Talk:Perfect Illusion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:19, 13 April 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perfect Illusion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Perfect Illusion has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 18 August 2016 by reviewer IndianBio (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Lady Gaga Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Sources

Gonna list sources here.

[Bold texthttp://junkee.com/lady-gaga-fans-pretending-soccer-moms-going-absolutely-wild-internet-today/84548 Worth adding?]

—IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed review

troublednbored (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this positive review by the New York Post, I hope I could help! New York Post--2A02:810C:8C0:22C8:44C4:C714:31D1:1668 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio take a look here. Many informations that we could use on the article. GagaNutella^talk 03:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. I am working on a more concise and better flowing version of the article in my sandbox at the moment. Marshmallow Honey (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the link GagaNutella, and I don't think there is anything wrong with the article. Copyedit is all that is needed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Resolved

Does "Shangri La Studios" need to link to Rick Rubin? The reason is unclear. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was linked (not my cause) possibly because Rick Rubin created the studio in Malibu (clickable link). But I don't understand either why we need to link it as well, for example if there was an Virgin Group unit like "Virgin Pharmacy" and contained no article link, would that be necessary to add redirect to Virgin Group page? troublednbored (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome additional discussion, but I went ahead and removed the links to Rick Rubin for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Polarized reviews"

I really don't believe Perfect Illusion was met with polarizing reviews, they have been largely positive and bad reviews have been in the minority. The song was met with generally favourable reviews. I have not edited it to prevent edit-warring. Mikgregor (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. The BBC article said it received "broadly positive reviews". Marshmallow Honey (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There is others media that claims about reviews "are mixed" like Irish Independent. We need to be neutral and I suggest write something like: positive to mixed reviews. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added positive to mixed review, based on the BBC article and the Irish Independent article as noted by you Chrishonduras. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, this might not be compliant to Wikipedia rules, and I pre-emptively apologize for my ignorance on that matter, but... how would taking two to four reviews out of a multitude of positive ones as an overall standpoint be supposed to classify as "neutral"? Seen from the outside, this kinda looks like making an arbitrary judgement. I think neutrality does not necessarily amount to objectivity, as being neutral is simply not a realistic option when it comes to culture criticism: is culture ever neutral? On the other hand, some facts are objective and we can arguably consider them as such. In this case, the fact that the reception to this piece of culture was overall positive is not altered by the contrasting voices which you correctly reported. I ask this out of curiosity and as a loyal wikipedia user, no subtle meaning. The problem is, your choice may be targeting neutrality, but it just doesn't seem fair. Cheers! 2.37.163.12 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article itself shows 12 positive reviews and 4 mixed reviews, they are mostly positive so I dont understand why its currently phrased 'mixed to positive'. Mikgregor (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Blended with mixed and positive reviews sounds more neutral." Someone did it here at Up Out My Face. troublednbored (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Horror Story promo

Resolved

I just heard the song in an advertisement for the upcoming season of American Horror Story, if that's worth including (and can be sourced). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! And we have to add a "promotion"section. Today she took over the Instagram's story, she has been promoting her new single on radios in Europe and in the USA, and other things. GagaNutella^talk 20:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the following under section "3 Music and lyrical interpretation" from The singer's vocals are kept raw and untreated on the song, in favor of autotune.[13] to The singer's vocals are kept raw and untreated on the song, eschewing autotune.[13]

Description improperly quoted from source: states "in favor of" rather than "eschewing" which confounds the meaning of the statement.

Note the original quoted text via Reference 13: "Gaga's vocals are untreated on Perfect Illusion - eschewing autotune in favour of a raw, warts-and-all performance."

Thank you.

--OneWorldOneWiki (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OneWorldOneWiki (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for bringing this up. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sample?

Resolved

I received a request for an audio sample of this song on my talk page, in order to improve this article, but I am not familiar with uploading audio files. Is there someone else who can help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point, flop single, flop artist, flop fanbase. ;) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart drops?

Why has information on first week sales and chart positions been mentioned in the Chart Performance section but not mention of the rapid drops out of the charts in many countries especially France??? jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 17:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because this article is not constantly edited. But needs to be expanded. Chrishonduras (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts Peaks not updated

Japan Hot 100 peak hasn't been updated since 1st week and it climbed to #35 on 2nd week, which is its peak so far, not #89. Also, it entered Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs last week at #31 and it has not been included in the charts section. AyuFame (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I am Gaga's fan and I see a lot in Instagram that perfect illusion is gold in Australia so you can check this please? Thanks.

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 Japan Hot 100 peak hasn't been updated since 1st week and it climbed to #35 on 2nd week, which is its peak so far, not #89.
 Also, it entered Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs last week at #31 and it has not been included in the charts section. [[User:AyuFame|AyuFame]] ([[User talk:AyuFame|talk]]) 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
+== Hello ==
+Hi, I am Gaga's fan and I see a lot in Instagram that perfect illusion is gold in Australia so you can check this please? Thanks.