Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Speechless (Lady Gaga song)/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 promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2024 [1].

Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To have some mercy on my fellow reviewers, here's one of those rare articles by me with less than 5k words. I'm attempting my fifth FA on a track from Lady Gaga's megahit album The Fame Monster. Get ready for Gaga's "Speechless"—a track that might just leave you without words. It's more than just music; it's a journey that'll have you, well, speechless! FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Infobox: "from the EP The Fame Monster". As the MoS suggests "Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... and entries in infoboxes" should that be an upper-case f? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's part of the phrase "Song by x, from the album x" but I see (and agree with) your point. That said, it's automatically generated by the infobox template and something that would need to be discussed at Template talk:Infobox song as it would affect all song articles on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so, but Wikipedia not being a reliable source, a usage in other articles cannot be used as a reason for the same usage in this one. As you say you agree with my "point" (I was trying to tactfully phrase it as a question. :-) Ah well.) then why not change it?

I'll start a discussion there soon.

" "Speechless" represents Gaga's fear of death." I am not sure that "represents" is the word you want here. (If you think it is, which usage of the word in which dictionary are you trying to convey?)
"who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." The "who ... but some ..." suggests that all of the second group also fell into the first; is that the case?
Just my opinion, but I think running the last two paragraphs of the lead together would improve it.
" "Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." "Scotland": Is it usual to include sub-national regions in these articles? If so, why are US states and Canadian provinces not similarly treated?

The Official Charts Company is the official reporter of charts in the UK, reporting album and song performances separately in Scotland since 1994. It has coverage by major music websites like AllMusic (one example) but as Chris has mentioned below, it may not be considered a major market, thus not warranting a mention in the lead. For the US, Billboard is responsible for reporting charts and they do not have any state-based chart.

" "Speechless" is a track from the extended play (EP) The Fame Monster (2009), the reissue of Lady Gaga's debut studio album, The Fame (2008)." If TFM is a "reissue" of TF, then why is "Speechless" not described as being from TF? Or is the issue around how we are defining "reissue"?

The Fame was released in 2008, whereas "Speechless" in 2009 as one of the eight additional tracks in TFM. It's not unusual for a reissue to have original tracks. See reissue: "a reissue ... is the release of an album or single which has been released at least once before, sometimes with alterations or additions." Other such popular examples include Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection and Thriller 25. But I can clarify it in the article if needed.

"The song was recorded at Record Plant Studios". I am unclear as to whether this happened in 2008 or 2009, it would be nice to be told. In either case, is a more precise date known?

The interview where she discusses the song took place in 2009 but it doesn't give us any specific info on when the song was recorded.

I don't think that one can use the word "conduction" in the sense you do. (It means 'lead', as in to physically guide.)
"Fair did the song's arrangement and conduction." The link for "arrangement and conduction" is just to arrangement, which starts "In music, an arrangement is a musical adaptation of an existing composition." So did this take place sometime after the events retailed in the previous four sentences?

Yes, the arrangement typically takes place after the initial recording of the live instruments and vocals. Arranging involves organizing and adapting the recorded elements to create the final structure and form of the song. In the provided sentences, the recording process, including live instruments and Gaga's piano playing, is described first, followed by the mention of Ron Fair doing the arrangement. Therefore, the arrangement phase would occur after the recording of the live instruments at Record Plant Studios.

Much to my surprise, I am actually struggling to follow the thread of this article, and I have barely started it. So I am going to pause and await responses, which may elucidate things. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog. The ones I haven't replied to are done as suggested. Let me know if issues persist on your further reading and I'll see what can be done to prevent it from turning into a PR. Perhaps working on an article during the stress of holidays wasn't a good idea after all. ;) FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be around "the reissue of" in the first line of the main article. The lead as it currently is fine (in this respect). While aware that the track lists of both TF and TFM are movable feasts, I think that both the 13 tracks original "international" version of TF and the 14 tracks of the revised US version have zero correspondence with the standard edition of TFM. This seems to me to stretch the use of "reissue" beyond breaking point. Assuming that there is some correspondence between TF and TFM, perhaps what it is could be spelt out. I would suggest that MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links") requires this anyway.

I anticipate that somewhere between a couple of sentences and a paragraph will be required, but as a subject expert you may have a more elegant solution. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The standalone standard edition was not supposed to exist but it was Gaga who insisted that they be sold separately to avoid "ripping off" the fans who had already bought TF. That is the only explanation behind it. While it might not strictly adhere to the definition of a reissue, TF and TFM still charted as one album in many countries. I think the Release and artwork section already does a pretty good job at why the standard edition without the TF tracks exists. I've also gone ahead and added in the "Speechless" article that TFM consists of eight new tracks, it being one of them. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Gog the Mild in case you have more to add. FrB.TG (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More

Apologies for the delay on this. I was away over Christmas which precluded doing much of anything that involved more than light cognition, and came back to an unusually busy RL and a backlog of Wikipedia activities. I don't think I am going to manage a full review, but let's see if we can sign off on what I have looked at so far.

I completely fail to see how "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" makes sense. We have agreed that that the difficulty is around "reissued". All dictionaries I have consulted agree that "reissue" means to issue a thing again. I can, just about, accept that a reissue may include a bonus track or two. To use it to mean to issue something with nothing in common with what is purportedly the thing being "reissued" seems perverse. So, which part of the phrase am I misunderstanding? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, but she did reissue the album on that exact date. The album's earliest release was on 18 November 2009 in Italy and Japan and in both countries, the reissue included The Fame tracks. The standard edition was released only later on by Gaga for reasons I mentioned above. That it may not meet the definition of a reissue is not something that has ever been disputed by sources (since I guess they found Gaga's reasoning plausible, which is very well explained in TFM article). And if I write up something like "although a reissue includes original tracks, this was not the case with TFM standard edition", it would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since I cannot find a source that says this. Perhaps editors like SNUGGUMS, Sricsi or IndianBio, who are all major contributors to Gaga-related articles, can better explain this or have a better solution in mind. FrB.TG (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intruding on this conversation, but would an end note clarifying what a reissue is in this context be an appropriate compromise? This style of reissue was decently popular in the early 2010s (with Kesha reissuing Animal as Cannibal and Katy Perry reissuing Teenage Dream as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection as two other examples), but I do not think it is really done anymore so I could see some room for potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. Here is a source from Vanity Fair that discusses this phenomenon, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources about this. So maybe add in a endnote that defines this type of reissue with an appropriate citation? Again, apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to suggest a potential compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think that kind of clarification is needed for "Speechless" as it's more of a TFM issue, and the album article already goes into great details how reissue is defined. I also want to emphasize that TFM was not the only album to have this many new tracks. Albums like OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 and the 2017 reissue of Purple Rain had almost as many new tracks as their originals. Also, I think Gog's main issue is with the standard edition not quite meeting the definition of a reissue since it doesn't contain the original tracks, but like I said above the deluxe version is the main one and the standard one was only added later on by Gaga to not resell TF tracks to fans who'd already bought the debut album. Whether or not that explanation is enough, it's all we have and it's been accepted by sources. Anything else we add would be serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair and I agree. Heartfox's suggestion below is a far better option. I was over-thinking it and I agree further information could lead to violations. Just to be clear, I am aware of this style of reissue or the fact that reissues can come with a substantial amount of new material. I was not aware of more recent examples, but I do not really keep up with contemporary music. But long story short, I agree with your rationale and I want to thank Heartfox for their suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a rewording to "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as with The Fame Monster, an extended play" would clear things up, at least for me. Heartfox (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that we are getting anywhere. The issue, I think is around the ordinary English use of the word "reissue", as defined in dictionaries. Wikipedia is supposed to explain things, that's why it is an encyclopedia. You are, I think, using "reissue" in a sense which will only be comprehensible to aficionados, and which according to Aoba only to those familiar with "reissues" from the early 2010s. Does "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), with The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks. If it doesn't, then IMO the sentence is not an accurate statement of fact. As I said above, you manage to avoid this in the lead, and I don't see why it has become an issue here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Does ... mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks"? Yes, it does (if you check source 3, you will see that both the TF and new tracks are present), but it was also released as a standalone EP later on, which I think is the cause of confusion here. And while TFM article does explain that in great details, I don't think the same can be done for "Speechless". In any case, I have removed the use of "reissue" from the main body of "Speechless" as well. PS reissues of this kind (ones with additional tracks) have been around since forever and not just since the early 2010s, e.g. Thriller 25 (2008). FrB.TG (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I haven't done a full review, but the bits I have looked are all IMO well up to FAC standard and criteria and from this partial review I see no reason why the article should not be promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I'd spell out extended play in the lead for readers unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. I'd go with how it's done in "Bad Romance" and "Alejandro".
I have a comment on this part, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve, and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.). I was initially uncertain about the comma. I believe this part could be trimmed down to, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.) Admittedly, I've never been good with commas, and this is mostly a suggestion.
I have a question about this part, (Gaga wrote "Speechless" to convey her "fear of death"). Gaga has talked about how each song on The Fame Monster represents a certain fear. I think it would be beneficial to briefly add that here to give some further context and to tie into the overall EP, but I could also understand if this type of information is left in the EP's main article. What do you think?
At the risk of sounding completely heartless, I do not think the tweet, ("My Daddy had open-heart surgery today. And after long hours, and lots of tears, they healed his broken heart, and mine,"), is necessary. All the reader needs to know is that Gaga's father had the surgery.
Is there any particular reason why the Musicnotes.com source does not have a link to the website?
For the File:GagaKoh Speechless 2.jpg, I would add the year that the photo was taken to the image caption as it would help readers to better contextualize it at a glance rather than having to either find this part in the section or click on the image for the further information.
I am uncertain about the prose for the last three paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section. It has great information, but I find the phrasing to be clunky at points, like how the analysts are introduced/referenced in the prose. I am also less certain about how spots like (The introduction, characterized by theatrical "ohs", immediately draws the listener into heightened emotional landscapes.) is done in Wikipedia's voice. This kind of analysis is difficult to write about on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, I'm struggling with how to clearly express my prose concerns so I will come back to this later. Apologies for that. I still thought it was worth bringing up. I'd be curious to see how other reviewers respond to this section.

I have tried to write an introductory sentence in each paragraph that conveys what it is about. You're right about certain sentences written in Wikipedia's voice. I wanted to avoid starting each sentence with "x opined that.." but I guess there's no way around it. (Too bad we don't have the "conjunctive" in English like in German where the form of a verb is different for indirect speech, making it immediately clear that these are not your own words.) See if it reads better now.

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies again for not being clearer with my last point, and I will try to think of ways to phrase it better in the near future. It probably does not help that I am writing this review up after midnight. This is everything that I noticed after doing a first read-through. I will make sure to read the article more thoroughly several more times to try and do my best as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba. I have taken on board all of your suggestions. Let me know in particular how you feel about the last three paras in music and lyrics section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I appreciate the improvements to the section. I will read through the article in the near future. As always, you have done wonderful work with the article, and I am happy to see it nominated for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think drums and guitar need links as a majority of readers are familiar with both. If the links need to be kept, they both should be moved up to the first instance.
Would the King Princess cover be notable enough for inclusion? It was covered by Billboard, MTV News, and Consequence as published in Yahoo! Entertainment.
I am probably just being dense, but could you clarify how "Speechless" is interpreted as an Oedipal-complex ballad? I thought the Oedipus complex involved some sort of hatred/aggression toward a parental figure, whether it be boys toward their fathers and girls toward their mothers, but I do not really see that type of emotion present in this song. I looked at the source, which makes it about seeing her father as an equal, but this wording left a bit confused. Not saying it needs to be changed, but I still wanted to ask.

I have altered my wording a bit in the song to add the "seeing him as an equal" part. From my understanding, the complex is used metaphorically in this context to capture the emotional depth and significant shift in Gaga's perception of her father. While the traditional Oedipal complex involves elements of aggression or rivalry like you say, the term here highlights a profound transformation in the dynamics of their relationship, where Gaga expresses deep emotions and addresses her father with a newfound sense of equality and heartbroken candor. It's not a strict adherence to the classic Oedipal complex but rather a poetic expression of the emotional journey depicted in the song.

Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I've got after a second read-through. The third point is more of a clarification question than anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look, Aoba. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass

The article uses 3 images. They are relevant and fulfill the licensing criteria. The article has one non-free content in the form of a sample from a song. It has a fair use rationale and fulfills the requirements at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents" - I'd be tempted to go for "was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents"
"A rock power balald" - typo
""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." => ""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, some of whom praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen while others criticized it as weak and insincere."
""Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." - I appreciate that Scotland does have its own separate chart, but as it's part of the UK, saying "the UK and Scotland" sounds a bit weird (at least who someone who lives in the UK). It would be like saying "it charted in the USA and California". I would be tempted to solve the problem by just not mentioning Scotland here, given that by itself it isn't a major market.
"She wrote "Speechless" and produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg." - this reads like she co-wrote it with those guys as well as co-producing it with them, which doesn't seem to be the case, so maybe "She wrote "Speechless" and co-produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg."
""Speechless" is a rock power balald" - there's that typo again
"Robert J. Benton wrote although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father" => "Robert J. Benton wrote that although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father
" As of August 2010, the song has sold" - August 2010 was more than 13 years ago, so this really should be " As of August 2010, the song had sold"
That's it, I think - great work! I distinctly remember watching that Royal Variety Performance performance when it was originally broadcast. Funnily enough this year's RVP is on television in a couple of hours...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Chris. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

Is the IGN review reliable? The website is oriented toward video games I believe.

Well, as per WP:RSP is acceptable for popular culture. And the critic who reviewed the song has reviewed more films/songs/albums than video games so it should be acceptable IMO.

Consequence is not italicized but Idolator, which is usually not italicized, is.
Musicnotes is not my favorite source, but according to this discussion any usage should be clearly attributed within the prose; so it should be preceded by something like "According to the sheet music on Musicnotes.com" like it is on Bad Romance, for example.
The others are all the usual reliable sources used on pop music articles. Spotcheck upon request.--N Ø 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

Addressed comments from N Ø 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this soon. It is always exciting to see Gaga stuff at FAC.--N Ø 20:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of "power ballad" in the genre field of the infobox is a bit unusual. Wouldn't the genre be rock and power ballad the musical style?
The song duration and labels do not appear to occur outside the infobox and thus seem to be presently unsourced

I'd say the external link of the audio is the "source" for the duration. :-)

"Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs, praising her vocals" - Some editors don't like the ", ing" phrasing and have suggested this type of phrasing to me in the past: "Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs and praised her vocals"
The 52nd Grammys happened in 2010, in case the last sentence of the lead is meant to be in chronological order
The November 2009 quote is a really good one but does it need to be a blockquote? The whitespace could be avoided if it was placed within the rest of the text.
Since the "Exploring Gaga's ... sociomusical activism piece" paragraph is discussing the songwriting, it might be a good idea to avoid describing the artists mentioned as "vocalists". This might confuse some readers that Gaga's vocal performance is being compared to Mercury, Lennon and John which does not seem to be the case.
The first paragraph of Critical reception seems entirely positive so I was a bit confused about the opening sentence saying initial reviews were mixed. Is this more of a general summary statement for the entire section?

It's meant to convey the overall early reception of the song.

The third paragraph should open by indicating these are retrospective reviews
"Speechless" topped the Billboard Hot Singles Sales chart, with sales of 7,000 units according to Nielsen Soundscan, becoming Gaga's third number-one single on this chart" - "on this chart" can probably be removed since it is sufficiently implied by the rest of the sentence
"It also shifted an additional 13,000 digital downloads to bubble under the main Hot Digital Songs chart" - Is it possible to swap "bubble under" with something more formal? The usage would be acceptable if there are no alternatives, obviously.
"performed" is used in three consecutive sentences in the beginning of the Live performances section. "Reprised" and "sang" are good alternatives to mix it up.
"Credits adapted from the liner notes of The Fame Monster." - This does not need a period. If you want to use it, though, this could be converted to a full sentence by adding "are" after "Credits". Also, it is generally fine to unlink the main artist's name from the Credits.
Vevo should not be all caps in the External link. But the inclusion of the link itself is probably redundant given the official audio is present in the infobox.

Apologies for this running a bit long. I am open to hatting this after the review comments are addressed if you like. Cheers!--N Ø 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the source and prose reviews. Unless stated otherwise, I've taken on board all your suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing everything. The only other thing I noticed was that the release date also doesn't occur outside the infobox and doesn't have a source. I believe this might work.--N Ø 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

I'm not really a fan of musicnotes. For example, there is no way to verify if there is a key change; we don't know if it is C major throughout the whole song. One of the reviews with 40 likes says "This is not the original sheet music published by lady gaga and hal leonard". I really don't think a random sheet music preview on musicnotes.com is a high-quality reliable source. It should really be citing the official book by Hal Leonard, the digital one published by hal leonard on sheetmusicdirect.com, or not given at all. For example musicnotes.com cited source has 76 bpm and sheetmusicdiret.com has 74bpm...

Musicnotes.com source removed. Not sure about the hallenoard.com one since the question remains whether or not this is the original one or an altered version.

"underscoring the "performativity" in using vocal damage." → I don't understand what "vocal damage" means here
"She was the sole musical accompaniment" → I don't get this

It just means that Gaga was the only one providing the musical background for the performance, in this case, by playing the piano but I think it's redundant anyway so removed.

Heartfox (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Heartfox. Let me know if they have been resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, my current FAC would benefit from your insight. Best, Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella

I have made few adjusts and run a bot. The article is really great and ready for FA status. Support. GagaNutella^talk 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

Whoosh, I might be late to the party. First of all kudos for improving this article. Are you planning to take The Fame Monster to Featured Topic status soon? I believe this article is veryyy close to FA status. Some comments below:

I don't exactly have a plan for a FTC since I don't know if I'm going tackle more TFM-related articles but if I do get enough FAs for an FT, I might give it a go.

Per Template:Infobox song#released, album release dates are fine for tracks as well. I know that this song was not released independently, but not having a release date in the Infobox gives an impression that this is an unreleased song, which is not the case here.
In light of the article on false titles I'd introduce the song as "by the American singer Lady Gaga"
I'd suggest adding {{short description}} manually as I discovered in GANs that sometimes short descs don't appear automatically
Link Rock in Infobox
"Billboard ~~magazine~~ included the song"
Decapitalise "the" in the Monster Ball Tour per MOS:THEMUSIC
Not obligatory but I prefer Oxford commas...
"On November 18, 2009, American singer Lady Gaga" ditto false title; or maybe remove "American singer"
"In a November 2009 interview" with whom?
I know we've done a source review but somehow IGN still irks me as it's a video game site. Not sure if this satisfies as a high-quality source for a Music article?

Well, RSP lists it as a reliable source for popular culture not just VGs. And the reviewer seems to be doing music reviews more than anything else so I think it should be fine IMO.

More to come.. Ippantekina (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done except where stated otherwise. I look forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see inconsistent tense usage in the "Music and lyrics" section ("Apolloni wrote that Gaga's vocal affectations verge on the melodramatic" // "authors Lori Burns, Alyssa Woods and Marc Lafrance wrote that in "Speechless", she adopted a 1970s rock ballad style reminiscent of artists like Mercury, John Lennon and Elton John"). I strongly suggest consistency for this

Done (past tense for words like said, wrote etc. and present tense for the song itself).

Also I think you can remove "according to Apolloni" for the later sentences as the opening sentence of that bit ("Musicologist Alexandra Apolloni wrote that...") already establishes attribution
The "Music and lyrics" section reads pretty.. staccato? I'm not seeing a coherent theme but rather disparate opinions being lined up like a list.
Ditto inconsistent tenses in the "Critical reception" section at some places
You included the journalists' names for the initial reviews but not for the retrospective rankings (Billboard's Lipshutz, Guardian's Craggs...). Any particular reasons for this?

Given how so many are listed, I thought it would be a bit of an overkill to mention both the author and the publication. And one of them doesn't have an author so it would look a bit awkward IMO.

"debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 chart at ninety-four" number ninety-four?
"debuted on the Billboard Canadian Hot 100 at sixty-seven on the same issue" ditto number; also what was the "same issue"?
"On the UK Singles Chart, "Speechless" reached number 88" inconsistent WP:MOSNUM
"It has sold 60,000 digital downloads and acquired 3.38 million streams" as of?
""Speechless" was performed for the first time" I prefer the active over the passive
"collaborating with Canadian performance artist, Terence Koh" remove the comma, ditto false title
The "King Princess cover" section is dramatically short... I think we can merge it with the "Live performances" section and rename it "Live performances and cover" or similar

The most jarring issue is the staccato prose of the "Music and lyrics" section. I know your capabilities so I look forward to the revised prose. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Let me know if the Music and lyrics section reads better now. The first section is about the song's musical elements (genre and Gaga's vocals) and the second is more about the lyrical and contextual elements of the song. FrB.TG (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads much better now, which admittedly doesn't surprise much because I know your capabilities lol. Support on prose, brilliant work as always. On another note, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some comments to my current FAC. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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