Talk:Emotion: Side B/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 20:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I just did a first read through the article and my overall impression is that it's in a very healthy state. I saw a few little instances of awkward or unclear wording, but I think in most cases I can fix those in less time than it would take me to complain about them here.

About to start a more in-depth pass, reading more carefully, checking some references, etc. Will follow up soon with comments/suggestions. Colin M (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I think this is very close to GA, just a few minor issues (described below, comments organized by section).

Also, you may have noticed I boldly made some small-ish changes as I was going through - you might want to review them and see if they're all agreeable to you.

Background and development

Broadway hiatus

Her hiatus in New York, where she held a brief stint as Cinderella on Broadway, influenced the album's production as it forced Jepsen to assess her frustrations and spurred a decision to seek out musicians she admired: "'I'm not into making what I’ve already made, I want to try something new and if you're open to that, let's meet.'"

I'm pretty confused about this sentence:

• "hiatus" from what?
• "forced her to assess her frustrations"? What frustrations? Why did it force her to do that?
• What's the context on the "I'm not into making what I've already made..." quote? Is that a verbatim message she sent to other artists she admired? Or a paraphrase of how she reached out to artists?

I'd be tempted to just cut this sentence entirely. (The background of Emotion can be covered in depth in that album's article. This section should focus on background that's important to Side B.)

(Also, the link to Cinderella (2013 Broadway production) on the word "Broadway" is a little surprising (cf. MOS:EGG). Maybe better to link the whole phrase "Cinderella on Broadway"?)

I believe I did it, please take a look and perhaps give it a little "magic touch", some tweeks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. But I'm still kind of stymied by the "forced to assess her frustrations" thing. Would you object to just removing these two sentences? Colin M (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm not the main nominator. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Chiming in after the fact to agree with the removal. I think I can kinda see what the original writer was getting at, with the hiatus spurring Jepsen's change in sound and choice of collaborators, which would have impacted the Emotion sessions that Side B comes from. But it doesn't quite make the jump to connecting the significance of that fact to Side B in particular. I've added a "Main article" note at the top of the section to Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album), to make it clear that that's where additional background on the Emotion sessions as a whole should be found. —BLZ · talk 20:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tour

She embarked on the Gimmie Love Tour in support of the album in late 2015, which she recounts as a gratifying experience and prompted the EP's development when fans asked of leftover material.

Little grammar issue here. Maybe cleaner to break into two sentences? e.g. She embarked on the Gimmie Love Tour in support of the album in late 2015. She cited repeated requests from fans during the tour to release an "Emotion 2.0" as an inspiration for Emotion Side B. Or... Jepsen recalled being "overwhelmed" by reactions from fans during the tour, including repeated requests for an "Emotion 2.0" release.  Done

Composition

In "Higher", Jepsen contextualizes a burgeoning relationship with her past A little unclear on what this means (and couldn't find anything corresponding in the Pitchfork article the sentence cites).

(BTW, I really loved this section as a whole. Well written, and drawing from a good variety of robust sources.)

I tried to improve it, please take a look now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I made some further refinements on top of your changes. I think it's in a good state now. Colin M (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Release

There, "Cut to the Feeling" was used in a commercial to promote Bioré's line of makeup removers, which Kao deemed as congruent with their message of women's empowerment. This seems like it's straying a little off topic. This fact is probably a better fit for Cut to the Feeling.  Done

Critical reception

The second paragraph here has some issues:

Jepsen's decision to release Side B in the aftermath of Emotion's campaign fumble was observed upon. Writing for Exclaim!, Jill Krajewski quipped: "[...] if the rollout of Emotion was overthinking it, Side B finds Jepsen coming to a sweet realization: Don't think it over." She praised the EP for its high "single potential" and ponders if the songs were blueprints to "Run Away with Me", the megahit of its parent album, "And yet, in their raw state, they show Jepsen at her most powerful and unfettered [...]" In a more mixed review, the 405's Mark Matousek states that Side B is "most instructive in the ways it illuminates her process. It lets us peek in on the misfits [...] and hints at the unsexy labor of music-making." Nelson echoes this sentiment, and both reviewers found the track "Body Language" to be lacking. Reception was negative towards "Store" as well.

• First sentence seems like a bit of an excessive preamble. Also, it refers to a "campaign fumble" for Emotion as if the reader should be familiar with this idea, but I don't think this was covered anywhere in the article. (It's mentioned that Emotion had underwhelming sales, which doesn't seem like exactly the same thing)
• the megahit of its parent album this is definitely not written in an encylopedic voice. Is it supposed to be part of one of the surrounding quotes?

• That line about "the megahit" was taken from the original review; I've added it back in as part of a longer quote. I think including only the part about "Run Away With Me" is confusing, since it suggests that the reviewer was saying all of the songs are similar in style to "Run Away With Me" (rather than similar in function). I think the reviewer's point was that each song on Side B seemed like an effort at a song that could have fulfilled a role as a central mega-single (the role the reviewer believes was played by "Run Away With Me"), and that these songs were not necessarily destined or intended to have been mere "filler" if they had appeared on Emotion. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reception was negative towards "Store" as well. Is this still talking about the two specific reviewers mentioned previously, or in general? More context would help.

It's kind of an interesting decision under "Accolades" to include rows for end-of-year lists on which the EP didn't appear. What's the rationale there? It seems like an unusual choice. For example, at Emotion: Side_B#Charts we don't have rows for any of the charts the album didn't appear on. (Also, are we sure the EP was eligible for all those lists on which it didn't appear? i.e. were there any EPs or mixtapes on The A.V. Club's albums of the year list, or was it all LPs?) Colin M (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? The EP is on every single list. Some of them don't have a position but it is a preference of editor, they didn't choose "This was my second favorite", they just said, "this one is among my favorites of the year". I don't know, Emotion: Side B made The A.V. Club's albums of the year list, that's what matters. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur with the above; "N/A" in the "Rank" column means that a release was included on an unranked list. —BLZ · talk 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I should have actually followed some of those references. I feel like my misinterpretation is an easy one to make though. I'm not sure if there's any clearer way to present the information though. Maybe could have asterisks next to the "N/A" entries with a note in small font under the table explaining that lists marked with asterisks were unordered? Or could just have some text preceding the table saying something like "Emotion: Side B appeared on the following year-end lists for 2016:". Just a couple ideas. I'm not super confident that either would be an improvement. Colin M (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; I ended up having a busier weekend than I anticipated and reviewing this article dropped off my to-do list. I think all the changes recommended in the review were solid. I've made some additional copyedits of my own. Other than the "megahit" line, I don't think any of my changes were closely related to the comments in this review, and most of them were pretty minor tweaks. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'm happy to mark this as a GA. Huge thanks to MarioSoulTruthFan for rescuing this review, and to Brandt Luke Zorn for their excellent copy edits and input. Colin M (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)