bit surprising to have four citations just to say this is an acoustic song and her previous work was not acoustic. Perhaps multiple critics pointed this out, but it's such a straightforward observation I don't think it's necessary to reinforce it with the extra citations; and in fact I don't think you need "critics observed", if I'm not misunderstanding. The previous sentence mentions the acoustic guitars, and something like "Acoustic guitars are the song's primary instruments -- a contrast with Eilish's earlier work" might suffice. Or "...with the electronic sound [or whatever is correct] of Eilish's earlier work". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes - while this is not the first time Eilish did a song backed predominantly by acoustic guitar (Party Favor (song) and I Love You (Billie Eilish song) come to mind), she did release "Your Power" at a time when most of the music she had put out thus far was electronic pop/goth pop/avant garde pop/whatever pop. Her breakout studio album was pretty much this. - Elias
      • And yeah, you are right that something like "this sounds different from her previous work" is an analysis uncontroversial enough to not warrant "critics observed" followed by a bunch of citations. I removed those bits and merged them with the previous paragraph - Elias
• "contrasted the production to what he described": should be "contrasted with"; "contrast to" is only used when "contrast" is a noun, e.g. "in contrast to her earlier work".
• "sonic influences": this is a modern journalistic usage and I would suggest avoiding it in favour of something like "musical influences". It sounds very odd to someone not used to reading music websites.
  • Good points. Reworded for both - Elias
• Unlink verses and chorus.
  • Unlinked - I probably overestimated how technical-sounding these terms are in the context of a song article. - Elias
• "With a duration of around four minutes,[49] the video": suggest "The four-minute video".
  • Trimmed although with a different approach in mind. - Elias
• "Meredith B. Kile‍ of Entertainment Tonight interpreted the scene as a metaphor for how authority can feel constricting": I don't think we need Kile's name, and I think a couple of words could be cut. How about"The Entertainment Tonight reviewer interpreted the scene as a metaphor for the constricting nature of authority"?
  • That flows better than the sentence I had in mind! By the way, the source reads "perhaps a metaphor for the suffocating power of the song's subject" - she was not making a sweeping assessment about the nature of authority in general. "the constricting nature of mishandled authority" would be a fairer summary of her point. - Elias

    I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine drew a connection between the music video for "Your Power" and the one for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002). In terms of visuals, she compared the two on the basis of their sepia color schemes, their panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video." Here I think it's worth keeping Zhang's name, since we need to mention here again later in the paragraph. However I'm not clear what it means to say "she compared the two" -- did she point out correspondences or similarities? And I think this can be compressed a bit. How about "Becky Zhang of Los Angeles magazine commented on similarities between the music videos for "Your Power" and for Britney Spears's "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet a Woman" (2002), including their sepia color schemes and panoramic cinematography, and their performers' being alone throughout the video."
  • The paragraph has been condensed and clarified to address this comment - Elias
    • I slightly reverted my edit that incorporated this suggestion - "including" here implies that the three similarities listed are three out of many, many, more. However, really, those are the only three points of comparison she made in the source. - Elias
• "Other critics opined that the lyricism in "Your Power" was a testament to Eilish's songwriting skills": does this mean more than "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting"? This phrasing takes "lyricism", which is praise, as a given; if we want to say that the song is lyrical, we should make it clearer that it's the opinion of these critics. And "opine" is said-bookism. If we want to keep "lyricism", how about "Other critics praised Eilish's songwriting for its lyricism"? You have this combined with another critic's comment at the moment, so maybe "Other critics praised the lyricism of Eilish's songwriting, which Jason Lipshutz of Billboard thought was...".
  • The point of that sentence was to show some critics thought "Your Power" showcased Eilish's songwriting talent (" though her life may be very different now, Eilish's talent for the alchemical process of making deeply personal matters into profound and empathetic music remains as strong as ever, if not more so. That skill was already present in ... 'Your Power' ") - not merely a praise of the songwriting in "Your Power" by itself. Whereas the latter opinion states that Eilish wrote a good song, the former opinion establishes Eilish as someone with a pattern of making songs with good lyrics. - Elias
    • I see -- that's the intent of "testament", then; fair enough. I still would like to change "opine", if we can. Can we make it "praised" instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
      • changed to "found" - Elias

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Incidentally, I see you've been converting my colon indents to asterisks -- can I ask why? I only noticed because I almost never use asterisks to indent except at the first level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I do this because as someone who gets overwhelmed easily with long walls of text I thought this was a good way to keep track of which pending replies I've already addressed, without having to strike them - which I believe is reservef for when the reviewer feels like the replies are no longer a concern. - Elias

Fine with me if you want to keep on doing it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you run into editors who don't like you changing their indents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

More:

• "Some music journalists also favored how "Your Power" portrayed abuse as...": to favour something is to prefer it, so I don't think this says what's intended.
  • Changed to "appreciated" - Elias
• "They applauded the songwriting for mixing Eilish's personal life with political commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, such as how prominent figures in the music industry still hold a high degree of influence despite receiving numerous allegations of workplace harassment." I think there are some opportunities to improve this sentence.
  • They're applauding the lyrics, not the songwriting, surely? Or at least they're applauding the song, not the writing of it, if the lyrics are not the only focus of their comments?
    • I meant to say that they liked Eilish's approach to writing the lyrics - to combine her own experiences with the experiences of others while writing "Your Power". Though I do agree "praised the lyrics" would sound more natural - I reworded the previous sentence to "appreciated how Eilish portrayed abuse" to preserve the meaning I wanted to convey - Elias
  • And "different" doesn't really work with "everywhere"; the point is either that the abuse of power is perpetuated everywhere, or that it can be perpetuated in different ways, but both together makes less sense. An "and" might fix it (I haven't read the sources so don't know if this can be supported): "...commentary about the different ways abuse of power is perpetuated, and the ubiquity of the abuses" -- again I'm not suggesting this particular wording, just giving a possible structure.
    • Rewrote to reflect the sources more precisely and address the clunky wording. - Elias
  • If you keep the second half of the sentence, I would cut "receiving"; it's an anodyne verb for such an serious point.
    • Excellent point. Cut - Elias
  • Everything after "such as" is not in the lyrics, which is a problem because the first half of the sentence implies the point can be drawn from the lyrics. The only thing in the lyrics that seems to speak directly to this is the word "contract", but that could just as well refer to the film industry, and even that's not very direct. Perhaps this is the reviewer's commentary, or something from an interview with Eilish? If so we should make it clearer where this interpretation is coming from.
    • Changed to "political references" - "Will you only feel bad if it turns out that they kill your contract" is the most politically charged line there (notwithstanding the fact that by its very nature the lyrics have prevailing political undertones), and I agree that it's not in-depth and explicit enough that "commentary" does not feel right to describe it. - Elias
• "Several of them analyzed the song within the context of #MeToo": I think we could shorten this to something like "Several journalists cited #MeToo" or "made reference to #MeToo". But this also feels like exactly the same point made in the previous sentence. Can these two sentences be connected more directly?
  • It's not the exact same point - #MeToo pertains to sexual abuse by powerful men, whereas the previous sentence deals with general abuse of power within the larger context of society. The cited Vulture source brings up verbally abused politician aides for example. So connecting these two sentences cannot be done, and I want to keep complex, lengthy sentences to a minimum considering this section already has loads of them - Elias
  • I would also prefer keeping it as "placed the song within the context of #MeToo" because the intended effect here is that "according to journalists, Eilish is directly contributing to the ongoing discourse around #MeToo through 'Your Power' ". We somewhat lose this sense when we simply say "cited #MeToo" or "referenced #MeToo" - it implies that all the reviewers merely namedropped the movement without further insight or analysis. A line like "Your Power captures the zeitgeist of the #MeToo era — not so much championing so-called 'cancel culture' as the growing climate of consequence" is more than just referencing it! - Elias
• "felt like its" is a bit colloquial. I think "Many reviewers felt the simple musical style..." would suffice.
• "...and soft vocals successfully emphasized the emotional impact that she sought to convey with her lyrics": suggest "effectively" rather than "successfully".
  • Changed wording for both - Elias
• "contrasting it with the perceived harsh and uncomfortable nature of the songwriting": why "perceived"? Shorthand for "what they perceived as"? I don't think that's a useful way to compress it, if so. And again I don't think you mean the songwriting; you mean the song, or perhaps the lyrics.
  • Rewritten for clarity - Elias
• 'Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald analyzed why she found this difference in tone effective: "The clever trick employed here is that the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."' I think this could be shortened -- we don't need to both explain what she said and then quote what she said. How about 'For Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen of The Sydney Morning Herald, the "clever trick" that made the difference in tone effective was that "the delivery of these cutting sentiments often sounds sweet, which makes them feel somehow even more acidic."
  • That seems good enough. Done - Elias
• "Publications have regarded" seems an odd way to say it. Would it be more natural to say '"Your Power" has been included by many publications in lists of Eilish's best songs"?
  • That's too wordy and I don't exactly agree it sounds less clunky than the current wording. - Elias
• "It was placed in the top 5 of listicles by Uproxx (4) and Rolling Stone (3), published in 2021 and 2022 respectively". I think I'd avoid using "listicle", but if you decide to keep it I'd link it. Suggest "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year" to avoid the need to use those parentheses; I think this version also makes the connection to the previous sentence clearer. And if we could join this to the next sentence we could simplify some more: how about "It was listed as the fourth best of her songs by Uproxx in 2021, and the third best by Rolling Stone the following year, while Consequence, NME, and MTV Australia all ranked it as one of her top 15 songs."?
  • Rewrote the Uproxx/RS sentence - parentheses should be removed, and it is also now active voice to make it read less oddly. - Elias
• "In addition, several publications...": suggest cutting "In addition"; the sentence makes the difference clear.
  • It's not about whether it helps clarify the difference so much as it's about serving as a transition word to avoid an abrupt speed bump in the paragraph flow. - Elias
• '"Your Power" received accolades for its lyricism': you cite awards, but "lyricism" is a particular quality -- intense or beautiful expressiveness. As far as I can see those citations don't really support the use of the word.
  • Changed to "lyrical themes" - Elias
• "The song received another nomination at the 2021 VMAs, specifically for Best Direction." Suggest "The song was also nominated for Best Direction at the 2021 VMAs".
  • I'd prefer not to change it so that it flows more smoothly with the preceding sentences and to avoid making the next sentence have the exact same sentence structure. - Elias
    • Can we combine the sentences somehow to allow us to avoid the duplicate structure? It's awfully wordy to say "she got another nomination, and specifically it was". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Should be rewritten now - Elias
• "In the process, "Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200": can we do without "In the process"? And how about joining this with the next sentence: '"Your Power" debuted and peaked at number 6 on the Billboard Global 200, giving Eilish her second top 10 in the two charts after "Therefore I Am", which peaked on both charts at number 2'.
  • "In the process" is there to directly connect the sentences beside it - the amount of streams and digital sales was responsible for its debut. If we remove it, it would become ambiguous when "Your Power" debuted/peaked on the Global 200 - was it during its opening week? Was it way later? - Elias
    • How about '"Your Power" debuted and peaked that week at number 6...'? "In the process" seems oddly technical in tone to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Since the technical tone seems to be the issue here and not the existence of a transition word itself, I swapped "in the process" out with "consequently". I hope this is satisfactory. - Elias
• '"Your Power" received 2.1 million streams from UK listeners...': active voice seems smoother to me: 'UK listeners streamed "Your Power" 2.1 million times...'.
  • Done - Elias
• "Upon the week's conclusion": suggest "At the end of the week".
  • Changed to "by the end of the week" - Elias
• 'It also entered the top 10 in Australia, her twelfth song to do so. On the singles chart published by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), "Your Power" debuted at its peak position of number 9.' A bit repetitive; can we combine these sentences?
  • I was a bit stumped on how to address this but I hope the newly combined sentence does the job well enough. - Elias
• "had garnered over 150 million streams": "garner" is another word that would be a said-bookism if it were a synonym for said; it only gets used this way in music journalism. Suggest "had been streamed over 150 million times worldwide".
  • Done - Elias
• The long list of countries in which the song reached the top ten is tedious to read and repeats information in the table further down the article. If a handful of these are particularly noticeable, I would suggest mentioning them and dropping the others as not worth the repetition.
  • I want to keep every country namedropped there if that's okay with you. The main theme in that section is "Your Power" reached top 10 in a whole bunch of places worldwide - something mentioned in the lead - proving that it was indeed a commercially successful single as the section's thesis statement says. That in mind, mentioning only the US, UK, and Australia feels like a cop-out and focuses unduly on one part of the world. However, I removed the chart positions because they're not as widely covered in media as the US, UK, Australia, and Global 200 ones, and because as you said it makes the sentence more tedious to read and repeats information in the table below. - Elias
    • I think I can live with that if you really want to keep it. As a reader, though, I would prefer to see something like "It eventually topped the national singles chart of Lithuania[93] and reached the top 10 of over a dozen other countries around the world", with the chart giving the details. I think a reader would understand more quickly that this is an impressive achievement. And I'd suggest changing "As time passed" -- the point being made is the end state, not the process of time passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I have relegated the list into a footnote, readding the peak positions for clarity. Huh. Honestly, the paragraph does read way more smoothly this way. - Elias
• "Accompanying her was her brother Finneas O'Connell, who played the acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals." Suggest "Her brother Finneas O'Connell accompanied her on acoustic guitar and provided additional vocals".
  • Done - Elias
• The image file for the hotel hallway image doesn't say it's in the Biltmore Hotel; do we know that's the case? And was it this particular hallway?
  • It's obviously unlikely it was that particular hallway: the photo is there to illustrate how the Biltmore Hotel looks from the inside, not to point out the exact location of filming. And given that the person who took the photo added "Category:Millenium Biltmore Hotel" to the file page, I am pretty confident that it is indeed the Biltmore Hotel. - Elias
• "was deliberate with choosing the color palettes for the set design": I think this would have to be "deliberate in her choice of", but what does "deliberate" add for the reader? If we say she "chose", we've said it was deliberate. And how does this connect to her synaesthesia? I can imagine that her colour choices had synaesthetic implications but I don't think we can leave that completely to the reader to figure out.
  • You figured out what it meant! Yes, the sentence should have been more direct with the relevance of her synesthesia here. This has been addressed - Elias
• "juxtaposed against": "juxtaposed" already implies "against"; suggest "juxtaposed with". Actually this might be a BrEng vs. AmEng usage, so ignore me if you want on this one -- I think "juxtaposed with" is right on both sides of the pond, but "against" might be AmEng only.
  • I'm keeping the wording. - Elias
• "Eilish, who used the song as the tour's midpoint interlude": I think you mean it was the midpoint interlude for the concerts on the tour, not for the tour. If that's not right I don't know what you mean.
  • You're right - that makes more sense. - Elias
• "in defiance of the overturning of Roe v. Wade": perhaps "in protest against" instead of "in defiance of"? She's not really defying it, is she?
  • Changed the wording, which should make it consistent with how the lead describes this - Elias

That's it for a first pass. Sorry about the slow progress of the review; I'm a bit less busy now so should be able to follow up more quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie - no worries about the pacing These comments have been extremely helpful so far, and it makes me grateful you were provide such thorough justifications for your comments. I'm also glad we were able to see eye-to-eye on some comments I chose not to implement. I have replied to every single point raised above. Take your time with the next passes; hope you have a nice weekend! - Elias, 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The MTV award is titled differently in the lead vs the body - which is correct?
  • Went with "Video for Good" in the lead to match the body - Elias
• FN5: author name spelling doesn't match source
  • Fixed - Elias
• Why is the Indie88 ranking significant enough to warrant mention?
  • Well, don't really have a good answer for that, other than "this seems like an RS (radio station) so let's include it" ... replaced with a source from Stuff, which is the largest news website in NZ and lists the song in a higher ranking (-ish) - Elias
• Be consistent in whether radio stations are italicized or not
  • KIIS-FM is now italicized - Elias
• FN72 is missing authors
  • Added - Elias
• FN129 is incomplete.
  • Incomplete in what sense? - Elias
    • Now FN131. Incomplete in that a web source should have at least one of |work= or |publisher=, and this has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
      • |publisher= parameter has been added. Let me know how the source review stands now. - Elias

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. Responses to everything above. - Elias, 23:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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