Wikipedia:Peer review/Saving Light/archive3

Saving Light

Previous peer review

<{{subst:ns:0}}noinclude>[[Category:{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} peer reviews]]<{{subst:ns:0}}/noinclude>

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to properly prepare the article for a Featured Article Nomination. Thanks, Micro (Talk) 08:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Damn, you've been shafted over and over again when its come to this article. I feel for you man, I'll review it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• And don't worry, I don't know much about EDM.

• Thanks for taking your time to do this review, I haven't really been getting much attention because it's not the most popular subject. I'm not sure if you do the review in segments, but i'm going to assume so. Micro (Talk) 00:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, I'm planning on doing this in segments. I would try and do it all at once if I had the time, sorry. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Lede

• "Their goal was to encourage fans purchase the song on Beatport to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and in so doing have it reach the top of the Beatport charts." Is phrased kind of awkward. I might rephrase it to something along the lines of "Their goal was to encourage fans to purchase the song on Beatport, an online music store, to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and get the song to the top of the Beatport charts."

• Done, rephrased.

• "The song achieved this goal within a week of its release, reaching number one on the Beatport overall charts on 16 February 2017." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that not "within a week" of release"?

• Not sure how I only just noticed this, but the "within a week" part was supposed to show that the song went into the Beatport charts in general, not to the #1 position, within a week. Pretty sure it was removed because it wasn't actually mentioned in sources. I've changed "week" to month" to keep the wording.

• " and won Best Original Track in the Trance category on the Best of 2017 voted by the r/EDM subreddit" Feel like this could be a less clunky, more specifically with "On the best of 2017 voted"

• Removed the "Best of 2017" bit, tried to rephrase it with the 2017 bit, but it didn't seem to work well.

• I rephrased it too "was voted the Best Original Trance track of 2017 by the r/EDM subreddit." I think that sounds better, sorry for not being more specific. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the second mention of Armin van Buuren can just be "van Buuren" because he was already full named in the paragraph.

• Done.

Background and release

• "which included an electronic dance music (EDM) drop and a dubstep section." Maybe add "Some of" before "which" for some clarification.

• Done, seems better.

• "Emery tested each version as part of his DJ set before the song was completed." I would change played to tested, since that would make a reader who doesn't know what a Dj set is get a better idea than tested.

• Changed to played, I think you mixed up played and tested there.

• "The song was featured was featured on the compilation album..." remove one of the "was featured" (Yeah, I do that sometimes too)

• Don't know how that got through, removed.

• "Emery had described the song's meaning as about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their "saving light"" Would change "had" to "has" (Or just remove had altogeather), and change "bully" to "bullies" and "victim" to victims.

• removed "had", changed to plurals.

• ""Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance No. 1 Again". This was an initiative organised..." Maybe the sentences could be merged for improved readability, instead saying "... "Make Trance No. 1 Again", an initiative organised..."

• Done.

• "In a Facebook post..." Facebook should be wikilinked. Don't worry, that won't be overlinking.

• Done.

• "Writing that Emery had been "waving the EDM flag for years", Lawrence said that trance does not need saving and has been doing "just fine without him"." Would change "writing" to "Lawrence said" or "Lawrence claimed" and change "and has" to "and had", and then "Just fine without him" to "just fine without [Emery]"

• Changed to "claimed", replaced a repeated "Lawrence" with a continuation.

Remixes

• "A video showing the choir performing the song was released by Monstercat via their YouTube channel.[7] Lennon Cihak of EDM.com praised Haliene's vocals..." So Haliene was also there, along with the choir? It should be added that she was part of the choir before the review is brought up, to make that it wasn't just the choir a little more clear.

• Done, added that she performed the song alongside the choir.

• "Cihak further wrote about the overall video production, describing it as "warm, subtle and comforting"" I would change "Further wrote about" to something like "also commended" or "further complimented".

• changed to “also commended”.

• "stating that Haliene's..." I would change stating to something else, maybe "opinioning" or "adding".

• changed to “adding”.

• "His remix was generally well received. An EDM Sauce editor wrote..." I would merge the sentences, so it says "His remix was generally well received, with an editor for EDM Sauce writing that..." I would also remove "generally" since the article seems to indicate that his remix only received praise.

• Done.

You seem to abide Wikipedia:RECEPTION well in this section, nice job....

Overall Okay, so I was initially going to do the last few sections, but they all seem pretty good. The only thing I would add is a synopsis of the music video if sources talk about what happens in it. Other than that, everything looks about right for a far. It's small, but a pretty solid article and I don't see anyone raising massive issues with it. Nice work, and hopefully It finally gets passed!

• Thanks for the review. I added a brief synopsis for the video, though I am not sure if I layered it right and if it should be somewhere else in the music video bit or not. Also, I am thinking of adding a screenshot of the music video for visual representation/identification, should I?

@MicroPowerpoint: Feel free to if you think it would help illustrate a pivotal point in the video; see Irreplaceable#Music video for an example of a music video screenshot on an FA. As for the way the music video synopsis is incorporated, I don't see much wrong with it; The most I see someone wanting is the separation of the synopsis sentence and the reception.

@Money emoji: Ok, I've moved it into the first paragraph, should seem better there. I've also added a small screenshot, it should be within fair-use.