Talk:Daughters (Nas song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs) 06:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name is CaliforniaDreamsFan, and I'll be reviewing this article! You will receive the review within a couple of days .

Review

Infobox

Add an alt to the image please.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the AllMusic link; you can reference this throughout the song article (I'll tell you where).

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the writers tab, add a format with the writers in them (separate each writer with the | icon). Or, you can use the
format.

That's not really necessary; items are traditionally separated by commas, and there's no policy on Wikipedia governing what format to use. Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Removed the apostrophe after "July 12, 2012".

There's no apostrophe after the date, unless you were referring to the comma, which should be there (MOS:DATE) Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake there.

Reword "as the third single from his 2012 album Life Is Good" –––> "as the third single from his eleventh studio album, Life is Good (2012)"

That's too much information and inhibits the read; "third", "eleventh"... slightly jarring for readers and not relevant to this topic IMO. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that its "too much information"; the readers may think of it as his debut album/eighth/14th album, etc.

If readers are casually interested in that, they can read the album article; it's of no relevance here. Dan56 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this, add who wrote and produced the song.

No I.D. is mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You saying "Nas recorded the song with producer No I.D." does not state that I.D. produced the song in my opinion; it just sounds like he was there present at the recording. Who know's what he could have been doing during the session.

Add "it" after "recorded"

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is slightly odd to me; re-write it as –––> "Musically, "Daughters" is a hip-hop song, influenced by soul music. Described by Nas as a "highly personal song", it features lyrics about raising a daughter and personal vignettes about fatherhood. Nas' lyrics address his daughter's behavioral problems and are self-critical of his parenting skills. It also contains samples of Cloud One's 1979 song "Dust to Dust" and Wayne McGhie and the Sounds of Joy's 1970 song "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye"."

That doesn't sound like an improvement IMO; Nas doesn't use those words to describe it so I don't understand the quotation marks... I revised parts, but it'd be fair if you explain more than just that it sounded odd to you. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was suppose to say "flows" more coherently, not "odd". But when it says that its a highly personal song by Nas; who says this? Or describes it as personal? I understand the lyrical depiction of his daughter, but this could also sound as if it was from a fan's point of view, or maybe your point of you. I only put quotation marks around "highly personal song" because its sounds if their has been a description of someone saying its a "highly personal song". Also, you stated "No I.D.'s soul-influenced production"; were's the reference to his soul-influenced production? If you want any help for the lead, you can just look at my GA article "Laser Beam" as a guidance.

The reference is in Daughters (Nas song)#Music and lyrics Dan56 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"earned Nas Grammy Awards nomination for Best Rap Performance and Best Rap Song." –––> "earned Nas two Grammy Awards nominations, one for Best Rap Performance and Best Rap Song."

Ok. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that the song has charted on the/any Billboard charts, add a brief detailing of it here.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

Knowing that this heading is Writing and recording, make a first sentence on who wrote it along with Nas.

Well, he wrote the lyrics; the rest is credited to No I.D. (Wilson) as a composer (i.e. he produced the beat, which in turn was a sample, credited to the composers of the original recording: Patrick Adams, Gary DeCarlo, Dale Frashuer, Paul Leka)... and they didn't really write "Daughters". Dan56 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nas said in an interview for XXL:" –––> "Nas said in an interview with XXL"
There's a lot of the word "song" in this section, change it up by saying words like "track" or "recording".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is really good and well referenced!

Music and lyrics

This is where you add the AllMusic reference; write this in the first sentence of the section; ""Musically, "Daughters" is a hip-hop song, influenced by soul music."

That source doesn't support that sentence. Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was the AllMusic link in the infobox next to hip-hop? If there is not reference stating its a Hip-Hop song, then remove it from the infobox and leave it blank.

Because it only supported "rap/hip hop", but if you read the rest of the article, "hip hop" is verified by other sources. Dan56 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is good!

Release and reception

Remove the word "was" before "premiered".
The remaining of the article is quite jumbled. I'll make sub-headings below and I strongly recommend you do this to help improve the article.

Subheadings for single/short paragraphs should be avoided (MOS:PARAGRAPH), and it's recommended that short paragraphs in general be merged to create more substantial sections; I don't see what's "jumbled". Each paragraph stays on its respective topic, but I moved the accolades to the second paragraph, which deals with its mainstream reception (record charts, mainstream publications, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the sub-sections (==== ====) as a direction of what I'm talking about for the review, not on the article itself. You have brought up five main topics within one heading which I believe is too much; the release dates, music video, promotion, chart performance, critical analysis, AND a controversial response by his ex-wife. You can separate the entire first paragraph and make a ==Release and promotion== heading because there's enough to separate it. The same goes with the remaining paragraphs, section it as ==Reception==.

I believe I already responded to this with my previous comment; it is preferable that single-paragraph sections be merged to a related section (MOS:ALBUM#Article body). The way you describe the state of the section suggests I should separate the first paragraph into two or three even shorter ones. I see three paragraphs for three topics: release/promotion, public reception, and the personal bit, @CaliforniaDreamsFan: Dan56 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

""Daughters" was premiered on DJ Prostyle's radio show on Power 105.1 on April 26, 2012.[12] It was subsequently released as a digital download on iTunes on May 1.[13] Def Jam Recordings released the song on July 17 as a single,[14] the third from Life Is Good.[3] It was performed by Nas on the Late Show with David Letterman on July 17.[15] A music video for the song was directed on April 30 by Chris Robinson,[16] and premiered via YouTube on May 27.[17] Nas also wanted to record a remix of the song with Eminem, who turned the offer down, explaining that he had spoken enough on the subject of fatherhood in his own music.[5] He also reached out to Jay-Z, but their busy schedules did not permit them to record together."

Try and extended the music video part with some more details of what is going on, since you have a verified link to YouTube.

YouTube is not an appropriate source for visual details (WP:YOUTUBE) Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it is uploaded by Vevo (whether you use the YouTube site or Vevo site). But if not, then extended it with links like this; Rap-Up (http://www.rap-up.com/2012/05/27/video-nas-daughters/) or MTV (http://www.mtv.com/news/1685919/nas-daughters-video/).

Added a line. Dan56 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"Daughters" received positive reviews from music critics,[19] including AllMusic editor David Jeffries, who found it "well written",[20] and Robert Christgau, who named it a highlight on Life Is Good.[21] Greene deemed it a "sweetly reflective response" by Nas to his daughter's behavior,[8] while Amidon found his level of honesty on the song "intense" and "probably the most honest we’re ever going to hear Nas".[22] Alex Macpherson of Fact called it "a song that's as likely to make fathers everywhere misty-eyed as it is to make teenage girls cringe in horror".[23] "Daughters" was nominated for Grammy Awards for Best Rap Performance and Best Rap Song, set to be presented at the 55th Grammy Awards in 2013.[25] Complex named the song #39 of the best 50 songs of 2012. "Daughters" peaked at number 78 on the U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, on which it charted for nine weeks.

Carmen Bryan, Nas' ex-wife, was critical of the song, calling it a "disappointment" while claiming via Twitter, "He had nothing positive to say about our daughter and his depiction of her is false!"[24] In response, Common defended Nas for his personal songwriting and likened "Daughters" to his own 1997 song "Retrospect for Life", which he wrote about his girlfriend's abortion. "I've had people come to me because of those type of songs and say it changed their life", Common told XXL. "Or somebody be like, 'Man, that song made me decide to have my child instead of having an abortion.' Something that Nas said in that song may inspire somebody to be a better father so I think it’s worth it."[3] In an interview for Vibe, Nas said of his daughter's reaction to the song:

"I think she understands where I was coming from. She can hear me saying that I wasn’t always around and I wasn’t always the best dad, but I care. And there are a lot of fathers like me. To me, ‘Daughters’ lets all those fathers out there know, ‘Hey, don’t end up like me in terms of not being there all the time.’ You should really pay attention to the most precious thing in the world. Destiny and I hang out all the time. She never beefs with me about it."[5]

Is there any more reviews for the song? Knowing that Nas' studio album has had rave reviews, and a variety of them, I suggest you add some more in to the article.
Briefly stated that Common is an "American rapper".

Done. And I added one more review, but they generally say the same thing about this song, which shouldn't be overstated (WP:CRIT#Neutrality and verifiability) Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

Everything is good!

Credits

Change the title to credits and personnel
Add the recording studio information here. Use the article "Wait & See (Risk)" as an example.

this isn't "credits", it's "personnel" (and it's formatted/written in the vein of MOS:ALBUM#Personnel) Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Everything is good!

References

Separate the references into two columns by using

.

DOne. Dan56 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other additional notes

Has he performed the song on any of his live concerts/tours? If so, then make a Live performances heading and add it there, with reliable references. And, if there is, add any live performances you have stated into there.

I'm sure he has, but what significant third-party coverage of these performances would there possibly be? Dan56 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Def Jam Recordings include his performance at Hackney Music Festival.

That's not third-party coverage, but more importantly, what purpose would it serve readers? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any cover versions of this song? If not, then just leave it.

No. Dan56 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

The article is really, really good! Just some small edits that need to adjust for this article! On hold for 7 days! Good luck CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 00:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ping me below once you have finished! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: I think it's good enough now. Whilst there are points I strongly recommended in the review, based on what is written throughout the article, its cohesive, neutral, verified with good references, and appropriate. Passing

CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 08:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]