Talk:Pay Your Way in Pain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 March 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

Article looks neat on first glance, but I will review shortly for the GAN Backlog Drive! --K. Peake 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Remove venue parameter, as that is for live recordings
WP:OVERLINK of St. Vincent (musician) under songwriter(s)
"the lyrics were inspired by" → "its lyrics were inspired by"
"The song received generally positive reviews" → ""Pay Your Way in Pain" received generally positive reviews"

Done all

Background and release

Remove target on St. Vincent in prose and on the img text
Remove comma after fifth studio album
Remove target on Daddy's Home
"She wanted to" → "During an interview with NME, St. Vincent said she wanted to" since this sentence is where the NME quotes start
"and performance" and inspired" → "and performance", and inspired"
Remove the part of the following sentence before the comma, as the introduction is not appropriate there
"recorded songs for the album at the" → "recorded songs for Daddy's Home at"
Identify the pandemic as the COVID-19 pandemic since this may otherwise be confusing for readers in the future
"by Antonoff and" → "for both Antonoff and"
"has been credited under her birth name" → "is credited under her birth name of"
No source calls this the opener of the album

added Rolling Stone source.

Shouldn't you mention next to the joint role of vocal production that both of them played the guitar to avoid repeatedly referencing the instrument?
Remove wikilink on guitar
Target percussion to Percussion instrument
"and provided backing vocals" → "as well as providing backing vocals" to avoid overusing "and", with the target
"produced the vocals. Antonoff also" → "produced the vocals, while Antonoff also"
Remove wikilink on piano
"the song with the help of" → "the song, with assistance from"
"mixed the track while" → "mixed the track, while" with the target
Digital download format is not backed up by the sources, only streaming is from Tidal

Kyle Peake, the Apple Music citation is available for the album not the single, so not sure if I should replace it. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything else

Music and lyrics

Target indie-rock to Indie rock
Swap the EW quote and the key of the song for the correct order
[21] is not needed here when it backs up none of the info
"She sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" in" → "Clark sings in "sensual, rhythmic moans" alongside"
"processed vocals which take" → "processed vocals, which take"
"transformed into "bluesy jazz"" → "transforms into "bluesy jazz"" with the wikilink
"by backing vocalists." → "by the backing vocalists." because it is sourced who they are in the previous section
17-seconds → 17 seconds, for consistency
""Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" → "Lyrically, "Pay Your Way in Pain" is a" per this being a new para
[23] does not seem to back up the info like [7] does, unless I missed something?

double-checked, it does talk about the theme of the album and then about the song.

The quote is "blues for 2021" and actually comes from the NME interview, so change the first quote to merely following "Clark described" and only mention The Guardian in the following sentence

Done all

Critical reception

"received positive reviews from music critics," → "was met with positive reviews from music critics," with the target
MOS:QUOTE issues need fixing throughout this section, but this does not apply to full sentences
"Murray elaborated, "just" → "Murray elaborated, writing that "just"
"can pull off" and" → "can pull off", and"
"character she's channeling," → "character [Clark]'s channeling," per this being a new para
"Reviewing for New York," → "Reviewing for Vulture," with the target per MOS:LINK2SECT
"that retracts Clark's influences" → "that refracts Clark's influences" per the source
"Several media publications including" → "Several media publications, including"
Add a space after [25]

Done all

Music video

"starring Clark and Carrie Brownstein." → "which co-stars and was co-written by Clark." because this is what the source represents
"It was preceded by" → "The former was preceded by"
"Kate Bush, David Bowie, and" → "Kate Bush, Bowie, and"
Wikilink kaleidoscope
Wikilink diffraction spikes
"seen in blonde hair, wearing wide" → "seen with a blonde wig on, wearing a wide"
"The visual references to" → "The visual features references to"
[33] is useless after [32] when the latter backs up all of that info already

removed.

"as a "Warhol" → "as showing "the full Warhol" with the target

Done all

Credits and personnel

Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
synthesizers → synthesizer
Target mixing to Audio mixing (recorded music)

Done all

Release history

See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Label → Label(s)
[12] only backs up streaming, so add various Apple Music citations to back up a digital download and streaming release

see my ping and comment above

Done all

References

Notes

Maybe keep this as a sub-section but retitle the section to Notes and references, as a note is not really a ref?

Done

Citations

Copyvio score looks pretty good at 25.4%!
Top job with the archiving for these!
Remove The Paste Staff author from ref 4

removed.

WP:OVERLINK of NME on refs 10 and 31
WP:OVERLINK of Tidal on ref 12
New York → Vulture on ref 23, with the target per MOS:LINK2SECT

changed.

WP:OVERLINK of Stereogum on ref 27
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 33

Not done the rest, I have been told by editors at the FLC to wikilink all references since that does not constitute an overlink. MOS:REPEATLINK states: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article.". --Ashley yoursmile! 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict

On hold, but I would like to ask if you are really sure this should be a GAN already? I mean it is in good shape, but the song was released literally one week ago and has not had the time to appear on any charts whatsoever, plus the weekly rankings indicate it will likely be ranked amongst monthly and yearly lists, so could this nom perhaps be too soon? --K. Peake 09:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kyle Peake, thank you for the review. If you really think its too soon, should I withdraw the nomination? I apologise that you had to spend time and effort in reviewing the article. Please let me know what you think. Ashley yoursmile! 10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ashleyyoursmile It is fine, I cannot blame you for being enthusiastic since it would be plausible to have the first GA for a 2021 music article. However, taking a look at the quick fail of Kamikaze back in 2018 by a fellow experienced reviewer, this article falls into the same too recent trap since more information and promotion will probably accompany it in the future, as well as monthly/year-end rankings. I would like to ask though, is the song likely to chart? Because if not, there may be no fail needed or a second opinion like there was for "Hello". --K. Peake 10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I honestly don't know but the song hasn't impacted the radio yet. The chartings of all previous singles can be found here. Would you like a second opinion on this? I could ask one of the GA coordinators in that case. Ashley yoursmile! 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ashleyyoursmile Second opinion requested is the appropriate option for whether or not this article's nomination is too soon to be honest, as I am definitely uncertain now baring in mind the lack of a radio release and should you really reach out to coordinators or should we just wait for someone to pick it up on the GANs page? Note: to you and any reviewers, I am not asking for the article to be reviewed in its entirety, only for an opinion on the aforementioned subject. --K. Peake 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, thank you. I'll try to see if any coordinator/ reviewer would be willing to take a look at it and provide further insight. Ashley yoursmile! 10:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ashleyyoursmile That is a good idea but while awaiting response, you can implement the suggested changes since they will be valid in the future even if the article is expanded! --K. Peake 10:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, of course. I'll implement the changes and ping you shortly. Ashley yoursmile! 10:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I've implemented the changes and left comments above. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile I understand your reason for not implementing the overlink change like I have seen be cited on a few occasions in the past, but the one issue I have left is regarding the release formats. If you cannot find a source that either leads to a digital download for the song or states it experienced such a release, then just keep Tidal and change to having streaming as the only format. --K. Peake 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I have removed digital download and just kept streaming which is backed-up by Tidal. Ashley yoursmile! 14:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ashleyyoursmile ✓ Pass now, very good for such a recent article even if more info may later surface!!! --K. Peake 14:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Okay, regarding this being too recent to be a GA, there are a couple of main points I think I should make.

This can meet the GA criteria if you are certain that the article has sufficient coverage based on the current range of sourcing and meets the "Broad in coverage" and "Focused" parts of the criteria. However, that then leads me on to ....
If the article becomes out of date, or stops meeting the "Broad in coverage" criteria (or indeed, any of the criteria), it should be delisted.
A moving target is hard to hit. If news sources are coming out daily, and lots of editors are updating the article, it can fail the "Stability" part of the criteria

Therefore, this can pass GA (assuming the reviewer is happy with your actions), but you need to ask yourself, is this something you want to keep an eye on for the remainder of your career? I am strongly of the view that once you have taken an article through GAN, you should be prepared to keep an eye on it, and ensure it continues to meet the criteria. I don't like seeing an article that passed GAN 15 years ago continue to hold the symbol at the top of the article, when a quick perusal of it shows it clearly doesn't. For example, when Genesis announced a new tour a few years back after a decade of inactivity, editors were quick on the scene to add detail, but not all of it met the GA criteria (eg: puffery, no sources, over-detail) which meant it meant work for me and the handful of other editors that keep an eye on it. Then, there was a recent kerfuffle at ANI over the article where an editor couldn't get his changes through because they didn't meet the GA criteria, despite several of us explaining that was the case as politely as we could muster.

So, you can take this to GA, but on your head be it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, thank you very much. Since I've started the article, I'm willing to work towards adding information and ensure that it continues to satisfy the GA criteria. Regarding the article's current status, I'll await to see what Kyle Peake has to say. Ashley yoursmile! 14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 Very good for you to offer a second opinion and it is definitely written from a viewpoint that shows both sides, as desired when requesting one without specifically seeking out any user since that could lead to bias. Ashleyyoursmile I am glad you have agreed to keep an eye on this and I would suggest adding to your watchlist if you haven't already, plus over time, look out for rankings on critics' lists and maybe commercial performance to add. --K. Peake 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake, already added to my watchlist. I'd look out for the lists/chartings and add them accordingly. Thank you very much for the review. :) Ashley yoursmile! 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]