Talk:Lights Up/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will begin reviewing this article shortly. I began listening to Harry Styles after "Kiwi", which really showcased his departure from 1D (not a fan of the group's music, sorry...) and becomes one of my go-to songs whenever I want to feel energized lol. His new album Fine Line is also a solid album, though I have not listened to all tracks, including this one. Probably I'll check this one out after reviewing this article. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, thank you for quickly taking this up for review. I look forward to addressing your comments. :) --Ashley yoursmile! 11:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I am not seeing the reference for the recorded year 2019 in the article.

Rolling Stone source [1] mentions that. ~~I'm going to~~ I've add another sentence to the background and production section which backs up the recording year. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thank you. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

compared it frequently probably "compared it" would be enough
number 3 "number three" (per WP:MOSNUM)

I'm aware that that integers from 0 to 9 are spelled out in words, but MOS:NUM also states "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." So since we are referring to two chart peaks "three" and "17", which are comparable figures, so I wrote 3 and 17. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me, HĐ (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reaching the top 10 in 12 other countries this reads like WP:OR. I'd recommend naming some specific countries

~~I could do that, but then the very next line about the certifications mentions the names of some specific countries as well, so shouldn't that sound monotonous?~~ HĐ, I rephrased it. See if it reads alright now. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably The song peaked within the top 10 on charts and received certifications in [select countries] in order to avoid repetition. Some countries will have to be removed, though. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and production

1970s classic rock I don't think "classic rock" refers to 1970s rock but rather 1960s rock. Consider revising this

HĐ, Vulture states: "Lights Up", a step back from the studious classic rock aesthetic powering his self-titled 2017 solo debut." Variety states: "The song is a bit of a departure from Styles’ debut, which followed an unexpectedly early ’70s sound that at times recalled Elton John, Nilsson and other luminaries of the era;" Billboard states: "2017's Harry Styles introduced a sound worth revisiting: the millennial pop star chasing elegant classic rock balladry." The Guardian states "It largely leaves behind the 70s rock influences of his 2017 debut." Any thoughts? Also expanded a bit about the songwriting process. I'd really appreciate it you could take a look. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your expanding the part! I'd like to see it paraphrased wherever possible, though, to avoid potential copyright violations. Regarding the 70s rock influence, I'd recommend removing "classic" as it's rather dubious. HĐ (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "classic". I don't think the quote paraphrasing in background and production section is needed since the original source is in Italian, so that doesn't violate copyvio which currently stands at 23.1% for a Billboard ref.. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Released after a two-year hiatus, "Lights Up" marks a departure from Styles' signature rock style towards a more pop-leaning sound.[1][2][3][5][6] There are five references for this claim... Is there any source that could sum this up?

I don't think so. I could possibly cut down the number of references, if that helps. --Ashley yoursmile! 06:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, HĐ (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The song composed in 4/4 time grammar
There is doubt about the reliability of Musicnotes.com. I don't urge you to remove this as a source, but treat it with cautions
"Lights Up" eschews traditional song structures Previously it mentions that the song follows a verse-chorus form, which I think is rather conventional?

removed the verse-chorus part since I couldn't find another reliable source which states that.

Styles' "Styles's" (MOS:'S)

More to come.. HĐ (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

on his social media Probably "on his social media accounts"?
I think some parts regarding this song's placement/production in relation with the album Fine Line should be in the first section

I have added a sentence with regards to the song's placement on the album. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of the B-side track "Do You Know Who You Are?" It appears this song is not on Fine Line, so some information on its production/lyrics etc. may be helpful here

There's no discussion of the B-side track "Do You Know Who You Are?" that I could find. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Watermelon Sugar"

Critical reception

Caramanica called that the song probably "said that"

changed. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of quotes here! I'd like to see the section paraphrased here and there (WP:QUOTEFARM)
(this is a side note, nothing to do with the article) O'Connor said the year 2019 was dominated by synth-pop, but that's rather... subjective? I don't recall synth-pop hits throughout the year, but mostly hip hop and R&B/trap hits..

agreed. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid single-word quotations such as "groovy, melodic track" as they don't add substance

removed. --Ashley yoursmile! 11:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to group similar opinions so that the section becomes more coherent (WP:RECEPTION). For instance, I can see that Time, Guardian, and Atwood highlighting Styles's experimentation

I rewrote the reception section with some adjustments, cutting down quotes wherever possible; perhaps not the best attempt, but probably what I can do for now. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

top 10 entry "top-10 entry"
In Ireland, the song peaked at number four on the Irish Singles Chart, becoming Styles's highest debut on the chart at the time. A month later, it was surpassed by "Watermelon Sugar", which arrived at number two in the country This reads like trivia. I would removethe "highest debut" bit

rephrased.--Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It became Styles's second highest charting debut on the chart at the time, behind "Sign of the Times" at number four. Ditto. Avoid "at the time" (I don't remember the link to the discussion, but there is a consensus that "at the time" phrasings are discouraged)

thanks for the advice, rephrased. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is good!

Music video

I don't think we need a sub-heading for "Synopsis and reception" as this section is already compact

removed. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link bacchanal as it is an uncommon term (at least for me, who does not speak English lol)
Very informative. Now I think this is an anthem for me!

Track listing

This is of personal preference, but I don't think this section needs to use the template {{Track listing}} when we only have the title and the length. I personally prefer using this template when there is information on writers, producers etc.

changed. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

Credits adapted "Credits are adapted" as it is a full sentence (there's a full stop)

Charts, certifications, release history

Good

References

Ref 33 should be replaced with a non-primary source
Ditto for ref 77

I looked up several articles with regards to the secondary source for the RIM charts, but to no avail. All pages use the facebook ref. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

On hold for seven days. Feel free to respond to my concerns where you find irrational. Good luck, HĐ (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, thank you very much for the review. I have implemented mostly everything that you suggested, however, have left a few comments above. Ashley yoursmile! 10:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is no discussion of the B-side track, and one remaining Facebook ref, that is not enough to hold this nomination back from promotion. Thank you for your responses, and brilliant work with the article! HĐ (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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