Template:Did you know nominations/Switched on Pop

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 SL93 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Switched on Pop

(

)

~~... that a musicology professor at the University of Southern California co-wrote a book where he used "Oops!... I Did It Again" by Britney Spears to explain counterpoint?~~ Source: He is like my favorite kind of professor, which makes sense: Nate is Assistant Professor of Musicology at USC's Thornton School of Music ... Two centerpieces are the chapter on Britney Spears's "Oops! . . . I Did It Again" (2000), whose triumphant "cumulative chorus" serves as a way into a discussion of the Renaissance roots of counterpoint.
- ALT1:... that in Switched on Pop, a musicology professor ~~at the University of Southern California~~ used "Oops!... I Did It Again" by Britney Spears to explain counterpoint? Source: same as above

Reviewed: exempt; this is my 4th nomination
Comment: You can switch out the song and musical concept to any of the others listed in the article. I just don't want to have to write 15 other ALTs. The book itself can also be a source for the songs used and the musical concepts they explain.

5x expanded by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, neutrally written, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Image is fair use. The ALT1 hook is very catchy and I have trimmed it some more for punchiness. However, the article does not seem start-class (Rule D7) without some kind of Reception section. Didn't anyone comment on it? No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a couple of reviews. Those were the best ones I could find. I would've added them earlier, but to be honest, I don't consider myself a good writer and so I was too lazy to try to add that section. There's also a review from PopMatters and one from The Seattle Times, but the popmatters one is written more like an op-ed than a critic's review and the seattle times one seems like it's not an independent review. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

One comment: the list of songs and associated concepts should probably be reworked. How quick could someone figure out which song is analyzed for its timbre? How much quicker would they if there was a table? Mcrsftdog (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Overview is certainly a mass of text and blue linking. You could either reorganize it into a table, or write separate sentences connecting each concept with its song. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and reorganized the overview section so that the mass of songs is in a table now. I feel like if I wrote it out in sentences, it would get repetitive. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good. I added a URL for footnote 7. Can you add any more Critical reception notes from the refs I left at the talk page? Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not being lazy anymore, I genuinely don't know how to incorporate the NPR, CBC, and Verge articles. The NPR and CBC articles is basically just the authors giving a preview of some of the things they talk about in the book. And The Verge article is an interview with the authors but they don't really talk about the book. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Another alternative to expand the reviews section is Newspapers.com, which you may want to get access to. But for now, the article is start-class per DYK criteria. No close paraphrasing seen in new additions. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)