Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inspired (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 [1].

Inspired (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about a song recorded by American singer Miley Cyrus. It was released on June 9, 2017, as a promotional single from her sixth studio album Younger Now (2017). It was inspired by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and also includes references to Cyrus' father Billy Ray and her childhood in Tennessee. Cyrus donated the song's profits to her Happy Hippie Foundation. Critical response to "Inspired" was mixed; some praised its message and Cyrus' vocals, while others felt it was disingenuous. The song charted in Australia, Russia, and Spain. Cyrus promoted the track with live performances, including at the One Love Manchester benefit concert.

I believe that the article meets the criteria for a featured article. For those interested, this is what the article looked like prior to my expansion. It received a edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was further improved during its GA review. I am looking forward to any comments/suggestions for improvement. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Aoba, I sincerely hope you won't get overly discouraged by this review, but I just think you can do better than this. As I hinted at in my "When You Get a Little Lonely" review, I'd really love to see you take on something meatier with more substance. Of course you're free to take on subjects as you like, but if you chose something that lots and lots has been written about, it'd be all the more likely you could have enough details to work with to write a really compelling story. As it is, this article feels like a bunch of semi-related details without a real interesting narrative behind them. The points in the first paragraph of Composition and lyrics, and the Reception section, seem particularly random. There are also too many quotations and the sentence structure and length is not as varied in places as could be (but in the past I've seen you fix these last kinds of issues in a short amount of time, so I think they are less of an issue).

But Aoba, I know you're very motivated, and if you can not get discouraged, and you dig deep, I wouldn't be surprised if you can turn this article around. I haven't read any of the sources, but have another look through them. Maybe there's more details in them that you can do something with. Maybe there are stronger patterns to be found in what different reviewers and writers have said, patterns that you can use to form a really cohesive story about this song. Different editors work in different ways, but I'll tell you if I was working on this, I would print off every one of the articles and scour them with a pencil in hand, and try to find the hidden heart and soul of the article there in places that may have been missed. And I see all your sources are online—have you tried the library? It's a recent single so there may not be much in books, but maybe there's stuff in offline magazines and various cities' newspapers? And I assume you've already scoured lots online, but maybe scour one or two more times with different search words. Get creative, and there may be other sources out there to build up the article with. Good luck, I wish you the best on this! Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I believe I have exhausted a majority of online resources about this song, and I would argue any additional sources would present the same or similar information. I highly doubt any book covers this song, as it is not a subject traditionally documented or analyzed there. While I appreciate the following bit of advice ("I would print off every one of the articles and scour them with a pencil in hand, and try to find the hidden heart and soul of the article there in places that may have been missed."), I have no interest in doing that for any article. I must admit that I am disappointed, as a large part of the review boils down to a level of personal interest, in a similar vein as your comments on the When You Get a Little Lonely nomination. I am uncertain on how to make an article have a "really compelling story" as that appears to me to purely a matter of personal interest. Not everything is going to "really compelling" for everyone, but whether or not a reviewer has a personal interest in the subject matter should not be a factor in a FAC review. However, that is just my perspective, and it does not hold much weight. An oppose vote this early in the nomination pretty much destroys any chances for this, so I see no reason to continue this further. I am going to ping the FAC coordinates (@Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, @Sarastro1:) as I would like this FAC withdrawn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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