Talk:Joanne (Lady Gaga song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joanne (Lady Gaga song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Joanne (Lady Gaga song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 23, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Jonesey95, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 11, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Lady Gaga Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

United States: Music / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GOCE review

Hello. This is a really strong article and congrats on GA. I've reviewed the article and made some grammar and style edits. I also added a topic sentence to the Critical reception section. All of these changes you will see in the edit history. I've finished my review, and again, great article!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: Thanks for working on this article. However, in this diff, I'm not sure "after from" makes sense. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:Feel free to change that. I tried to read the reference you included in the article, but I know you are more of an expert on the topic, and will be able to phrase it better.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Unfortunately, you are reverting back in basic grammar errors and things that go against established policy. I'm not particularly interested in revert wars, So, I'm just going to remove my name from this review.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look through the article history, but I have completed a copy-edit of the article as it stood. Let me know if I have made any errors in my copy-editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of the topic sentence

I noticed you reverted the topic sentence I provided for the Critical reception section. I'm glad that you actually used a guideline and didn't just revert out of personal preference. That said, I think if you look a little more closely, you'll see that that the policy doesn't apply to this situation for a few reasons:

WP:SYNTH, is a guideline that warns against editors reading several sources and then coming up with an opinion based on those sources. For example, in this article, synth would have been if the article read, "Because so many critics gave the song great reviews, "Joanne" is a actually a great song." Even if many critics liked it, calling the song song "great" is an opinion. However, it is not opinion that the song mostly got good reviews. That is actually a fact. Some songs get largely negative reviews. Some get mixed reviews. If you peruse GA and FA song articles, you'll notice that topic sentences of this sort are standard in Wikipedia's best articles.
Topic sentences are not SYNTH. If you look at the [SYNTH guidelines further, you'll notice is says, "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy." Topic sentences, thesis statements, and article summaries are a part of good prose, which is the goal of Wikipedia articles. This very article has several: the lead section in itself is a summary.
SYNTH is not a policy, it is a guideline, so it can't be violated, per se. It's just a reminder to editors of how to write more effectively.
If you review WP:RECEPTION, you'll see that topic statements in critical review sections are encouraged and considered standard.

Since I'm part of the GOCE, I will keep going through the article to make sure the article reads well and has strong grammar, prose, and organization.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New information on the song

@IndianBio: Just wanted to let you know that is more news on this song (i.e. a piano version and an upcoming music vide) and this information should be added in the article in the future and refined to avoid a potential GAR in the future. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for "Joanne (Where Do You Think You’re Goin'?)", which is mentioned in the lead sentence? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Za wl 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne (Lady Gaga song) → Joanne (Where Do You Think You're Goin'?) – This is the official name of the single. JE98 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the name of the remix version/piano edit that was released much later than the original song. I don't think a renaming in necessary. --Sricsi (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not sure a move is justified given the album version of the song. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that's only the name of the piano version, and the song as a whole is known simply as "Joanne". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder, though, if the infobox (single) template should display the single's title? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the piano version that is the single, therefore it should be named as such. JE98 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as "Joanne" was the name of the original album track. I would have actually recommending placing information the piano version/single release into its own section (as done with "Homemade Dynamite" which had a remixed version of the album track released as a single). "Joanne (Where Do You Think You're Goin'?)" can definitely be used as a redirect, but I do not think the article title should change. A lot of its content is on the version from the album, so retitling it would lead to the false assumption that the entire article is only about the single release/piano version. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hiding the artist name is never beneficial to readers. In this case it is not even correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aoba47, it was never listed as such on the album, thus unnecessarily lengthy. Hayman30 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Joanne (Where Do You Think You're Goin'?" would be considered an obscure name. feminist (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Piano version

I think the article should be updated with more info about the piano version of the song. Although, I failed to find enough sources - other than reviews of the remixed edit. The producer of this version had a long post on Instagram, which I don't know if sufficient as source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BeaviqbnGJT/?utm_source=ig_embed

--212.203.51.92 (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, lets see if there are news sources for this. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if there any valid sources for that, but could we now update the article with a new section for the piano version of the song? For me, it's sometimes confusing in the article, which version of the song is being discussed. Also, in the Critical response section, there are no reviews at all regarding the piano edit, even though that's the version that has a Grammy-nomination, not the album track. There is also no info written about the recording of this version, who she recorded it with, etc. --Sricsi (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sricsi, to answer you, no didn't find any valid source talking about the recording of the piano version. Probably because its not significantly different (like how Jennifer Lopez's "I'm Real" remix was) and is just a stripped down version. The piano version in general did not much critical review separately from the original that I could find. If you can list some sources that would be great. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't have any other sources, could we use the Instagram page of Mark Nilan Jr. (https://www.instagram.com/p/BeaviqbnGJT/?utm_source=ig_embed) to include it in he article that he was the producer of the piano version? This song just won a Grammy, and we don't even have the name of its producer in the article. Or is there an iTunes link that that we could use and has this information? --Sricsi (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes metadata. I don't have the downloaded version in mine so can't check it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I checked it correctly, the iTunes data only has Gaga's and Mark Ronson's name featured, as songwriters. --Sricsi (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]