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) 07:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan and Onegreatjoke: The LA Times article states, "Oh My God has bleary backing vocals processed nearly beyond recognition". So the hook needs some tweaking. Our hook says Adelle's vocals. Bruxton (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, Adele actually sings all of the vocals on this song but I understand your concerns so I have now tweaked it to something more explicitly stated in the source.--NØ 03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I think we may have to qualify the statement by stating this was the opinion of the LA Times reviewer. And perhaps quotes.
ALT1: ... that a review in the Los Angeles Times claimed that some of the backing vocals on Adele's song "Oh My God" are "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
This seems unnecessary to me. The vocal processing (and the unrecognizability for that matter) is an objective fact and can easily be verified if you play the song. We can save the attribution for the article and keep it out of the hook, in my opinion. Regards.--NØ 04:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
A review is akin to an editorial so it is an opinion piece. We probably have to qualify it or we are stating the opinion as fact. It may seem objective, but opinions are subjective: do we have other reviews which also call the backing vocals "processed nearly beyond recognition"? Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagreed. The vocals are objectively processed and unrecognisable and you just have to play the first few seconds of the song to hear them. "The song is good/bad" would be an opinion, this is not. Your proposed hook is not interesting or DYK-worthy so I'll stick with the one already approved by another reviewer. That’s all I have to say about that, and the promoter can make the final decision about which hook they prefer.—NØ 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the message. I will leave this nomination for another promotor. Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have to agree with Bruxton here. Even if one could verify something about a song by themselves, that could still be considered a subjective view and to me at least sounds too close to original research for my tastes. I have to agree that ALT1 or at least some variant thereof is a suitable compromise: while ALT0 is technically accurate, Bruxton has a point, and we have modified or pulled hooks in the past when hooks based on opinion pieces were clearly not indicated as such. We just want to avoid a trip to WP:ERRORS or another WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Adele wrote a song about people flirting with her after her divorce? Source: Audacy
What about these, NLH5?--NØ 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I will leave it to Onegreatjoke or Bruxton to decide, but personally I supposed both are okay alternatives, although I do have some slight reservations as they may be... uh... uncomfortable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts here @Narutolovehinata5: - I will remove the stop and allow others to make a decision about hooks and promotion. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
ALTs 1-3 still need a review. ALT0 has been struck per the above discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The alts are all okay. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have to agree with Bruxton here. Even if one could verify something about a song by themselves, that could still be considered a subjective view and to me at least sounds too close to original research for my tastes. I have to agree that ALT1 or at least some variant thereof is a suitable compromise: while ALT0 is technically accurate, Bruxton has a point, and we have modified or pulled hooks in the past when hooks based on opinion pieces were clearly not indicated as such. We just want to avoid a trip to WP:ERRORS or another WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
ALTs 1-3 still need a review. ALT0 has been struck per the above discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The alts are all okay. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)