Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Easy on Me/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2023 [1].

Easy on Me[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of its release, I am back with another Adele article. This time, it is her ubiquitous 10-week-long number one smash hit "Easy on Me". The song took the world by storm and garnered immediate critical acclaim upon release. Even when 30 disappointed at the Grammys, "Easy on Me" managed to take home the title for Best Pop Solo Performance. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 14:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, MaranoFan, nice to see you back. So: I see you asked for permission to file a second nomination, I don't see an on-wiki reply confirming. Sup? Serial 14:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SN. Good spot. Addressed on the other nom's page. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris[edit]

  • ""Easy on Me" went number one" => ""Easy on Me" went to number one"
  • "She performed the song at the 23rd NRJ Music Awards, her television specials, and the concert residency Weekends with Adele." => "She performed the song at the 23rd NRJ Music Awards, on her television specials, and at the concert residency Weekends with Adele."
  • "Greg Kurstin produced and co-wrote three tracks on Adele's third studio album, 25 (2015),[1] which included the song "Hello" (2015)" - is it really necessary to restate 2015? Clearly a song from an album was released in the same year as the album.......
  • "Kurstin produced the song and engineered it with Alex Pasco and Julian Burg. He plays bass guitar," - "he" here is ambiguous given that three men were named in the previous sentence
  • "Ocado noted a 26 percent increase in tissue sales in the United Kingdom and, along with the cool weather, connected this to the release of "Easy on Me" - this sentence needs re-arranging as it kinda implies that the release of the song led to the cool weather
  • "She talks with someone on a cellphone" - as the article is (presumably) written in British English, this should be "on a mobile phone", because that's what we call 'em :-)
  • "BBC News' Mark Savage opined the transition" => "BBC News' Mark Savage opined that the transition"
  • "after he passed away" => "after he died"
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for the review, ChrisTheDude! All done--NØ 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I am not fully convinced the inclusion of the music video screenshot is justified. The current justification for its inclusion is that it is illustrating how this music video references and compares to others done by Adele, but I do not think the screenshot really does that. If a reader has not seen any of the other Adele videos, I do not think this screenshot would help them as there is nothing to help them visually connect this scene to other media. Non-free media usage is restricted to only when a point cannot be made with the prose alone, and I think this topic can be discussed in just the prose without losing anything.
  • I think that is a valid point. I have replaced it with this screenshot that displays the chairs in both the videos side-by-side and it will hopefully update and display instead of the previous file soon.--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still uncertain about the screenshot. The source link should be updated, but my primary concerns is that this is two separate screenshots from two separate music videos stitched together. I view this as two distinct instances of non-free media usage even though it is a single image. I would think that would require greater justification for inclusion. I am curious if any other FAs use images like this (i.e. two separate non-free images put into one).
  • As much as I love having screenshots and the like in the article, I keep going back to my original point of if this is really necessary. Not to sound rude, but are side-by-side screenshots necessary to show Adele sits in a chair in two videos? I would think this would be an instance of prose being enough to convey this point. Apologies again if this comes across as rude or blunt. Just to be clear, if an image reviewer or a reviewer who has more experience in images than myself disagrees with me or thinks that I am just over-thinking this than I would be more than happy to admit that I was wrong so feel free to reach out to others about this to get a second opinion.
  • Also on a separate, but somewhat related point, the article says this music video received comparisons to "Hello", "Rolling in the Deep", and "Chasing Pavements". The prose goes into the first two instances, but I am wondering if a brief part could be added on how this video references "Chasing Pavements". Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parade critic's comment goes a little further than just saying Adele sits in a chair in both videos, she actually suggests that they might even be the same chair. Copyrighted images have been used in certain cases for comparison purposes (even FAs like "Shake It Off" for example). This is the only non-free file used in this article (other than the standard use of the artwork) so I would have to disagree that its use is excessive. But I really appreciate you expressing your opinion on this (and hopefully this part isn't too big of a problem). I have updated the file rationale and unfortunately the critic making the "Chasing Pavements" comparison did not elaborate.--NØ 18:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation is different than the one for "Shake It Off" though. In that instance, it is a comparison between a non-free image (File:Taylor Swift - Shake It Off music video screenshot.jpg) and a public domain image (File:Funny Face (1957 poster).jpg). I was more so curious on if there was an FA example with two non-free images being used in this type of comparison. Because again, while these two screenshots are put into one image, I would count them as separate because they are separate screenshots from separate music videos. I will wait and see how other reviewers feel about this, but I am just not convinced about this. I still find the use excessive for the reasons I have outlined above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the awards and nominations should represented as prose rather than as a table. I have looked at other song FAs like "Your Power" and "Blank Space" which present this as prose.
  • The lead and the article use "ex-partner". Why not use ex-husband? I just find that "partner" can be ambiguous, and I was not sure why the more exact word was not used instead.
  • I would link mixed since it would be consistent with mastered getting a link.
  • I have a question about this sentence: (During an interview with Vogue, she revealed that Kurstin worked on the song.) Is it particularly relevant to know when Adele told the public that she collaborated with Kurstin on this song? It does not seem notable to me since they already worked together in the past. It also feels repetitive at this point so this collaboration was already established earlier.
  • This is probably a stupid question, but what are "audience impressions"? It might be worth adding a note to the article (with a source of course) to explain it to unfamiliar readers like myself.
  • I have added a note which hopefully somewhat explains this. I find the information I was able to find being extremely limited kind of odd... This seems to be a rare jargon used by only Billboard/the music industry.--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the note. I completely understand how frustrating that can be. I ran into similar experiences when I had to put notes to describe an industry showcase or radio testing. A lot of these instance of music jargon can be very insular so it is more annoying to track down high-quality sources to define them, and I would imagine that this instance would be even more difficult since this one seems even more insular and specific than the ones I had to track down. I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the citation usage in the "Critical reception" section. There is a note for this sentence, (Some thought it was a typical Adele song.), but this is the only instance a note is used. For similar sentences like, (Some commented on the production.), a note is not used so it seems inconsistent.
  • I used the note for the typical Adele song comment because a lot of the critics that had that opinion didn't say much else about the song to include in subsequent sentences. So I thought their names should be included in the form of the note so readers know they had this opinion. Whereas for "Some commented on the production", the critics who did this are all mentioned by name and included in subsequent sentences.--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. I appreciate the explanation. It was just something that came to mind while reading the article, but I completely see your point of view. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance for the nitpick-y note, but the word "thought" is used in both contexts when Nick Levine is discussed, and I think it would be best to change one instance to avoid that kind of repetition.
  • I would be consistent if the note goes before or after the citation. Note A is put after the citation, but Note D is put before it.
  • If possible, I would avoid repeating the word "directed" in this part, (who had previously directed the music video for "Hello", also directed the one).
  • When introducing Weekends with Adele, shouldn't the years that the residency took place be mentioned? It might be helpful to give readers a clearer understanding of when this occurred.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have a lot of respect for you for tackling an article on such a big song. When my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Not going to lie, I am not a big fan of this song, as it just did not connect with me, but I did enjoy the music video. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful review, Aoba47. I believe I have taken care of most of the comments; just waiting for the music video screenshot to update with the side-by-side comparison. Honestly, I am not a huge fan of this song either. It does not have the same flavor as "I Drink Wine" and I might have preferred that as the lead single. And I did procrastinate on this article forever...--NØ 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! I am honestly still on the fence about the screenshot. Apologies for dragging this out. Also, I put in an additional comment in my response about the image (i.e. how this video references the "Chasing Pavements" one). I will read through the article in full again later today. I agree that I would have preferred "I Drink Wine", but I completely understand why this song was chosen, and it was ultimately the right choice based on how well it performed. And just to be clear, you have done great work on this article. I am really enjoying what you are doing with the Adele articles. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article a few more times, and I could not find any further to comment on. I will just wait to see how other reviewers respond to the music video screenshots. I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong, but I would prefer to wait to see other editors, particularly those with more image experience and expertise than myself, respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I wanted to inform you that I have removed the screenshot in question.--NØ 08:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)[edit]

That should complete image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request and caveat that this isn't a type of article with whose source I am deeply familiar with (especially as far as WP:BADCHARTS is concerned). What kind of source are "Columbia Records (2021). 30 (Media notes). Adele." and "XL Recordings (2015). 25 (Media notes). Adele."? What makes "Adele's New Song 'Easy On Me' Out 10/15" a reliable source? I presume that i (newspaper) does not share the (un)reliability of the Daily Mail? Source formatting is largely consistent and the necessary information is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. The Columbia and XL sources are CD booklets of the albums, considered reliable sources for songwriting and production credits. Stereogum is used for the uncontroversial claim that the song starts with piano instrumentation, which should be okay since the critic, James Rettig, is a reputed author who has written for sources like Billboard and Spin magazine. The i critic, Fiona Sturges, has likewise been published in reliable sources like The Guardian and The Independent and should be fine for a subjective critical opinion on the song. Regards.--NØ 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is a pass, with the caveats above regarding no spot check nor any familiarity kept in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

The article seems to be in good order and in solid shape IMO. Not much else to comment on, just a couple of minor suggestions.

  • and depicts her moving out of the same house the "Hello" -- perhaps add "where" the "Hello" music video was filmed
  • Perhaps wikilink Spotify on the first instance.

Great work as ever, so I am supporting this excellent article for promotion. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I think mentioning the videos were filmed in the same house is important due to the perception by some as a sequel, whereas the location of the house is non-essential to the plotline and may constitute excess detail for the lead. Done on the second point.--NØ 17:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Sorry for the confusion, I meant to say it could be written as moving out of the same house where the Hello music video was filmed just for better flow Pseud 14 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely flows better. Done as suggested.--NØ 18:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: *clears throat* Planning the next nomination early November (maybe sooner?) so I wanted to ask for permission a bit in advance. I have one ready.--NØ 23:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a source review pass from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Let's see what they think. FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've passed it now I believe.--NØ 16:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So they have. Yep, you can launch another one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all have a great weekend! NØ 01:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this soon. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several instances of WP:SEAOFBLUE which I would like to see fixed before considering closure:

Additionally, I made some copyedits here. Please check them to see if I messed something up or accidentally changed the meaning of something. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits all look A-OK and the SOBs (lol) should all be handled now! Regards, NØ 19:18, 10 November 2023 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Easy_on_Me/archive1&oldid=1184530767"