Talk:Leave the Door Open/GA2

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The media files are appropriately tagged. Earwig shows no issues.
 * Do we really need the sample? There are already two fair use images in the article; there's not an absolute prohibition on three fair use media files, but you need to have a strong reason, and I don't see anything in the article that requires the audio file in order for the reader to understand the text.
 * I can re-write its description. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks:
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * radiodate.it → Singles criteria
 * That page lists earone.it; are the two sites the same? I had a quick look and couldn't tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It lists both. Please click on Airplay Control. They are similar. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * hotpress.com → Part of the Metacritic aggregator Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 46
 * gigwise.com → See their editors Gigwise and journalists Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 65
 * Is the dropbox account officially associated with the Australian RIA? If not I don't think we can use the link or the source.
 * It is, they have been using it for around one year now. Otherwise, it would have not been here. Plus is a automatic link. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by automatic link. You mean if that the related website provides that link?  That would certainly prove it's official.  Can you point me at a link like that, or if that's not what you meant, clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The certification Table Entry goes directly there. Go to "https://www.aria.com.au/accreditations" and click on latest accreditaions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FN 18 cites 'Charlie Harding from Vulture said "Leave the Door Open" evokes "1970s Philadelphia soul" and despite being "serious musically", it is "lighthearted, lyrically." He found it nostalgic but "sound[ing] contemporary" due to Paak's vocal flow. American singer-songwriter Tayla Parx thought that its modernity stems from the "conversational" lyrics and Paak's "personality" and "silliness". Harding pointed out that its modern approach can be heard at the end of Paak's first verse, to which Parx responded "You can hear [the early influences] in his voice, but those cadences are still very contemporary".' A couple of issues here -- being serious is not the same as taking itself seriously; that's not a verification failure, just a suggestion to reword.  And Parx says "silly", not "silliness", so again that needs a little rewording.
 * Not sure what do you mean with the serious part, it is taken from a quote. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had another look, and I think I was reading a nuance into the language that the source didn't intend. If you think I'm a fool, you might still say I take myself seriously, but you wouldn't call me a serious person.  The quote is ungrammatical anyway which is what caught my attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then its their problem as writers, not mine. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FN 77 cites 'In the week of March 29, 2021, "Leave the Door Open" reached the top ten of Radio Songs chart in its third week, becoming the fastest song to do so since Justin Bieber's "Yummy" (2020) took only two weeks to reach the top ten. The single tied with Mars's "24K Magic" (2016) and "Finesse" (2018) featuring Cardi B for fastest rise to the top ten.' Again this is verified but I would suggest making it "his fastest rise to the top ten" at the end since otherwise a reader might think this refers to songs by others.


 * FN 140 cites "At the same time, fans danced, sang along, and held up signs as Mars and Paak serenaded them helped by background vocalists." The source says "the two serenaded them with the help of some backup singers. As Silk Sonic performed their hit, fans behind danced while holding up signs." This doesn't say the fans sang along, and without that the rest is too closely paraphrased.
 * I fixed and I take suggestions here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Normally with one verification failure out of three I would be doing more spotchecks, but there are so many quotes in the article that it's very difficult to find prose to check that is not simply a quote. There's too much quoting, in fact, and I think this needs to be addressed next.  It's normal to quote several sources in the reception section, because you're illustrating opinions, but there should be much less reason to do so in the composion and  background sections.  Even in the reception section there's too much quoting -- I'm not asking for a FAC level of prose, but this is little more than a listing of quotes.  And I think the accolades section contains a good deal of material that probably should be in the critical reception section, if we keep it at all.  Wouldn't a reader prefer to read a sentence like '"Leave the Door Open" was including on many music publications' "Best of" lists for 2021, including lists from Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, Insider, Vogue, and Cosmopolitan"?  And is it really worth including the "best of the week" and "best of the year so far" listings?  And these listings, whatever we do with them, don't have to be tied to the critical comments; I think it would make more sense to merge those comments into the critical reception section, turning many of them into prose rather than quotes.
 * Accolades and critical reception are very different things. If I wanted a mono text/supermarket grocery list I would have done it that way. However, it is more engaging to the reader to have a little reason why it was one of the best songs of (day, week, year...). On top of that, the critical reception has enough description and reviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll pause there for now so we can address these points first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Most points above are now struck. To your comment, I agree that a bullet-list-like presentation of "best of"s might be boring, and it's your choice as writer how to present this information, but I don't think the way you've done it here works. We're suppose to be putting together these sources into a coherent section. If we list what each person said about each aspect of the song, one after the other, that's not a paragraph, that's a list, in prose form.

I think this is partly because the article over-uses quotes, not just in the accolades and reception sections, but throughout. A good example is the paragraph at the end of the "Composition" section, where two different writers compare the song to the Delfonics, and a different pair of writers compare it to both the Stylistics and the Spinners. Instead of trying to pull out a common thread here, the paragraph just lists all these different opinions, which feels mechanical when you read it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is quite coherent. Songs of the week, songs of summer and month and in another whole paragraph best songs of the year. It follows some sort of chronological order
 * One compares the "close-harmony seductions" other compares its "style", the "song's instrumentation" and another "Mars's falsetto". These are very different things I can't merge this. However, I removed some of the quotations. However, its strange you are asking me this since Earwig shows no problems. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason Earwig is not complaining is because you're not taking a large amount of any one source, but lots of quotes from multiple sources. Even if Earwig were showing a problem, you've correctly quoted the material; this is not about close paraphrasing or taking source wording, it's about the way the prose is structured, per WP:OVERQUOTE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Example rewrite
Rather than speak in generalities I thought it would be best to show you what I'm talking about. Here are two paragraphs from the composition section, which mostly deal with the lyrics. I've just removed the citation superscripts but otherwise this is as you wrote it. I've highlit the quotes in green. The only text that conveys descriptive information to the reader that is neither a quote nor an attribution is "Mars hopes the woman feels the same way he does", which is pretty close to a quote from the chorus, and "noticed playful humour in its lyrics", which takes "playful humour" from that source.
 * "Leave the Door Open" starts with .Paak's "" voice and Mars's background ad-libs. Paak sets the scene: "" In the chorus, Mars hopes the woman feels the same way he does. Its lyrics are described as a "" with "". Mars and Paak sing to a loved one "”
 * Katie Atkinson from Billboard described its lyrics as "". NME's Sophie Williams noticed playful humour in its lyrics. Sowing from Sputnikmusic said, ""

Out of 122 words, 57 are quotes, and another dozen or so are attribution; that's more than half of the text of these two paragraphs. Here's one possible way to rewrite this to reduce the number of quotes and use the remaining quotes to illustrate the article's own descriptive text. Again I've highlit in green the quotes.
 * The lyrics are an “” from the singer to a woman, encouraging her to come over to his house. .Paak sets the scene with "", and Bruno follows with the chorus, “”.  The lyrics are full of humour, with playful references such as “”; more than one reviewer commented on the way the witty lyrics reflected the light-hearted relationship between Mars and .Paak.

Out of 92 words, 33 are quotes. Frankly that's still too much if the whole article were like that, but we are talking about the lyrics here so an extended quote is reasonable. Here are specific reasons why I cut some of the material you included: I hope the above convinces you that I'm not being arbitrary. The level of quoting in the article damages the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * -- we've already said the invitation is to come over for a romantic evening; there's no good reason to quote a reviewer quoting the song unless it adds something. All the reader gets from this is the wine and bath with rose petals, which are from the song, not the reviewer.  Part of the rule about copying is that one shouldn't copy so much that one gets the same effect as the original -- if the reader really wants to know what the song is like, copyright law says they should go and listen to it.
 * -- mostly I cut this because it's not about the lyrics, it's about the music, but it's too long a quote in any case.


 * The latter can go to a different paragraph. I'll make the other adjustments accordingly. I believe we should go section by section, let's start with the compostion if you are ok with the sections above, of course. Please let me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to work with you on the article, but I don't think this should be done at GAN -- even if it weren't more work than should be done at GAN I don't have the bandwidth for it except at a slow pace. I propose to fail this, and I can give you feedback section-by-section as you suggest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * GAN has this propose. You go section by section saying what you would like me to correct. On top of this, the article before nomination was submitted to the GOCE. So we do it a slow pace. No worries. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, that's not what GAN is for. GAN is to assess whether an article is ready to promote, not to work on it, unless the fixes are relatively minor -- that's why we have quick-fail criteria.  I'm failing this on prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your review. On top of that, this is a huge mess, so I'll nominate it again. On top of this, your grasp of the reliable sources on music is minimum at the best, even with the proper links you fail to recognize them.
 * Kinds regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you think my review is incorrect I'm going to post at WT:GAN and ask for comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want. Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)