Wikipedia:Peer review/Lights Up/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lights Up[edit]

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe I have addressed the issues raised at the last PR and FAC, and would like further feedback on the article before nominating it again.

Thank you, Ashleyyoursmile! 16:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • In the infobox, there is a small inconsistency with Erskine Records and Columbia Records. Erskine Records is written in full while Columbia Records is written simply as Columbia. I would be consistent either way with both.
  • For the infobox, shouldn't be b-side have the (Locked Groove) part since it seems to be a part of the song's title?
  • For this sentence, The song received generally positive reviews from music critics, some of whom found Styles's musical direction refreshing and commented on the song's unconventional structure., I would avoid repeating "song" twice. Since this is the start of a new paragraph, you could replace the first instance with the song title.
  • For the lead's second paragraph, I would avoid having two sentences in a row with the verb "peaked". I would use a different word for one of these instances.
  • I am not sure if this is entirely necessary, but it may be beneficial to move the Styles image in the "Writing and production" section to the left side to avoid having him look off the page. I have gotten this note that encouraged against having photos look away from the article. If you do decide to move the image, I would put the audio sample in the next section to the right to avoid having everything on one side. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed all. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this part, Harry Styles, formerly of One Direction,, to read rather awkwardly. I know what you mean, but I think this information could be conveyed in a better way.
  • I have a question about this part, Touring his debut album made Styles reexamine the entire album-making process. Did the tour make him question the process of making that specific album or recording albums in general? I am not really sure what this part means.
  • For this part, and create a record which he "wanted to make", I do not think this quote is entirely necessary. I would paraphrase it as I think having two quotes in the same sentence is not necessary.
  • I have a question about this sentence: The album's fourth track, "Lights Up", has a more pop-like sound than the songs on Harry Styles. Is it entirely necessary to mention this song's placement in the album track listing? Unless the placement attracted critical discussion and was discussed by Styles or people involved with the making of the album, it seems rather trivial to me.
  • I have a comment about this two parts, Styles said that the song was the product of conversations he had with himself and that he went through a lot of personal changes while writing it and According to Styles, "Lights Up" was created after "a long period of self-reflection, self-acceptance". Both parts seem rather vague, particularly the first one, so further context would be helpful. I find this to be rather repetitive as well since it is mentioning self-reflection quite a bit.
  •  Question: removed the first part, see if it looks good
  • I do not think Nashville or Hollywood need the states after them as they are very recognizable places and it would make both consistent with Los Angeles, which does have the state after it.
  •  Fixed removed
  • This is more of a note, but I do not believe I have seen any other GA (or even a FA) about a song that include this kind of breakdown with timestamps. It may be that other songs have not received this type of coverage though. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it, but I just wanted to say that it is notable.
  • I have a comment about these two parts, the psychedelic music group Tame Impala and the American singer Justin Timberlake. The descriptive phrases for both are inconsistent as Tame Impala is introduced through genre and Justin Timberlake is introduced through his nationality. I would be consistent with one or the other.
  •  Fixed added "R&B-pop" singer to introduce Timberlake
  • I have a brief question about this part, and in the words of New York critic Craig Jenkins, it was described as "an encouraging sentiment for a day about celebrating what makes all of us unique". Is the "it was described" part needed since you have already contextualized this as being in Jenkin's words? Would it be more concise to say, and in the words of New York critic Craig Jenkins, it is "an encouraging sentiment for a day about celebrating what makes all of us unique"? I am not really sure either way, but I still wanted to ask you about it.
  •  Fixed a good catch, thank you

Apologies for the delay in my comments. SNUGGUMS has done excellent work with their review. My above comments are super nitpick-y so apologies about that. This does seem ready for a FAC to me (although it is probably best to wait to get more feedback, of course). I have read up to the "Release and promotion" section. I will continue to review the article later this week. Thank you for your patience and I hope this is helpful at least somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thank you for the comments. Just to let you know, I have revised the Writing and production section again with the suggested changes. Let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 21:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good. Thank you for your patience with my review. I will have my full review for the rest of the article sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, a phrase that had earlier been used on Styles's tour merchandise, I think it would be helpful to clarify the tour and link it. I am guessing this part is referring to Harry Styles: Live on Tour as it was his only tour prior to this point, but it would be good to be clear with this.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Release and promotion" section, the word "song" is used several times in close proximity. I think this makes the prose rather repetitive and less engaging. I would change out a few for some alternatives (like single or track).
  • This one might be silly, but I still want to ask anyway. I was honestly uncertain of what "narcotised" meant as I just do not run across that word particularly often. Would it be beneficial to link it to the Wiktionary entry (narcotised)?
  • I do not necessarily have an issue with it, but I would be careful with the amount of quotes used in the "Critical reception" section as it seems each sentence uses at least one quote and I could see somehow viewing this as a quote farm.
  • I am uncertain about this part, while for Anna Gaca of Pitchfork, it was. The transition "while" does not really make sense in this context as it is really used to identify a contrast, which is not the case here. Also, it is rather repetitive since the next sentence starts with "While...". I think a better transition word would work here.
  • I do not think quotes like "alluring" are particularly helpful and they in fact take away from the more meaningful ones. I would paraphrase that one in particular.
  • I believe I brought this up in the last peer review so apologies if I am repeating myself. I have a comment on this sentence: O'Connor gave the song four stars out of five, calling it "Styles's most assured song to date". I just do not think it is particularly helpful to include star ratings in the prose and I would use that space to provide a clearer understanding of the critic's opinion of the song.
  • I have a comment about the Andrew Unterberger and Tim Sendra sentences. They read as more mixed reviews, which I find interesting as everything else is positive. I think it would be better to group these two sentences and point out that not all the reviews were entirely positive.
  • Jumping off my previous comment, I would imagine there are not any completely negative reviews of the song by reliable music critics? I remember Harry Styles at this time getting a lot of critical love so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but I want to make sure with you.
  • I would separate the first sentence of the "Music Video" section into two, with the second one being about the premiere date.
  • For this part, about Styles's sexuality because he released it on National Coming Out Day and because of the music video's sexually fluid imagery, I would avoid the repetition of "because of". I believe you did this intentionally for parallelism, but I think it would be better to be more concise instead.
  • I must admit that I have never followed Harry Styles' career (or One Direction for that matter) so Alim Kheraj's comment on this being "another example of the queer mythologising" could really use some additional context as I have no idea what is being referenced here.
  • I would revise this sentence, The video suggests people "having sex and feeling sad", which is how he described the album to Rolling Stone., to make the attribution for the quote clearer.
  •  Question: This seems tricky so I have left it the way it is, please feel free to suggest a better wording.
  • The current wording is probably fine. I will think on it further though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase the two quotes in this part, Alonso called the video "ethereal" and every shot "deliberate", as I do not find either to be particularly meaningful enough to be entirely necessary. In my opinion, the "deliberate" quote is quite silly as every shot in a music video is deliberate to some degree.
  • Avoid starting two sentences in a row with "Alonso".
  • I would be careful with the amount of quotes used in the second paragraph of the "Music video" section.

This is the rest of my review for the article. Apologies for the length and thank you for your patience. I think you have done a wonderful job with the article. Have a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoba47, thank you for the thorough review. I believe both your and SNUGGUMS's comments have helped to improve the article's quality. I think I have addressed all the issues except the one I have noted above. Please let me know if the prose still needs improvement. Another query that I have is that in the last FAC, Heartfox pointed out that the i-D article has used a tweet to source the name of the music video director, which apparently does not meet WP:WIAFA #1c, although I have used this for my FL Harry Styles discography. And I am not being able to find another source for it. Can you advise what could be done? Thanks again for your time. I will try to comment on your PR on this weekend. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Is it worth mentioning in the lead that Rolling Stone placed the video on their list of the best music videos of 2019? --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. While the Rolling Stone list is good for the article, I think it is too trivial to mention in the lead. I would only mention something like that if multiple critics/publications put the music video on a best-of list like that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, apologies for the random ping. Do you think the article is ready to be nominated now? Although I believe that I have resolved all the issues raised by the reviewers here, but after one previous failed nomination I thought it'd be better to ask your advice before proceeding with the nom. --Ashleyyoursmile 16:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it looks ready for a FAC to me. I can understand your hesitancy though. I have had a few failed nominations myself. I would ask Nick-D since they opposed the last FAC for this article. I think their opinion would be worth more than mine on this matter. Best of luck with it and I will definitely participate in the FAC whenever you decide to nominate it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. Thank you for the advice, I'll ask Nick-d's opinion then before nominating it. --Ashleyyoursmile 16:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  •  Fixed removed
  • Since "lead single" is such a commonly recognized term, I'm not sure you need to link it per WP:OVERLINK
  •  Fixed removed
  • "It peaked in the top 40 on singles charts"..... I'd be more precise and say top 30 since none of the nations you listed had a peak of 31 or lower
  •  Fixed
  • While there aren't any copyright issues with File:Harry Styles November 2014.jpg, my recommendation would be to instead use a picture of Thomas Hull and/or Tyler Johnson when they produced this song and co-wrote it with him, plus we shouldn't simply decorate the article solely with pics of its lead artist
  •  Question: The photos in the respective articles don't appear to be particularly appreciative so I'm not sure if I should replace the photo of Styles with either of those.
  •  Fixed Replaced Styles's image.
  • "The duo produced 10 out of 12 songs on Fine Line" is better for the album's article
  •  Fixed removed
  •  Question: The purpose for the sample is to illustrate the use of a gospel choir and a repeating lead-vocal melody and lyric, which I have now added to the audio caption. Is it good now?
  • Let's specify which publications compared this to music that Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake made. I'm not saying you have to give author names, just something along the lines of "Critics from X, Y, and Z compared" and bundle all the links into one citation.
  •  Question: I rewrote this accordingly, although I haven't bundled the citations.
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, it would be ideal to add a ref backing up how "the song received generally favourable reviews from music critics"; I wouldn't make presumptions solely based on what's included within a Wikipedia article when that can fail to factor in other stances.
  •  Question: added references to back-up the claim, also changed "generally favourable" to "generally positive" owing to some four-star reviews and a few best lists. Is it worth mentioning that publications like The Guardian, New York Times, Time, and Vulture named it as one of the best songs of its release week and month?
  • Those definitely would be beneficial to add, and I should've been more precise on refs for generally positive reviews; I meant add something that specifically mentions the song having an overall favourable/mixed/unfavourable/whatever else reception from critics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a source is unfortunately unavailable. Should I remove the statement entirely then?
  • If you can't find anything that discusses overall assessment, then I recommend playing it safe by removing that bit from both the lead and body. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed removed
  • Having super short paragraphs (particularly those with only one or two sentences) is discouraged as that makes the flow of text feel choppy. With that in mind, you should either expand on "Vincent Haycock directed the music video for 'Lights Up', which was filmed in Mexico City in August 2019 and premiered on Styles's Vevo account on 11 October 2019, the same day as the song's release" or merge it with another paragraph.
  •  Fixed merged
  • Are Uproxx and i-D trustworthy?

That's all from me. You shouldn't have too much difficulty getting it up to FA standard. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNUGGUMS, thank you for the comments. I have implemented the changes, and left some comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed all

Comments from Ojorojo[edit]

Infobox

  • B-side: Linking locked groove may not be appropriate here, since it has no info about this song. Maybe explain it where it appears under "Release" (is it an actual track or just a snippet added in the run out groove?)
  •  Fixed removed. Unfortunately, further info on the track is not available.
  • studio: FYI only, some prefer the city without parentheses, "The Cave, Nashville"
  •  Fixed

Lead

  • Watch for unnecessary details (full names of UK chart and certification, listing seven countries) and links (guitars, piano, beats, gospel) that are better in the main body.
  • By no means is the inclusion of seven nations an "unnecessary" detail; the lead would be incomplete without any mention of places this song charted within. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree, what if it charted in 30 countries? Saying "It peaked in the top 30 on singles charts and received certifications in several other countries" is perfectly fine for the lead – save the long lists for the main body or chart tables. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you're saying but like SNUGGUMS, I disagree with you about this. I don't think these are making the lead overly detailed. However, I'd like to see what other reviewers have to say on this.
  • If it had reached very high positions or sales in the other countries, it might be worth mentioning them by name in the lead, but No. 23 with sales of 5,000 in Portugal? Otherwise, including No. 3 in his home country is sufficient (if that wasn't clear in my earlier comment), but naming and linking the specific chart and certification organizations is unnecessary for the lead ("In the UK, the single reached number three on chart and was certified gold. It also peaked in the top 30 on singles charts and received certifications in several other countries").
  •  Fixed revised accordingly

Writing and production

  • eponymous: stilted IMO, when "self-titled" is sufficient
  •  Fixed
  • Fine Line turned out to be..., "Lights Up" has a more pop-like...: Maybe combine these two sentences (is listing six genres too much?)
  •  Question: revised, please let me know if it is looking good.
  • Looks good, although check the punctuation.
  •  Fixed good catch, didn't realise I placed two ","s.
  • The Cave, The Gift Shop: "The" is usually capitalized mid-sentence for titles of works, but I'm not sure about for lesser-known businesses.
  • I'm not sure about this myself, but I remember another reviewer telling me last time to capitalise "The"
  •  Fixed removed

Music and lyrics

  • Nice work, tells me a lot
  • Thanks :)
  • Caption: a bit long (MOS:CAPSUCCINCT), also sentence fragments don't use a full stop.
  •  Question: removed the full-stop. The caption actually states the purpose of the audio sample, so it is a bit long. Let me know if you would still like me to trim it.
  • "Lights Up" is already at the top of the listen box, so maybe something like "16-second sample of the refrain with gospel choir and repeating lead-vocal melody and lyric"
  •  Fixed revised accordingly
  • it returns the cadences to the chord B♭: the song's key or other chords aren't mentioned in the article, so this doesn't mean much, plus I don't see it in the ref
  • it is backed up by the Sound on Sound ref. But I have removed this part because what you said makes sense.
Will add more later. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ojorojo, thank you for the comments. I know you have this page watch-listed already, but just making sure that you see my comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

  • All of the info in the "Track listing" and "Release history" sections is or can be included here, so those separate sections are unnecessary (MOS:OVERSECTION).
  •  Fixed agreed, removed the two sections
More later; I wanted to respond to your questions first. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • Looks good

Commercial performance

  • This section includes much of the info also in the Charts and Certifications sections and to avoid duplication it could all be in one section. The last sentences (beginning with Lithuania) don't contain any additional info, so perhaps replacing them with the chart table would suffice, along with moving the certification table. Or maybe you have a better solution.
  • Several FAs include the use of " for inches, when the MOS guideline specifically says it shouldn't be used, so past practices are not always the best guide. In Lips and All there are sections for "Chart Performance" and "Charts", which are covering the same information (even the section names suggest it). But moving huge tables to before the Music video and Credits sections would create an awkward-looking layout, so whatever you decide.
  • Fair enough. But I'm leaving it as a separate section since 1) the table is big and 2) moving it inside the commercial performance will result in using level-three and level-four headers which is something I would like to avoid.
  • OK, but something to consider: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g., several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)" (MOS:COLLAPSE).
  • Okay noted. Thank you for the advice.

Music video

  • With the descriptions of the psychedelic imagery, maybe include an image that shows it or something to break up the text in the last sections.
  •  Question: The video has been as a whole described as psychedelic. I don't think any publications have provided examples to illustrate what kind of imagery they are referring to as psychedelic. So, I'm not sure using an image of that kind would help. There are also sadly no images of Styles performing the song. Let me know what you think.
  • I was thinking of a colorful screenshot/publicity photo from the video that might show up well, instead of a typical posed photo. The only image in the article appears in the second section and there's nothing to break up the text in the last sections. But if there aren't any interesting and relevant images, leave as is.
  • Since majority of the analysis has to do with the sexually fluid imagery, I was thinking if the thumbnail of the MV, which you can find here, could be used?
  • My understanding is that images like this can be used with a WP:FUR as long as there is sufficient discussion in the article text. But the dark images might not show up well at a small size; only one way to find out.
  • Okay, I'll see if I can include an image.

Credits and personnel

  • Looks good.
You've addressed all my points up to my last post. I'll take a look at the refs tomorrow and wrap this up. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • cite web templates: FYI only, some of the |title= entries follow the same capitalization as the originals and others don't. Also, a few use |publisher= and while most use |work= (one shows as italic and the other normal). It's a minor point, but some reviewers want consistency.
  • Fixed the capitalisation issues, I've used the original formatting of the titles. The parameters |work=, |website=, or |publisher= have been used according to whether the corresponding article title is italicised or not. For instance you will find AllMusic, MTV News, and Uproxx have been used as publishers.
Other reviewers seem to have covered the sources, so I'll leave it at that. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo, thank you for the review. Much appreciated. I believe it has helped to improve the article. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support for FA. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

  • "In the UK, the single reached number three on chart" -- Shouldn't there be a "the" before "chart"?
  •  Fixed added
  • Certification titles should begin with an uppercase letter, we are talking about award titles not metals. E.g. "Gold", "Platinum"
  •  Fixed
  • I was advised in previous FACs to avoid the usage of "various", "several", etc.
  •  Question: I have removed "several" and added the names of four countries where it was certified platinum. Ojorojo, do you have a better idea for this since you'd asked me to remove the names of countries? --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four is less listy than seven. But "It also peaked in the top 15 and received Platinum certifications in Australia, Canada, and the US" makes a better first impression IMO (30 doesn't seem very high). Whatever you decide is fine. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. Changed to "top 20" since the US chart peak is at 17, and removed Poland. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me as well.--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are almost no links in the lead's second para. I would suggest adding a few. E.g. music video, sexuality, etc.
  •  Fixed
  • Are there any critical opinions that can be very briefly summarized in the lead to clarify what made the song's structure unconventional?
  •  Question: Not really. Is there anything else that could be added?
  • Something along the lines of "Critics found Styles's musical direction refreshing and commented on the song's unconventional structure which is composed of several breakdown pre-choruses and post-choruses, and a single chorus." maybe?--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: added, but this specific thing about the structure has been mentioned in two sources [1] and [2], none of which have been used in the critical reception section. The other references used in the critical reception section are more of general comments on the structure as well as on its arrangement and production. So will it be okay to have this bit of info in the lead? Or perhaps we could think of including something else as the lead is looking perhaps a bit too short as opposed to the length of the article? --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fine Line turned out to be more experimental than his debut album" -- Is there just one source for this? It should be attributed to the critic in my opinion.
  •  Fixed clarified
  • "Styles wrote the song with Johnson and Harpoon.[13] Harpoon is credited under his birth name Thomas Hull in the liner notes." -- Not sure if the second sentence is interesting enough to keep, I would at least suggest merging the two.
  •  Fixed combined
  • "Johnson, Jeremy Hatcher, Nick Lobel, and Sammy Witte engineered the song with the help of Matt Tuggle and Matt Wallick" -- The inclusion of "the help of" doesn't add much to this sentence. In general, the FAC crowd prefers removing redundancies wherever possible!
  •  Fixed removed, thank you
  • It might be beneficial to include that Caramanica was reviewing for the NYT. I get why you haven't, since he has an article of his own; but it may confuse some readers.
  •  Fixed added
  • Is there evidence of editorial oversight on Sound On Sound? I could see why some source reviewers at FAC may take issue with that one.
  •  Question: not sure. Is it really a big issue?
  • It appears to have passed the first FAC's source review so it should be fine. Some source reviewers could be stricter, though.--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Music and lyrics section is very well done. Kudos on that!
  • Thank you :)
  • There is too much repetition of "Styles" here. Use his pronouns to bring variation in wording.
  •  Fixed I think I fixed this
  • Overuse of "performed" was one of the concerns brought up on my "Bass" FAC, "sang" and "reprised" are good substitutes to use. Though I do not think it is overused here I just thought I should mention this tip.
  •  Fixed noted, and changed an instance of the word in the para
  • The abundance of quotes in the first paragraph of the Critical Reception section could pose a problem at FAC.
  •  Question: not sure that I have done a good job with this, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Definitely looks better to me. Some optional suggestions I can think of:

  • "a soft-touch re-entry into the pop slipstream" --> "a prodigal return to the pop slipstream"
  • "than a gentle coo" --> "than a soft gurgle"
  • "a plangent sparkle" --> "a melancholy vivacity"
  • "the sort of spooky-yet-easy listening" --> "the type of eerie yet simple listening"
  • "Styles's most assured song to date" --> "Styles's most self-confident song yet"
I don't consider myself too good at this either so only use the ones you like. Feel free to use your own creativity as well.--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Found these really helpful, and added them to the article. I just think "gurgle" is a bit informal, so I have retained "coo" unless there's a better word that could be used to describe it.
  • "For Pitchfork writer Anna Gaca, the track" -- Would "according to" be better than "for" here?
  •  Fixed sounds better
  • "Almost no concerns with the Commercial performance section other than the lowercased certification titles. You should remove "Despite not charting in Brazil", though, since I doubt that is stated in the source.
  •  Fixed
  • Any reason why the abbreviation RMNZ isn't included in a bracket but BPI, ARIA, RIAA, etc. are?
  •  Fixed good catch, added it in brackets
  • Definitely link music video in its first mention in the article body.
  •  Fixed
  • Make sure the language parameter is included in all non-English references.
  •  Fixed checked them, all non-English sources seem to have the language parameter excepting a few which have been directly invoked using the {{single chart}} template.  Question: I have a query regarding the reference backing up the chart position of Malaysia. It's a Facebook link so I'm thinking if that's going to create problems of not qualifying as a high-quality source at FAC. Can you advice what could be done?
  • Looking at the chart website, the organisation looks legitimate. The Facebook post is a valid alternative for the dead link in my opinion, so I would keep it.--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. :)
That's it from me. Very well-written article and I hope you have more luck at FAC this time around!--NØ 12:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, thank you for taking time to review this. Much appreciated. I have implemented the changes and responded to some of your comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem!--NØ 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wetrorave[edit]

Considering reciprocity with my recent PR request, EATEOT, I'll review this. Some of these comments are for the article to 'flow' better but, as stated by isento here, this may connect things that are unconnected.

  • Change uses of "Styles's" to "Styles'"? I don't know if this changes with American/British English though
  •  Not done See MOS:'S, we say Descartes's philosophy.
  • "Critics found Styles's musical direction refreshing and commented on the song's unconventional structure which is composed of several breakdown pre-choruses and post-choruses, and a single chorus." – this is a monster of a sentence, and could be changed to "Critics found Styles's musical direction refreshing, commenting on the song's unconventional structure. It is composed of several breakdown pre-choruses and post-choruses, and a single chorus."
  • "Critics found" > "Music critics found"
  • Shouldn't the year of the album be mentioned on this part of the infobox, "from the album Fine Line"? Many people look at the infobox first rather than the lead
  •  Not done See Template:Infobox song, the |album= parameter has to be the name of the album and link not the year.
  • Move the image at Writing and production to the top left of the section, so that there isn't an unnecessary space between this and the next section
  • You may want to explain how each point of File:Harry Styles - Lights Up sample.ogg coincides with each NFCC inclusion criterion—or just use an NFCC template like this one
  • SNUGGUMS since you reviewed the media files, I would like to ask your opinion on this. Is this needed? --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, that's optional and inserting the linked template is a matter of preference. Your choice on what to do there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FOOTNOTE recommends placing refs after punctuation marks, so perhaps change "a pop[10][15] and R&B song,[16][17]" to "a pop and R&B song,[15][16][17]"
  • "Billboards [...] and the caption "Do You Know Who You Are?", were erected" – is the comma needed
  • Retitle "Credits and personnel" to just "Personnel" perhaps? The word "Personnel" already kinda conveys that it's going to be "Credits", especially in the case of albums
  • Should the locations of the recordings be mentioned here? I don't see anything about the subject matter at WP:PERSONNEL
  • "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of Fine Line." > "Adapted from Fine Line's liner notes."
  • Why are spaced ndashes being used at the Personnel section? Isn't endash the proper character to use?
  • All uses of "Fine Line" and other album names on the refs should be italicized
  •  Not done I don't understand the requirement of this, the titles of the citations follow the same formatting as that of the originals. This is going to make the formatting inconsistent.

These are my comments. It's a nicely done article, just needs to wrap up these few issues for a higher chance at FAC now. Wetrorave (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wetrorave, thank you for taking time to review this. Much appreciated. I must say that I disagree with many of your comments. Also, I do not have enough time to comment on your peer-review. My apologies for that. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok Ashley. Depending on your place in the World time is a rare resource. I gotta do a re-read of WP:MOS anytime soon, since many of the changes that were not done have to do with it. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

My main suggestion is to work through the comments I left in the FAC, though the article is much improved. I'd like to also offer the following comments:

  • "the video attracted debates about Styles's sexuality." - watch out for passive voice constructions like this. No 'debate' is noted in the relevant section of the article, though there is some commentary.
  •  Fixed revised it, please let me know if it looks good now.
  • "he talks through a "conflicted inner monologue" or the lyrics find... " - should the 'or' here be an 'and'?
  •  Fixed changed to "and"
  • "an encouraging sentiment for a day about celebrating" - what day is being referred to here?
  •  Fixed changed the quote to remove ambiguity
  • "Editorials reviews of publications such as Paper and Time" - only Paper and Time are cited. What other publications make up the 'such as'? Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed removed "such as"

Hi Nick-D, thank you for taking time to review the article. Much appreciated. I have implemented the changes and left responses above. Also, following-up your comments at the last FAC below. Please let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Styles conceived the song's lyrics, which discuss self-acceptance and Styles's embracing of his own identity, after a period of self-reflection." - awkwardly worded and meaningless
  •  Fixed revised this sentence
  • "The song was written by Styles, and producers Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon, and on 11 October 2019, Erskine Records and Columbia Records released it for digital download and streaming as the album's lead single. "" - also clunky
  •  Fixed revised
  • "Critics have compared the track's production to the music of Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake." - are these the same critics? These artists have quite different styles.
  •  Fixed clarified that these are different critics
  • "the video attracted debates about Styles's sexuality" - clunky
  •  Fixed revised
  • "To promote the song, Styles performed it on several television programmes, including Saturday Night Live and Later... with Jools Holland." - doesn't need to be in the lead: musicians routinely promote and play their music.
  •  Fixed removed
  • The first para of the 'Writing and production' section should be in past tense
  •  Fixed rewrote in past tense
  • "both of whom had collaborated with him on Harry Styles" - awkward
  •  Fixed revised
  • "Styles described "Lights Up" as "the most unorthodox song" he had ever made" - as this is from only his second album, this seems vacuous. I'd suggest thinning out the references to Styles talking about himself, as they're not very useful.
  •  Fixed removed and trimmed it to Styles talking about himself
  • "It was written via voice notes with Tyler [Johnson]. He'd send me a track and we'd send voice notes back and forth" - does this contradict the claim that it was written as part of a burst of inspiration?
  •  Fixed removed
  • "Media publications including Time and Paper noted a melancholic edge to the lyric" - only Time and Paper are then referenced, so the claim that there were other "publications" who "noted" this isn't supported (also, are these the editorial views of the publications, or of their critics?)
  •  Fixed
  • "Music critics lauded Styles for experimenting with pop and R&B sounds, exploring a new musical direction that showed his versatility as an artist." - not in the source, which seems to be the view of a single author.
  •  Fixed revised
  • Hi Nick-D, apologies for the random ping. I believe I have addressed all your comments. Is there anything else you'd like to suggest before I put this up at FAC? Since you opposed last time, I thought it'd be better to ask your opinion before re-nominating it. --Ashleyyoursmile 16:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand if you're too busy to respond or if you feel that most of the issues have been resolved, and don't have much to add onto this. I am closing this review to proceed with the re-nomination. Thank you again for the review. I believe your comments have helped to improve the article. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lights_Up/archive2&oldid=1036084444"