Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dance in the Dark/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [1].

Dance in the Dark

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another nomination of a Lady Gaga song from her EP The Fame Monster by me. Unlike "Bad Romance", my previous nom, this did not enjoy much popularity and was released as a single only in France. Much of my work revolved adding sources (including academic ones) and thoroughly scanning the article for source-to-text accuracy considering it was taken to GA by a user who added fabricated material to Wikipedia articles. I look forward to your feedback on this one. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (passes)

Unfortunately, I will not have time in the immediate future to do a full prose review, but I will do the image and media review to at least help somewhat and take some of the burden away from those who always help with these types of reviews in FACs.

This should be everything. I do not see any major issues. My points are mostly about having the ALT text be more consistent, adding archives of the source/author links, and fixing an issue with the Sawayama image's purpose of use. Please let me know if you have any questions and this will pass my image/media review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, Aoba. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating my review as images in the article were changed. For File:PrimaveraBarcW1Jun22 (51 of 318) (52163776528) (cropped).jpg, I would archive the source and author links. However, this is not a serious issue and does not take away from my earlier review. I'd also like to add that the image does cut across section headings, but I am not sure if that is a serious issues or not so I will that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archived the links on the new img as well. Thank you for updating on your review. (I thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother for something small.) FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Feel free to ping me if there are any further changes with the images and media and I will be more than happy to update my review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias / Your Power

Will leave prose comments within the week ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am out of home right now, so I will have to leave comments via alt. More will follow in a few hours. For responses please ping this account and not the other one Untroubled.elias (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be just me, but right now the first sentence of the lead seems complex and clunky. I read it aloud, and I feel like (1) there are lots of commas and (2) there should be a longer pause between "The Fame Monster (2009)" and "the reissue". Can we change the comma between those to an em dash?
  • The word "song" appears in this sentence as well as the two following sentences. "The song is about a girl" -> "The lyrics are about a girl"
  • Is it due to include the release date for "Alejandro" in the lead? Oh, and the lead mentions the full release date, but the article prose itself excludes the day.
  • "Fernando Garibay co-wrote and co-produced the song with Gaga." the co- prefix there is IMO unnecessary and can be culled in the interest of conciseness
Thanks for your comments. I have done all as suggested above and look forward to the next batch of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prob FrB.TG - continuing. I am open to any justifiable objections to the comments below - please please please do not feel afraid to call me out on an unnecessary suggestion ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still in the lead - I think we can be a biiit more specific wrt the term "formulaic". Was the production formulaic? Were the lyrics?
  • Per MOS:NUMNOTES, please change every instance in the article where chart positions are written in both words and figures in one sentence. For example, "X song" peaked at numbers 5, 39, and 94 in the US, UK, and Ireland, respectively is good, but "X song" peaked at numbers five, 39, and 94... is not.
  • "charted on the UK Singles Chart" seems repetitive - "charted" can be changed to "entered"
    • By the way, is there any tangible basis by which peak positions in certain countries are mentioned in the lead? Right now the relevant sentence seems arbitrary. I could understand mentioning the US chart entries because Gaga is from the US, but I don't know why the lead says it charted in the UK without specifying the peak position like the other countries. Perhaps listing only the countries where it reached top 10/25/40 would be more reasonable (?)
Good point. I have selected the countries where the song reached top ten. - FrB.TG
  • "Other performances of the song included at the ..." -> Other events in which she performed the song included the ..."
  • Completely optional nitpick and feel free to ignore it, but "an intimate experience" sounds better than "the intimate experience". I read the LA Times article, and it didn't really strike me that she was inspired by two specific people who just had sex.
  • The sentence saying that Gaga also struggled with her body image fits better at the end of its paragraph, IMO.
  • "opinion of using stutter in American popular music as a way" -> "opinion that using stutter in American popular music was a way"
  • "Gaga responding to sexism" can be changed to "Gaga's response to sexism" - there seems way too many "Gaga [verb]-ing" type phrases here and we can always switch things up
I noticed that was the case in many sentences in that section. I have reduced the -ing usage a little.
  • "complement moments, where" I don't think the comma should be there
  • When I think of "mixed to positive reviews" I don't get that impression when someone says "this needs to be a single" or "this is an album standout", so I think those parts of the sentence can be split
  • "Campy" is not necessarily negative. There's what folks think is "good" camp ("this is so bad it's good") and then there's "bad" camp. The reviewers were pretty positive about "Dance in the Dark" - even encouraging readers to download it - so I don't know why the review ended up in the paragraph that deals with more negative song reviews.
  • "generic machine RnB" and "a routine and formulaic dance R&B track with retro eighties synth" -> these convey the same idea and can be merged to "or saying that the R&B production was formulaic" to cut down the use of quotations. An aside, but I would expect R&B to be listed both in the first paragraph of the section and in the infobox - the quotations are pretty explicit in calling the song that.
  • On the topic of quotations, I feel like we can easily paraphrase lots of these. WP:QUOTEFARM comes to mind. E.g. called it a "bold and bombastic club banger" can be paraphrased to appreciated its extravagant production or its topic about body images and sound ... made it arguably Lady Gaga's most emotionally potent song to date can become argued that its sound and its exploration of body image made it one of her most emotionally impactful songs
Good paraphrasing suggestions. I have done it for a fair amount of quotes. Let me know if there are any more instances of unnecessary quotes.
We're good here :)
  • "entered the French Digital Singles Chart at number forty and peaked at number thirty" the chart positions should be written with figures, not spelled out
  • The "being" in "while being surrounded" is not necessary - FAs should do its best to uphold conciseness
  • By "electric math grid" do you mean something like a Cartesian plane or graphing paper?
I'm not sure. It could mean either. The source doesn't clarify that so I have removed it for now.
  • I am not sure if the sentence about Jane Stevenson's opinion adds any value to the section. The opinion centers around the song performed after "DitD", not "DiTD" itself.

That should be all from me for now. Tomorrow I will look through the article again to see if there is anything I missed. If you have enough time for a QPQ, I'd appreciate a prose or source review for my open FAC which deals with the concert film Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles. Thank you for the patience with this review! I know I've left a lot to read and I apologize for that. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough review. All very good points that I agree with. Let me know if something needs clarifying. As for your FAC, I'll be happy to review it once I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay these should be the final batch FrB.TG! Once all of these are addressed I will be happy to give my support. Thank you so much for your hard work and patience with getting this the bronze star, and thank you for your FAC contributions in general! You're an inspiration to this newbie :") ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 02:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps we can clarify that the thing women were afraid to speak their mind about, according to Gaga, were their sex-related insecurities. And also that the women she was referring to were "several women who recently got AIDS", to make the mention of the Mac Aids Fund relevant
  • "influenced by Depeche Mode's ..." -> changed to "which was influenced by" because the way the sentence stands, either Robin James was influenced by the song or "DitD" was influenced by the song.
  • "found the song was an example where Gaga uses a" -> "found 'Dance in the Dark' was one of many Gaga songs that use a ...". I assume this is what you mean when you say example, because right now readers unfamiliar with Gaga's discography might ask "an example of what, exactly" when they read the sentence.
  • "The interlude refers to" -> "The interlude includes references to"
  • "the moon liberates her" is this referring to a Gaga or a non-specific woman? I actually preferred the version of the sentence with the quotation.
  • "They called it 'campy' " -> "Some called it 'campy' ". "They" suggests that all reviewers used those adjectives to describe the song ++ it implies the adjectives are a mix of negative and positive, when of course all of them were used positively.
  • Nick Levine's review can go at the end of the paragraph, so that all the review summaries stay on one side and the specific quotations stay on another.
  • The "also" in "Praise also focused" can be moved to the next sentence (i.e. "Reviewers also positively...), IMO
  • "made it her most emotionally impactful song" the original quotation there said "to date". I'd add it back
  • "Reviewing the song" can be removed - given the context we already know everything in this section comes from reviews. I'd rewrite part of the sentence to "Gaga, through the song, was unafraid of pushing boundaries..." - note the change in tense
  • The "then" in "and then to a peak" is extraneous. So is "In France".
  • Add "In the US" before the Bubbling Under sentence
  • Might be worth clarifying that the 2009 leg was the 'original' leg concept-wise, if the sources support it of course.
  • Should there be a hyphen between "laser lit" ?
  • The "as part of a segment titled 'City' " can be moved to the beginning of the next sentence. Currently it reads like there was another original segment in the 2009 leg with the same title.
  • "began to sing" can be simplified to "sang" -> the source suggests the dancers were with her through the entire performance
  • "instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City," -> "instead of Electric Lady Studios in New York City" to cut on the awkward pauses
Thank you for the kind words, Elias. I'm happy knowing that my work has inspired you. And I really like the thoroughness and helpfulness of your review. All suggestions incorporated. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like we are done here Happy to give this my support ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

  • "Gaga's label" it's not her label, isn't it?
  • Infobox introduces the genre as Europop; this should be mentioned in the lead too
  • " .. when the lights are out". the full stop should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:QUOTE
  • I'd add the release date of "Alenjandro" for context.
  • I personally avoid using Musicnotes.com as sources because we cannot be sure if it is the one to the official recording; the source here says "Easy Piano" and the instruments used are "Piano/Vocal/Chords", which makes me rather skeptical because it can be a sheet to a stripped-down version or a cover version.
  • "perform abnormality" this reads awkward
  • I know there will be a source review later, but I am unsure if Digital Spy qualifies as a top-notch source for an FA.
It's cited by several high-quality books here, indicating that it is a reliable source.
  • The same concern for ET Canada, Uproxx and Softpedia. I'd personally go for only reputable music publications (Guardian, Rolling Stone etc.), but I'm open to discussion on this.
Removed Uproxx. ET Canada has been cited by several high-quality books here, indicating it is a reliable source. As for Softpedia, the very review used in the article is cited by the journal Twentieth-Century Music, which is published by Cambridge University Press so I would say this can be used.
Thank you for the responses. I can somewhat feel safe about Digital Spy and ET Canada, but being cited in books does not automatically qualify as reliable. For example, I can use the same reason to justify tmz.com, which is deprecated. Softpedia is a "software and tech news website", so I'd look further into the context of its use in the journal to see how much weights it carry. Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With quite a few unfavorable reviews from NME, the BBC and USA Today, which are arguably more reliable than the sources I raised above, I think it's fair to say that the song received "mixed" or "mixed to positive" rather than generally positive reviews.
  • "after it was released to Australian radio" do we have a source? This can be mentioned in the "Background and release" section.
  • I don't think we need "sortable" one-entry tables, like in the current year-end chart section.
  • I don't think the cover artwork for Rina Sawayama's version is necessary. I'd go for a free-use image of Sawayama and a caption like "The song was covered by Sawayama (pictured)"
I agree with you. GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song was recorded in Sawayama's home studio and is an electropop composition with production handled by Clarence Clarity. [...] Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sawayama recorded her cover at her home studio, instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City.[69][70] Her version replaces the Europop sound of the original song with nu metal-influenced electropop." somehow the information is repeated twice.
  • Also, "instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City". We need some context; does Sawayama usually record at this NYC studio?
  • Same concern for Stereogum as a top-notch FA-worthy source.

These are all comments that I have. Overall this is a solid article, and I am open to discussion to any of the points I raised above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ippantekina. All very helpful suggestions. Let me know if I have missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose--Thank you for the responses. A more thorough source review may be necessary, but I've left some comments regarding my thoughts on sources which I am open to discussion. If possible, I'd very much appreciate your input at my current FAC. Great work overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella

  • "A remix of the song appeared on Gaga's" I would replace Gaga for her, less repetitive.
  • All those famous people are wikilinked, maybe you should do it with Jesus as well.
  • Add which Grammy's edition it was nominated.
  • Why does the revamped link goes to the dates? I think it should go to revamped concept.
  • Wikilink digital download.
  • add (EP) after extended play on Sawayama's section.
Removed extended play and replaced with EP since the abbreviation was already introduced earlier in the article.
Even better! GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink the first electropop.
  • Sawayama Remixed to Sawayama Remixed (2020).
  • Source 23: Pitchfork Media to Pitchfork.
  • Translate sources 63 and 64.
Not possible since the sources are automatically generated by {{single chart}} and they cannot be modified.
  • Source 68: Spotify must not be italicized.

Great article! GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ver much for the comments, GagaNutella. I think I have resolved all of them. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radios" => "issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radio" (in two places)
  • "as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Song." => "as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Songs chart."
  • "Universal Music France issued "Dance in the Dark" on August 25, 2010 [....] Earlier that March," - doesn't really work grammatically as "earlier that March" suggests that the former event also took place in March, which it didn't. Suggest changing the second sentence to "Gaga had released her first remix album entitled The Remix in March of the same year"
  • ""Dance in the Dark" debuted at number 22 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles in August 2010[42] and number 9 on the Hot Dance/Electronic Digital Songs in October 2010" - think you need to add the word "chart" after each chart name to make this work
Replaced "debuted at" with "charted at" to avoid repeating "charted" twice. Hopefully, it works.
Thank you, Chris, as always. All done as suggested. I'll gladly review your FAC as soon I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Nice writing for this article about this very popular song. Its promising to see the many nice comments left by the editors above who are already supporting, and the article is put together at a comparable level to your other Lady Gaga nominations. It would be of some use to the article, I think, to at least mention at some level the fact that there was no official video to go with the release of this song. Why was this? Did they use up the entire video budget on the other releases on this album, or was the priority of which videos to release made beforehand, before they knew how popular this song would be when it came out? If RS ae hard to find, it seems like you could mention which songs from the album did get official videos along with which order they were actually released in. That is, how many of the songs on the album did get official videos and how many did not? I'm going to ask the same question for the cover version of the song, which you cover in this article, since it also does not appear to have an official video. Another coincidence? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, thanks for your comments. There's (currently) no source for why no video was released/if there was ever plan for one. Saying other singles got videos is a bit POV-pushing IMO as it implies that we think this one should've gotten a video as well. This song was hardly a single (only released to radio stations in one country nine months after the album release). It would be another discussion if it was another song like "Do What U Want" where a video was in talks for months but it never saw the light of the day due to certain mishaps. FrB.TG (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS is imiportant for this; what about simply listing it as one of the list of songs from the album which was not released with an official video? That way there is no POV pushing, it simply states that some of the songs had official videos from the album, and some did not. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but the thing is even something like "it did not have a video" needs an RS, which we don't. FrB.TG (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the album page for this, it appears that only Bad Romance, Alejandro and Telephone received official music videos, and the others did not. Dancer in the Dark looks like it simply was not one of the three songs from the album which were chosen to receive official music videos. It looks useful to the article to say this for readers of this article who could otherwise ask themselves why the article does not cover anything about a related music video. Putting this in neutral language I think might be useful in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but my point is we need a source for this, for which none exists. Even talking about something not existing needs a source. Without a source, it would need a {{citation needed}} tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of moving forward with this; what do you think of adding a column to the album page charts of individual songs on the album to include a column which would indicate the date of the release of official music videos for the individual songs. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a much better alternative. I would suggest it adding it in prose form in singles section instead since all music videos from TFM were for singles. FrB.TG (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its an understanding that in the process of time that you'll add this information to Lady Gaga'a various album pages (the release dates of official music videos for each album of hers), then that looks like it would be an improvement. In the meantime, I'm joining the other editors here who are supporting this nomination. (P.s. I've also listed a FAC for the Olympic champion in popular culture Yuzuru Hanyu above in case you might have some time for any support/oppose comments.) ErnestKrause (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

  • While the release history table provides sources for Interscope and Universal, Streamline and Kon Live are only included in the infobox so is there a reference for those labels?
  • "is about a girl who likes to have sex with the lights off, because she’s embarrassed about her body" seems to be an almost direct quote from LA Times, this could benefit from being paraphrased
  • Ref 15 seems to give Michael Hubbard as the poster but seems to say in the text that Michael Cragg made the notes presented? If this is the same Michael Cragg who also wrote for The Guardian, I guess it should be fine from a reliability pov
Well, it says "Cragg wrote some notes", which doesn't necessarily mean he wrote this article, but rather (possibly) that he made notes about the album and gave it to Hubbard who then penned this article with his help. I'll go by with the official credits. And MusicOH is fine for FA IMO.
  • Tony Hardy (Consequence) seems to have called it a "formulaic dance R&B track", but the dance part seems to be omitted in the article currently. Also, both that source and BBC refer to R&B as a main genre than an influence, so it could be incorporated into the infobox
  • The ref order in the first sentence of Critical reception could be changed to 11 22 23 instead
It's arranged in terms of the opinions/quotes.
  • [2] shows a number 43 debut in Australia, not 93
  • Ref 15 does not seem to confirm DITD was performed during the "City" segment
  • Ref 4 does not open for me so it might need to be marked dead
  • What makes these reliable: IGN, Gay Times
IGN is listed as reliable for pop culture news at WP:RSP
Gay Times has been referenced by several reliable sources, including The Cut, NY Times, a Routledge-published book etc.
  • Mashable should be removed or replaced per WP:RSPSS
  • Not sure "Pitchfork" has to be included in the title for ref 25
  • Author for ref 33 is Christopher Rosa
  • MTV News should be linked on ref 55--NØ 06:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the detailed source review, MaranoFan. I believe these should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! And the article officially passes the source review.--NØ 11:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dance_in_the_Dark/archive1&oldid=1110930597"