Talk:In My Head (Ariana Grande song)/GA1

GA nomination successful after article was sufficiently improved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. Expect initial comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll wait for your comments. Have a nice day! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. You'll most likely see me post section-by-section after I assess the Infobox and lead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. My first batch of comments is now here.

Infobox

Duration isn't cited or mentioned anywhere within article text. I'm not saying it's particularly contentious, but you do need to adequately source it. What I personally recommend is mentioning this within "Composition" and maybe one for a new "track listing" section. Added source, mentioned on Composition section
Per WP:JR, remove the comma after "Nelson" from "Lindel Deon Nelson, Jr." Done
It might help to clarify for readers unfamiliar with Pop Wansel that he and Andrew Wansel are the same person by using something like "Andrew 'Pop' Wansel" Done

Lead

See my previous note on WP:JR Done
I'm not convinced outfit details for music video are necessary here; seems more appropriate for the video's section Done
Is being used as an interlude REALLY important enough for inclusion? Comment: Yes, because the sources explain it was played at the tour but not sang by the singer

More will come later.SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have already addressed your comments. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background Development

I feel "Production" would be a more fitting section header when no actual background of the song is discussed here; it seems like that word was used just for the sake of having a section named "background" Comment: changed to Development since this section does not only discuss the production

That works too SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence is quite a mouthful! I'd split it by changing the semi-colon after "twelve hours" into a period. Done
"The involvement of more female songwriters in the album, compared to Grande's previous works, was noted by some journalists" is better for the parent album's article as it isn't specifically about this track alone Done
"suited with" from "suited with the lyrics" reads awkwardly; I'd remove the "with". This also is part of another overly long sentence that should be split (my recommendation is again replacing the semi-colon with a period). Done
I don't see how "Elite Daily" (one of the citations you use) is reliable, though there's already an interview covering the Jack Nicholson bit anyway. One thing I do suggest is giving a time frame of when in the video she discusses it (I found that somewhere between the 6-minute and 7-minute mark) given the long duration; over an hour! Comment: You should have read all the parameters of the citation. It is already stated that the information is discussed around the 6:42 mark.

My bad! Not sure how I missed that bit, though I still have doubts about "Elite Daily", which should be removed as unnecessary and questionable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Daily is just compiling the information from Ariana's websites. I don't know why you find it questionable. It is a website that post articles about varied topics and is owned by Bustle Digital Group. I included it because some readers would rather read the article instead of watching the interview. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The owner isn't my concern. What gives me doubts about Elite Daily is the fact that I couldn't find any credentials for authors, an editorial staff, a reputation for fact-checking, or anything of similar nature. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Then a third opinion is needed for this website, because we don't agree with its reliability. --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS I opened a thread here. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the website since nobody wanted to help. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't alter quotes with your only terminology in brackets; it detracts from reference attribution integrity. Paraphrasing is fine, but don't change bits of a direct quote like this currently does. Comment: so you suggest to leave it as: "[Middlebrook] was a major help to me throught some v difficult moments so i wanted to capture that a lil, give him a musical hug. its also his favorite song so it fits" ??

Almost; use "He" at the beginning like Ariana actually does instead of the bracketed last name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added a [sic] since it is too informal. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next comments will follow after these are addressed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Addressed. --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my above replies. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have addressed your comments. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

I'm not sure the voicemail warrants a quotebox like this, but either way, the Jack Nicholson bit is already mentioned in the previous section Done
5 citations for one sentence? Seems to be rather much per WP:CITEKILL. You shouldn't need more than 3, with 1 for duration and 1 or 2 for genres. I'd use just Complex or just The Atlantic for R&B. As for trap, it seems that Medium.com (what's used for it) is a site full of user-generated content, so I'd find something else. Your link to it also doesn't support the subsequent sentence "The track is written in the key of G major and set in common time signature, with it having an electro ballad tempo of 68 beats per minute." fixed, The Straits Times support the trap genre.
Complex doesn't support anything pertaining to "But it was all in my head". Unless I'm missing something, the other citations following it (The Atlantic and The Ringer) don't make any mention of "a high vocal register" either or even suggest it for that lyric.

Comment: Complex says: "Grande had to switch her flow in the chorus from a dreamy, ascending high note..."

The Atlantic says: "...'In My Head' slathers on Grande's tics—including a glass-shattering vocal run in the chorus..."
The Ringer says: "...the chorus goes, 'But it was all in my head', that last word an anguished, 10-syllable spiral heavenward".

--Paparazzzi (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I didn't properly catch those the first time around, but thanks for the highlights. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comment on altering quotes with your own terminology within brackets Done
Let's remove the Pete and Mac pictures; they don't add as much value as photos of people who actually worked on the song, even if there was speculation this track is about one or both Not done the article basically revolves around them, since Ariana did not disclose who is the song about. People might be more intrigued to know who are the people this song is about instead of the obscure songwriters/producers--Paparazzzi (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Latern" is a university paper by students; let's get something more professional instead Done

Hard to say when I'll get to "Critical reception", but at least this section is now fully assessed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Unless you can provide a citation specifically indicating this had overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews, any assessments on the matter is WP:SYNTH
Let's elaborate on the "sign of growth" bit, specifically how Vulture details criticizing oneself as opposed to others Done
To be honest, Rolling Stone isn't offering much of a review here, so we can safely do without it Done
When "Wide Awake" was released is irrelevant here; save such detail for that song's article instead Not done every song/album year of release needs to be mentioned

Why is that? Its release year has literally nothing to do with this track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS:

Done --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I should be able to get down at least some comments on the music video within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like "one of the most personal tracks" is missing a mention of Thank U, Next; don't just assume readers will automatically know this is what you mean without such detail Done
I'm not familiar with "Jenesaispop". Is it reliable? Comment: Yes, it is. It's a Spanish online website about music, one of the few reliable ones in Spanish
Don't mix quotes like you did for Idolator; the reviewer isn't mixing "hazy" and "sequel" together in the way you've suggested. Done

Pretty good job overall with reviews. "Commercial performance" will be next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

Remove the space between "on the Canadian Hot 100, also on the issue for February 23, 2019." and its citation Done
Are you certain this didn't chart any higher than 21 on the Digital Greece chart? The citations currently used only support three different weeks. Done I have; the song only spent three weeks on the chart, I have already reviewed the following weeks and only a few songs from the album spent more than a month
Using "in" as much as you have to introduce nations listed feels kind of repetitive; try implementing a wider diversity of words Done

Once I get to "Music video", that'll probably be done one subsection at a time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have addressed your comments. --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

Development and release

Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to invoke the same citation more than once in a row within a paragraph
How trustworthy are "Lab.tm" and "Revelist" (two of the sources used)? I ask this because I don't really know much about either of them. Comment: Yes, they are reliable
If known, it would be nice to include when this was filmed Not done not information revealed about this
the "fourth music video from the album" bit is trivial Not done many websites confusingly called this the fourth single from the album, so the clarification is needed

While I'm not sure how that clarifies anything, I too have seen this incorrectly referred to as a single. Are you suggesting people might assume having video automatically means something is a single even when that's an oversimplification? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Yes, I do. I would rather add something like "Despite not being released as a single, it is the fourth music video from the album" as a clarification. --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite not being released as a single" is faulty as would incorrectly imply that it broke some sort of rule where singles are the only songs that can have music videos. Such a rule definitely doesn't exist. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Music videos are a way to promote songs. Songs that get this kind of promotion usually are singles (why would an artist spend their money and time to promote a song if it is not a single? We don't know). That's why it needs clarification. Just read those journalists (the people we are supossed to rely on) calling it a single just for the fact that a music video for it was released. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If trying to clarify a non-single release, then "Despite not being released as a single" or anything along those lines wouldn't be a good way to do it because of the misleading impression that sentiment gives on whether something is a single. You'd be better off with "the first non-single from Thank U, Next to have a music video" or something similar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

I'm not convinced File:Ariana Grande In My Head MV.jpg meets WP:NFCC#8 Not done the image helps to illustrate Grande's "signature look", which was what the director wanted to showcase in the visuals
"an oversized puffer jacket" → "a puffer jacket" (size is a minor detail) Done
"In some parts, the artist sings a cappella, and the clicking of her heels becomes audible"..... superfluous, especially the heels part Not done this is something that happens recurrently on the music video, and is highlighted here because it is not something that's usually done on music videos. It is also part of the things that the director wanted to showcase ("It's the voice, it's the ponytail, it's the boots, it's the silhouette.")
Inquisitr (one reference used) is subpar and should be replaced/removed Done

I'll get to the video's reviews in my next batch. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Addressed your comments. --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

See my previous comment on WP:SYNTH for overall assessments of favorable/mixed/unfavorable reception Done
I recommend expanding this section, perhaps by using more from the references implemented for minimalism/simplicity/1990s influences; three reviews alone isn't very much Done Added two more reviews.--Paparazzzi (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlink 1990s and "early 2000s" per WP:OVERLINK Done
Spell out decades in full (1990s vs '90s) per MOS:DATE Done

Charts

Looks good

Credits and personnel

No issues

References

Use italics for Billboard, Complex, The Atlantic, The Straits Times, The Washington Post, W magazine, Cosmopolitan, Entertainment Tonight (which shouldn't have "online" in its title), Elle, The Guardian, Bustle, Out, Atwood Magazine, Vogue, and (presuming you can't find a better substitute) Page Six Done, I still used Page Six

Overall

Prose: Needs some adjusting and unlinking
Referencing: Not all citations are properly formatted, and I don't particularly recommend using Elite Daily or Page Six when anything better can be used Comment: I removed Elite Daily but I still used Page Six
Coverage: Music video reviews need to be fleshed out more Done added two more reviews; the section used to have more but I removed some reviews because the websites were not that reliable
Neutrality: No bias detected
Stability: All good
Media: The FUR for File:Ariana Grande In My Head MV.jpg is incomplete; all fields should be filled out Done
Verdict: Placing on hold. Starting now, I'll give you seven days to address the remaining comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have addressed all of your comments. I still used Page Six and I modified the sentence regarding "In My Head" not being a single and having a music video. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough to pass. Congrats on getting this to GA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

@Paparazzzi and SNUGGUMS: The article just received a copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. Can you both please make sure you're fin with these changes? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Another Believer for the notice. I only object to changing "alongside its producers" to "and produced by" as it downplays how this track's producers also co-wrote it and the phrasing "the February 23, 2019, issue U.S. of the Billboad Hot 100" which seems jumbled up (likely due to a typing error) where "the February 23, 2019, issue of the U.S. Billboad Hot 100" would make more sense. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Hello! Thanks for the copy edit, it has improven the article greatly! The reviewer of the GA nomination, SNUGGUMS, left some comments about it above, I wonder if you can address them. Thank you so much! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paparazzi: See if they like these changes. Good luck. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would still include US for Billboard Hot 100 as we shouldn't just presume every reader will know what country it is for when not all people are familiar with it (though am glad that it isn't awkwardly placed now), and your new edit regarding producers still fails to note they also contributed to the songwriting. The current text incorrectly implies they only worked on production. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I added the US for Billboard Hot 100 and fixed the songwriters/producers line. --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.