Talk:Ghost Voices/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

To absolutely no one's surprise, I'll be taking this review! Expect some comments in the next couple of days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Skyshifter   talk  08:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * Robinson's comment about the song being easy to compose seems like excessive detail for the lead.
 * The lead is already pretty small, so I want to avoid removing more content. I think it currently flows well with that information.
 * Since the remixes by Raito aren't covered in any reliable sources, it seems inappropriate to mention that in the lead.
 * It's just an en passant mention along with the other remixes, I think it's fine and flows well. I don't think the fact that it's covered only in a primary source is bad, as it's an official remix either way
 * The lead doesn't summarize some aspects of the article; for example, there's no mention of the song's critical reception.
 * It mentions the Grammy. Since the song didn't receive much critical reception, I didn't put something like "it received generally positive reception from critics" in the Reception section either, because the opinions there are more pontual (Billboard list, 2019 comment, Calvin Harris... little connection between them)

Body

 * I'd recommend a bit of shuffling around of content. The section currently titled "Background and release" contains a lot of content I'd think would fit better in the composition section, and the transition to the second paragraph discussing the relase is a bit awkward. Since this paragraph has a couple of quotes from reviewers, consider merging it into the reception section. The second paragraph of the composition section also feels better suited for the reception section.
 * My idea with this is for the "Background" aspect to focus on how Robinson produced the song, so I'd like to keep it in the first section instead of moving it. (I could also rename the section to "Production and release"). "Composition" would then focus on secondary sources. The second paragraph of Composition has content that I feel is more related to the song's sound rather than critical opinion ("deep house basslines", "sexy house tunes", "contemporary-sounding", "classic house groove".)
 * "Production" would certainly help, but there's still the rather jarring move from the first and second paragraphs in that section, whose points don't correlate much with each other at all. What do you think of merging that second paragraph into the reception? It already has some comments from critics mixed in, so it won't feel out of place. The composition section could then be merged with the production, which would give the article a nice structure of first discussing the salient features of the song, and then moving on to aspects of its real-world impact. —TS
 * Done
 * There's some too-close paraphrasing from Billboard — the quotes are fine, but there are a few sentences that aren't. See the report.
 * The sentence beginning "Robinson said he was..." runs on, and contains too many quotes.
 * As we've discussed before at length, try not to place too much emphasis on the artist's views as relayed in interviews. I think going into detail about the order of instruments Robinson wrote for is placing undue weight on the interview. Consider focusing instead on Robinson's comments on the process; quotes like "beautiful, sad, nostalgic chord progression" and him calling the melody "catchy" are great for that.
 * This is the only interview Robinson ever gave about the production of "Ghost Voices" specifically. I think it's valid to use it the most as I can. It's just one paragraph, and I believe the prose will be much more natural when I fix the quoting issues. I think this aspect of the production aspect is important.
 * Fair enough, I'll reevaluate this point after your changes. —TS
 * Unlink "2000" per MOS:DATELINK.
 * Done
 * The phrase inspired by the year 2000" feels oddly specific and isn't verified by the source.
 * This was based on: "(...) then focused on crafting the perfectly turn-of-century trance break." "Turn-of-century" became 2000.
 * I see; in my mind, the phrase turn of the century is used to describe that general period, not the specific year when the century turned. You're already using the phrase "early 2000s" higher in the article, which could apply here. You could also just lift the "turn-of-century" adjective in quotes. —TS
 * Done
 * he'd → he had
 * Done
 * Unlink "demo" and "remix" per MOS:OVERLINK.
 * Done
 * the next month on the 6th → April 6 (MOS:DATESNO)
 * Done
 * The clause "following 'Eon Break' " breaks up that sentence weirdly. It might be better broken off into its own sentence.
 * Done
 * Let's try to keep the Apple Music citations to a minimum; I don't think the radio edit is important enough for a mention if no reliable source has covered it. The other one for the remixes should be fine.
 * It's still an official edit; I think it's fine to mention.
 * The claim that "Angel Voices" is happy hardcore is interpretive and needs attribution to the author. (Also, no hyphen in this case.)
 * Done
 * "Billboard " and "trance" are duplicate links.
 * Done
 * technic-Angel → Technic-Angel
 * Done
 * Calvin Harris isn't a critic, so maybe change the section title to just "Reception".
 * Done
 * technic-Angel → Technic-Angel
 * Done
 * Calvin Harris isn't a critic, so maybe change the section title to just "Reception".
 * Done

Notes and references
Citation numbers from this revision.


 * The footnote duplicates a lot of what's already in the prose. Also, phrases like "fair-skinned, dark-cloaked harbinger" need attribution.
 * Fixed footnote. "fair-skinned, dark-cloaked harbinger" seems like a factual description to me.
 * Really? I could see "" passing as a neutral description, even though it's phrased closer to the way you might hear it from a DM than from an encyclopedia, but it's the "harbinger" that throws me off. Harbinger... of what? Again, it's not for me to decide what Billboard publishes, but we need to be identifying whose words they are rather than stating them in Wikipedia's voice. Also, the descriptions not being in quotes makes the sentence too closely paraphrased. —TS
 * Honestly I think I had never heard of harbinger before, so I just assumed it meant what Google Translate told me in Portuguese... Not sure how I would paraphrase that though.
 * Make the italicization of Virtual Self consistent.
 * I didn't add italic for "The Virtual Self alias" because it's not referring to the EP.
 * Do an IABot run for a few citations.
 * Done
 * Why is Lynne Segall listed as the publisher in citation 8?
 * Fixed
 * The "Flanders" in citation 14 isn't linked, and doesn't seem to be needed in any case. Same fix in.
 * I went to another dance song article, Clarity (Zedd song), and using single chart would also result in that; it seems like this is the standard.
 * Citation 15 has some odd date formatting choices.
 * Fixed

Media

 * File:Virtual Self - Ghost Voices.png isn't actually the cover art for the "Ghost Voices" single — I don't think it has one — but instead for a remix EP. Since it doesn't identify the subject of discussion in this article, I question its inclusion and fair use rationale. I'd recommend it be removed and tagged for deletion under criteria F5 and/or F7.
 * The usage of a remix cover when the official isn't available is pretty common. Lost (Linkin Park song) is the first example that comes to mind, I'll try to remember one where the song is a GA.
 * Rather than another article, I'd need to see some policy or guideline (or a discussion interpreting a policy or guideline) that supports the usage of this image before I can check it off. —TS
 * I don't know if there is a specific policy saying that, but it is a common practice... I'll see what I can find.
 * File:Virtual Self - Ghost Voices.ogg has appropriate fair-use tags, is an appropriate length in compliance with the guideline on samples, and has an appropriate caption.

Discussion
Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good work on the improvements so far, Skyshifter; replies are above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Slightly rephrased that production section, let me know if I could improve it further. Skyshifter   talk  17:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice work on the reorganization of the prose! I think the ideas flow together much smoother now. I have a few more pending comments, some of which I've mentioned earlier: —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the "Robinson said he was..." sentence, you replaced a conjunction with a semicolon. While technically no longer a run-on sentence, there are still too many ideas packed in here along with with too many quotes. As I mentioned earlier, the "just playing the keys" and "really good" seem like the easiest to remove or paraphrase without losing context.
 * Paraphrased
 * The footnote still needs to be directly quoted or simply rewritten. Also, footnotes are exempt from MOS:OVERLINK, so feel free to link Virtual Self and "Eon Break" if you'd like.
 * Quoted
 * I did a bit of hunting for policies related to the cover art, and found some relevant reading at WP:NFCI#1 (which allows "the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover") and this RfC. In my experience with fair-use images, the work which is the subject of the article can have its cover art featured. For example, I used the cover art of a soundtrack album on the article for the film, and it was disputed and removed. It's also never been appropriate to use the cover art of an album on articles for its individual songs. I'm afraid I have to insist on some kind of policy, guideline, or written consensus that supports your argument in order to keep the remix EP cover art.
 * I don't see it as an album, but rather a version of the song. Either way, it's removed. Unfortunately, I've only remembered one other example (Where Are Ü Now) and it isn't even GA. From the articles I remember seeing in the past though, this did seem to be common practice; these cases probably need to be re-evaluated in that case.

Responded. Skyshifter  talk  18:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for working with me on this nomination! Great work on researching and writing this, as always, and I'm now happy to this as a good article! Don't forget your seven-day window to nominate this at Did you know?; I think this might make for a couple interesting hooks. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)