Wikipedia:Peer review/I Drink Wine/archive1

I Drink Wine[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on it with the intention of an FAC in the near future. I want to get some opinions on what changes might be appropriate before I proceed with it. This is probably my favourite Adele song and Rolling Stone seems to like it a lot as well. I have a tight work schedule so I probably cannot commit to a QPQ right now but I would still highly appreciate any reviews we can get here.

Thanks, N Ø 06:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I am putting this up as a placeholder. I will post a review sometime next week if that is okay with you. I only have one suggestion right now. This part, Originally 15 minutes-long, her label asked her to shorten its duration, is not grammatically correct as it reads that her label was originally 15 minutes-long. I would revise it. Something like, Originally 15 minutes-long the song was shortened upon the label's request, would work while still preserving some of the original wording. Best of luck with this FAC! I'd be curious if that music video ever saw the light of day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, A piano ballad with gospel influences, I'd link sentimental ballad as it is closer to the actual style. I'd change the ballad link in the article as well.

Done.

This part, incorporates the piano and organ in its instrumentation, is rather repetitive since earlier in the same sentence, this song is identified as a piano ballad.

Fixed.

I am uncertain about this sentence: The song's production and lyrics were also the subject of commentary. It is rather vague and in my opinion not particularly insightful to readers.

I've reworded this but I'm not sure about my assessment. If it's not too much to ask, and since you're neutral to this topic, can you suggest your perspective on how the critical reception should be summarized in the lead?

It looks better to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would include a citation for this part, which inspired the album, just to clarify what is being used to support this information. I think it would be beneficial to clarify this since a different citation is used earlier in the same sentence.

Done.

Is there any further information for this sentence: Upon the reveal, the song received attention on the Internet and began trending on Twitter. Why did the song receive attention? Was it because of the title alone? If there is further information, I would add something brief to just further explain this matter.

Good point. I was able to find something and I've added it.

This may just be me being dumb, but what is a "southern soul piano"?

Not dumb at all! I added a link.

It may be worthwhile to link chardonnay. You have linked items in quotes elsewhere in the article, and some readers may not be 100% familiar with this topic.

Done.

The placement for this sentence is off to me: Critics compared "I Drink Wine" to the work of John. It is placed after multiple comparisons to John's music have already been made in the prose so it seems a touch repetitive. Maybe move it up instead? Also, were any of these critics more specific about these comparisons?

Several critics made this comparison so it needs to be included for comprehensiveness, probably. I am not sure this would work if I moved it up to the background section, to be honest.

To be clear, I was not suggesting that you move it up to the "Background" section. I was suggesting you move it up in the "Composition" section. It just seemed weird to me to go from a very specific Elton John comparison (with the Mapes citation) to something much more general. Upon re-reading the section, I think it is less about the placement and I think maybe some sort of transition could be used instead. However, I could just be over-thinking this so it may be best to wait to see what other reviewers say about this (or if they point this out at all). Aoba47 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments about this quote, "bright and sparkling". I would remove it altogether as the outfit is already described well enough without it in my opinion. But, if this quote is kept, the prose should clearly attribute it to avoid any confusion on who is saying this information. A reviewer for one of my GANs referred to these as ghost quotes so make sure your article is not haunted lol.

Lol. I have now removed this.

I found some unexpected time so I decided to read through the article and post my thoughts. It looks solid to me, but I will do a more thorough reading next week. Best of luck with the peer review and future FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review! I am always very impressed by your speed. I'll check these out first thing when I get home. Excited for your followup read-through.--N Ø 04:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to everything. I am glad that I could help. I am looking forward to reading through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an editor has revised the article (here) to say this song was a promotional single. Do you have any information on this one? Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that is about, to be honest. I guess the burden of proving such a release happened would be on that editor and I have removed it for the time being.

I think it would be helpful to add an audio sample. An image of Adele or Greg Kurstin may be beneficial for the "Background" section. These are more suggestions to think about than anything concrete or required. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both. Thanks for the suggestions, I think the article is already looking better! You don't have to apologize for adding comments here btw. This is probably going to be open for like a month so please feel free to take your time with it.--N Ø 05:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article a few more times since my last post, and I do not have anything further to add to my review. I hope more editors participate in this peer review, and hopefully, the amount of comments I have posted here did not turn anyone away. I appreciate that you are bringing an album cut into the FAC, especially a more recent one. I would just be mindful to update the article with any future live performances (as I'd imagine she would perform this in her residency if that actually happens) and if that video or full single release happen (although I am very doubtful since it has been radio silence on that front for a while now). Best of luck with this peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I guess it's times like these that I am grateful about Adele's laziness. Given how badly "Oh My God" was treated and the time that has passed since, I also doubt she gives another cut a single push.--N Ø 16:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems like post-album singles are not really promoted as much as they used to be. I could be wrong though because I have honestly lost all track of what is popular in current music and music trends in general. I think a major contributing factor was all of the controversy around the residency cancellation, and it seemed like Adele and her team went into radio silence to re-group and try to correct that issue at a later date. I still wish we got the music video if it is completed, and who knows, maybe they will release it for an anniversary or something lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]