Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/For the Night/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2021 [1].

For the Night

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song by Pop Smoke, featuring DaBaby and Lil Baby. The single debuted and peaked at number six on the US Billboard Hot 100, giving Pop Smoke his first top-10 hit in the United States. Today marks one year since Pop Smoke was shot and killed. I thought I would honor him by nominating one of his most popular songs. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Buidhe

No media is used. (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe is it bad if there are no pictures in the article? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's better than adding unnecessary media to the article. I am just putting it here so that coords know that an image review has been done. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

Strong Oppose. RIP to Pop, but this is not a memorial service; this is a place to nominate articles based on their quality.

There are so many prose issues and citation inconsistencies I don't know where to start. The composition and reception sections in particular have problems with needless sentences that don't establish anything new, and amount to unorganized quote farms:

Lie in the lead section: "Many critics praised the track as one of Pop Smoke's best songs." Where?! I don't see any opinion of that kind in the reception section. Speaking of which, the reviews look more mixed than what that sentence is trying to imply.
- To add, I'm seeing the song in lists of the best songs of the year 2020, but that's not the same as saying it's one of the rapper's best. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"CashMoneyAP got help to rework the song with Palaze, Daniel Mxras, Jess Jackson, and Mike Dean." Awkward sentence. Are you saying he contacted those other producers to work on the rework with him? I think it's simplier if you just say "he reworked the song with".
"but CashMoneyAP later changed his mind because he felt the timing was not right." Clarify. Timing with what? Would it be a bad time to record? Was releasing a Pop Smoke song featuring him gonna happen at a bad time? And when was "later"? Or by "timing" are you describing YoungBoy's performance?
Most of the first two sentences are unneeeded. Every making-of feature of anything involves those in the project mindless praising other people in that project. This should be common knowledge. The only thing I would keep is about Pop wanting to work with DaBaby for a while.
"... and added additional production" Did the Department of Redundancy Department™ write this?
"The song originally had an original sample, but it was not clearable." Another confusing sentence, plus its repetitive as you use "original" twice. By "original sample," do you mean they made the samples themselves? Because I don't think someone would have to worry about purchasing ccpyright permission of material they own.
The Paste, Billboard, LA Times and NPR quotes in the writing and composition section state the exact same thing; tribute, elegy, and eulogy are the most synonymous set of words ever. Additionally, people can tell the line is a tribute to the dead rapper, so presenting it as attribution to only those sources is pointless; I could use all the cites and simplify this right now: "DaBaby provides a eulogy line for Pop Smoke, "Rest in peace to the Pop, make me smoke ya.""
Independent Tribune and HipHopDX quotes in the reception aren't good/bad opinions and only state the obvious. Yes, it "featured other acts leading the new class of rap," we can see that in the infobox, and yes, it's a "social media-ready hit," he's a pop artist so duh. This is just more needless fluff.
""recklessness of a summer party or the languid flirtation of stoop-side conversations"" More fluff not showing any thoughts of the song's quality. Lots of electronic, pop, and rap songs could be said by any random a-hole to evoke party reckleness; I'm not denying the reputation of anyone who has an article for a high-quality news publication in their portfolio (The Atlantic), but what makes this one insignificant statement so special and necessary? Additionally, the album review cited described the entirety of said album as being the soundtrack to the summer, making this statement less unique towards the track.
"Okon labeled the track as sinister" and "Mark Richardson noted the song was "more welcoming" than Pop Smoke's earlier songs" seem like pointless tone descriptions instead of good/bad opinion that introduce more important parts to the song's critical reception.
You only indicate one quoted review being unfavorable, but the Pitchfork and Independent reviews are incorrectly implied to be positive, as they're in the same section as positive statements from Variety and the LATimes; Pitchfork's album review criticized the use of guest rappers and used that track as an example (hence the description of "forced Rap Caviar-bound marathon) and Independent panned the instrumental as "passe," meaning out-of-date.
""For the Night" was released on Pop Smoke's posthumous debut studio album Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, as the third track on July 3, 2020.[23] The song was later released as the album's fourth single on October 3, 2020, by Victor Victor Worldwide and Republic Records.[24]" Just say it's the fourth single from the album and that it was released as such on October 3, 2020. We already have the tracklisting and album release on the article about the album.
This is one of the far less problems with this article, but "top 10" ---> "top ten," as numbers ten or below must be present in word form.
Gonna describe the ref problems briefly cause I'm not going to bother with any more of this since the nominator clearly didn't bother himself to pay enough attention to this article. Why do AllHipHop and Uproxx have their names formatted as publishers when they're works like Billboard and the LATimes? Furthermore, why is a non-work (ref #69) presented in italics instead of as a publisher without anything on it? And why is "hitparade.ch" presented in url form when all the other cites (even the ones with only publishers) present only the names themselves? Additionally, foreign-language chart sources (mostly the year-end ones) are missing "language=" information.

Simply put, the article fails 1a, 3c and 4 of the criteria, 1a drastically so. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose early withdrawal The article doesn't look in bad shape to me. A couple references need to be tidied and the prose maybe could be tweaked in a couple places but it's not worse than my last FAC which now has multiple supports. I suggest that if Humanx comments can be actioned promptly where appropriate (I disagree that things like "Okon labeled the track as sinister" or "recklessness of a summer party or the languid flirtation of stoop-side conversations" should be removed, the reception is more than a binary good/bad) this can go forward. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand how strict the process is, then. The featured article criteria indicates that the prose can't just look okay; it needs to be high quality, understandable and engaging. It wouldn't be in bad shape for a GAN (apart from that hideous error in the lead), but we're not nominating for a good article, are we? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - HumanxAnthro: Man you are such a fucking asshole! Yep, I said it! I am so sick and tired of people like you ruining this site. I'm sorry if you find the article "hideous" but take your attitude somewhere else. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Ultimate Boss: Whoa, watch it with the personal attacks! My apologies if I came off dick-ish; that wasn't my intention. While I may have been a little rudely humorous in spots, I'm generally being this strict and precise with text and sourcing not to be a dick; it's because the criteria is that way since featured articles are to recognize the best of the online encyclopedia. If you don't agree with any of the comments, please respond to them properly. HumanxAnthro (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I'm seeing nothing here about the Tyga remix and its accompanying visual, which was all covered by Revolt. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ultimate Boss

Shit nvm. @FAC coordinators: close this plz. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.