Jump to content

Talk:Smoking on My Ex Pack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Smoking on My Ex Pack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will get on with this over the next two days! --K. Peake 08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • Remove rap from genres in the infobox since that is not a specific enough one
    • ...what? This feels like a nitpick. Rap is a genre, Ex Pack is described as a rap song, so it belongs in the infobox. The average reader will be more familiar with what rap means than boom bap.
      • There is no category for rap songs, thus remove it and this is also unspecific. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • By that measure we should also remove boom bap from the infobox because there is no category for it and we should remove all instances of pop from relevant song articles' infoboxes because pop is a vague term that can mean lots of things ??
  • Remove wikilink on Solána Rowe under songwriter(s)
    • Readers shouldn't be expected to know who Sous/Solana is being referred to nor do they know that's SZA's real name . The wikilink is there for them to connect the dots
      • But this is a main subject, making the wikilink redundant. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry what? "Main subject"? The fact "Solana Rowe" is listed first does not make it obvious she is "the main subject" or the name refers to SZA, and not every song is (co-)written by who performed it. Hence, do not expect readers to surmise she will be one of the writers and her name will appear first because she is "the main subject". Kyle, please, let's look at utility when using wikilinks here.
  • Make the production sentence the second of the first para instead
    • I get you're making this comment because many song articles follow this structure, but you must understand this is not a hard-line rule and it simply does not fit in some contexts. Saying SZA credits Jay for making her try out rap in the second sentence before establishing she was trying out rap for the first time with Ex Pack makes no sense
  • "Placed as the album's eleventh track," → "Placed as the album's 11th track," per MOS:NUM
    • Will do later and all the suggestions ww I agree to streamline things (wdl)
  • Remove pipe on rap per WP:SEAOFBLUE
    • Rap and boom bap are clearly separated though
      • WP:SEAOFBLUE is about having too many links near each other. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • It is quite literally not the case here "so that they look like a single link (a 'sea of blue')". Does it look like "rap" and "boom bap" are a singular link? It doesn't.
  • "because she viewed them as" → "due to viewing them as" to avoid overusage of she
  • "she wanted to" → "SZA wanted to"
    • For the two above ^^ a pronoun like "she" is harder to overuse than your average word. there is only one woman in discussion in that paragraph, so no confusion will arise from this.
  • Remove the usage of the word aggressive from the lead
    • "Aggressive" specifically because of the nature of the lyrics. Not every hip hop song is aggressive lyrically
  • "and "Smoking on My Ex Pack" was conceived" → "and the song was conceived"
    • not done; it'd be repetitive i feel given the next sentence
      • Nope, as you use it in the next one and this is overusage of the title. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how you overuse a title given it appears only twice in that paragraph... this is bordering on nitpick territory, and I am getting even more concerned.
  • "In the lyrics, SZA" → "In the lyrics of the song, SZA"
    • Already assumed the lyrics refer to the song's lyrics; unnecessary
  • Remove the example of a lyric
    • saying the song was "effectively harsh" will fall flat unless an example is cited in the lead
  • "Originally over 2 minutes long," → "Originally over two minutes long," per MOS:NUM and make this the third sentence of the first para instead
    • wdl (first part), but I strongly oppose moving this because it ties directly to its critical reception
  • "Critics in contemporary reviews felt otherwise. They found the songwriting in" → "Critics in contemporary reviews found the songwriting in"
    • Why remove this? It puts the reviews in proper context, especially considering SZA was nervous about venturing into rap
  • "some deemed it a highlight" → "some deemed the song a highlight"
    • Not done; the status quo is fine
      • You used "it" on the previous instance, too. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Done, but not because of "overusage" but rather because the "it" as it stands has an unclear antecedent
  • "in the United States and Canada, with a" → "in the top 50 of the United States and Canada, alongside a"
    • Completely unnecessary word change
  • "and was included in set lists" → "It was included in the set list"
    • wdl

Background

  • Retitle to Background and development
    • No - there is nothing in this section about the development of Ex Pack, merely the album
  • Img looks good!
  • Remove the commas around Ctrl
  • "it received widespread acclaim" → "the record received widespread acclaim"
  • "of its songwriting." → "of the songwriting."
    • Unnecessary word changes
      • I beg to differ; you are overusing it again. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • I believe I already demonstrated to you why using pronouns more than three or so times is not on the same level as, say, mentioning someone's name three consecutive times. This is but a mere clash in writing preference, which should not be what anyone should be getting in a GA review. Again, two pronouns in one sentence is not overuse...
  • "and R&B music and pushing the boundaries of the R&B genre." → "and R&B music, pushing the boundaries of the latter genre."
    • I try to avoid using "latter" as used here based on personal writing style. I can split the relevant sentence, however, to make the sentence less clunky (wdl)
  • "as early as August 2019 during" → "as early as August 2019, during" but where is the DJ sourced?
  • "the album also contained" → "the album also contains" but why is this the only genre mentioned?
    • Mentioning only hip hop music in the sentence (because remember, Ex Pack is a rap song) does not mean the other genres are not part of the album

Music and production

  • Remove the comma before SOS
    • See my reply to your Ctrl comment
  • Pipe sample to Sampling (music)
    • It already was wikilinked before you commented this
  • "that give it a" → "that give the song a" however, none of the drums instrumentation is sourced
    • See my reply on the Kerwin Frost comment. All boom bap songs are characterized by hard-hitting drums, a difference from an article, say, that writes "a pop song (cited) with synthesizers (uncited)" because not every pop song has synths
  • "and a former comedian," → "and former comedian,"
    • wdl
  • For any sentences using direct quotes, invoke the ref(s) at the end
    • "An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." The article already follows this guideline
  • "Versace created the beat" → "Jay Versace created the beat"
    • Not done. I consider this a Lana del Rey situation, where even though none of these words appear in her real name, enwiki still considers del Rey her surname for the purposes of mentioning her in articles
  • "many of which reminded" → "much of which reminded"
    • "music" here is a stand-in for "song", which is countable. not done
  • "he wanted SZA's take" → "Jay Versace wanted SZA's take"
    • See my "pronouns" comment from above
  • "a sample of it in Ableton and started forming the beat around it." → "a sample of the song in Ableton and started forming the beat."
    • not exactly how you imagined, but (wdl) planning to trim to "created the sample in Ableton and formed a beat around it"
  • "Once he was done," → "Once Jay Versace was done,"
    • pronouns reply

Lyrics

  • "She described how" → "SZA described how"
    • pronouns reply
  • "was over 2 minutes long," → "was over two minutes long," per MOS:NUM
    • wdl
  • The disclose part is not mentioned by the source
    • Sky is blue reply
  • "desirability to other men[30] and announces" → "desirability to other men,[30] and announces"
    • The comma is not necessary (my usage aligns with the User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences essay). mid-sentence citations that don't come after punctuation is completely okay I promise; nothing in the MoS says otherwise
  • [18][31] should be invoked at the end of the previous sentence too
    • see reply re. wp:intext
  • Where is the flirting part sourced?
    • "she flexes effortlessly on the dudes falling over themselves in her DMs — she blocked your favorite rapper (she heard "the d*** was wack") and she won't text anyone's favorite athlete back either" from NPR, the lyric "Your favorite athlete screaming 'text me back'!" - sounds like dudes trying to flirt with her to me

Release and reception

  • For correct focus, it would be best to shorten the first sentence down to mentioning that she revealed it was set for release in December for the cover story
    • agree - wdl
  • "appears as the eleventh track." → "was included as the eleventh track."
    • unnecessary word change
  • "with peaks at numbers 52 and 61," → "peaking at numbers 52 and 61," and mention the names of the respective charts
    • these peaks are assumed to be referring to their national record charts. naming said record charts is not necessary partly because they're the standard record chart and their reliability is not in question and partly because it would make the prose clunky
  • [39] should be solely at the end of the sentence before [40]
    • not done; see reply to similar comment
  • "change, which the stage screen captured." → "change and captured by the stage screen."
    • "while SZA went backstage for an outfit change and captured by the stage screen" ... ? the adjectival phrase "captured by the stage screen" has no antecedent. not done.
  • "about SZA's experimenting with" → "about SZA's experimentation with"
    • "experimenting" here is a gerund and is as much of a noun as "experimentation". unnecessary word change.
  • "They welcomed its lyrics" → "They welcomed the song's lyrics"
  • "of her songwriting," → "of SZA's songwriting,"
    • Both not done; see reply to similar pronoun comments
      • Overusage of "her" for the second one. --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
        • Hopefully you won't find it "overused" now... either way, once again pronouns are hard to overuse.
  • "similar songs, Vulture wrote: "in" → "similar songs, Jason P. Frank of Vulture wrote: "In"
  • Mention the names of the authors from the publications listed
    • wdl
  • "a healthy dose of venom."" → "a healthy dose of venom"." per MOS:QUOTE
  • "juxtaposed the soft sound" → "blended with the soft sound"
        • When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.. Let's see. The quotation is a full sentence - look at it in isolation. The fact that it was taken out of an even larger sentence does not matter here. There is terminal punctuation after the word "venom" as written in the article, and the quotation ends with the word "venom", so the terminal punctuation belongs inside the quotation mark.
    • not done; reviewers specifically say Ex Pack was a stark contrast to the gentler songs, and "blend" is kind of the opposite of that
  • "as its primary weakness, feeling like it did not reach its full potential due to its shortness." → "as the primary weakness, feeling like it did not reach the full potential due to this." to avoid overusage of it
    • wdl

Credits

  • Retitle to Credits and personnel
    • redundant
  • Why is there no source here?
    • WP:PERSONNEL tells us no source is required here - which makes sense because it would be a self-reference to the album credits we have on streaming services
  • The note should be moved to being in the notes section since it is invoked in the infobox too and this needs a ref
    • wdl (the moving); ref is not needed per WP:PERSONNEL. also I just realized jay versace's real name is jahlil gunter, so here's a mental note for me to change this part

Charts

  • Good

Notes

References

Final comments and verdict

Kyle. You are a prolific reviewer, and I appreciate your contributions to reducing the backlog. The thing is, through my multiple experiences with you both now and from the past, I've seen consistent points in your reviews that simply do not make sense. Most of my replies to your points here are some flavour of not-dones and rebuttals, raising lots of concerns on my end.

Some are nitpicks --- like the wording changes, arranging the sentences when they're fine as is. In other cases, you cite MOS guidelines completely out of the purview of WP:GA? ("Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles"). MOS:LINK2SECT is not required for GA compliance; only guidelines for the "lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" are. In that regard I encourage you read more about this part of the GA criteria. Sometimes you make comments that are not even covered in MOS (see the comments regarding mid-sentence citations).

None of this takes away from the fact you're a net positive to the GAN process, as mentioned earlier. You still have valuable comments, as you did with this GAN and any other, and I will always appreciate your input for reviews on my articles. Rather I'd want you to consider this as an outside critique of your reviewing habits with the intent of making your reviews more helpful for everyone. That is all :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 13:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Your Power Thanks for your points and the well-informed responses, I have gone over where I still have any issues. I appreciate your heavy feedback and it is true, I have become overly detailed sometimes and it is good you can still recognize my positives easily despite any criticism! --K. Peake 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@K. Peake: I have countered some of your responses here... again. Please take a while to reflect on them really thoroughly, as it seems like you have not fully understood some of my criticism. The "overusage" of pronouns is a recurring one. I truly hope you stop with the overly nitpicky behaviour; while the occasional one or two are fine and sometimes inevitable, persistent and frequent ones like this are detrimental to review experience. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 22:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
✓ Pass now, there are some areas I would differ from the nitpicking outside of pronouns, but I will let these slide since the article is in enough shape to be a "good" one. --K. Peake 07:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Your Power (talk). Self-nominated at 13:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Smoking on My Ex Pack; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Editions according to its candidacy for Featured Article

Hello everyone. I announce that I have just corrected the article a bit, according to what some suggested on the FAC page of the article. As you can see in the editions, I only corrected what @ChrisTheDude and @Ippantekina proposed.

Regarding what ChrisTheDude suggested, I did everything he said. I only made two of the five suggestions that Ippantekina made, since, regarding record companies, the article deals with two, not one; I didn't heed the other two suggestions because I don't understand at all. I didn't do anything that @MRN2electricboogaloo suggested, since he mentioned that this is his first time contributing to a FAC; So, I leave those suggestions to the judgment of the nominator. Also, I followed @Aoba47's suggestions regarding the image (first thing I did) and the "Release" and "Critical Reception" sections (I'll do that after posting this message).

Before I finish, I have to say five additional things: first, I need a revision regarding the sentence that deals with what inspired Versace for the song. Secondly, I am a non-native English contributor, so please correct me if I got anything wrong regarding the language. Thirdly, I'm nervous as this is my first time contributing to an article being Featured Article, so I hope I didn't make the article worse instead of better. Fourth, I think that what I just did should have been done by the nominator, so excuse me if I violated a rule around FACs, since I don't know deeply about these processes, I only know the basics. Fifth, I am the user Pollosito; I just like more to contribute anonymously than logged in, since edits I make while logged in are evidenced on my user page, and sometimes that makes me lazy. I hope you have a good time on Wikipedia. 186.28.158.31 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey IP. Thanks for taking care of stuff when I was busy; do not worry, everything you did was OK to me.
I do appreciate your willingness to contribute, but I would have appreciated things more if you asked permission from me before implementing these changes. Even though anyone is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia articles, please exercise great caution in handling FACs that are not yours. Whether to implement certain changes or not is, ultimately, up to the discretion of the FAC nominator, who is expected to be the most familiar with the article's nature and therefore has better judgment on how to take criticism. I for one was not in opposition to your actions, but I am warning others may not feel the same due to the reasons I have stated. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 02:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @Your Power. I'll keep that in mind next time as I contributed to this because I love trending music, like SZA's in this case. Anyway, I tried not to contribute to so many rephrasings of phrases that haven't been explicitly said, like the Versace thing. 186.29.38.170 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I clarify that, if you see me with another IP, it's because Wikipedia just changed it, but I'm still the same person who contributed to the article. 186.29.38.170 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Your Power. I was copy editing the draft blurb for this prior to its proposed TFA on 8 Novemeber when I spotted that the lead said "ridicules her past lovers in various ways, for instance insulting their penises" and the article "she finds various ways to insult her past lovers." Ie, the article gives a summary of what is in the lead, when it should be the other way round. Perhaps you could look at resolving this, possibly by simply switching the two statements? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild: I believe I already addressed that in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smoking on My Ex Pack/archive1#Coordinator comment ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
At least I'm consistent. Oh kaay, let's go with that. I suspect I won't be the last person raising this point though. Pun intended. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smoking_on_My_Ex_Pack/Archive_1&oldid=1184200372"