Talk:Royals (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "counterpointing popular artists' luxurious lifestyles" Unclear.
 * The lead is slightly US-centric.
 * The lead could do with at least a nod towards the covers.
 * "by Maclachlan" Who?
 * "Lorde began writing songs on guitar as a teenager[5][6] Lorde was eventually paired with writer and producer Joel Little and this working relationship clicked almost immediately.[4] The Love Club EP was self-released by Lorde in November 2012, in the form of a complimentary SoundCloud set.[7]" This all needs reworking
 * I'm not sure you're using dashes correctly. See WP:DASH.
 * The writing in the background section is a little sloppy. Lots of "she"s, lots of editorialising: "clicked", "recalled", "only". This kind of thing, as well as breaking up the flow, affects the neutrality of the article.
 * "he remarked "Yeah, this is cool"." Is this adding anything?
 * ""Royals" is an art pop,[15] minimal pop,[16] and electropop,[17] song.[18]" What's the last reference for? The fact it's a song? If the last mentions all three, lose the others.
 * "The lyrics are described as turning "the aspirationalism of hip-hop culture on its head." The song concerns the luxury and lifestyle of pop artists." Could this be rephrased?
 * Digital Spy is a blog and I've no clue what "The Singles Jukebox" is. Could we focus the reception section (which is currently surprisingly short) on the words of more reputable critics/critics publishing in more reputable publications? The Guardian is a good start; broadsheets and music magazines (preferably from a variety of countries) would be best.
 * "and Time trailed the matter in entertainment news" What does "trailed" mean in this context? Could this be rephrased?
 * "the inflated media storm" Editorialising?
 * I wonder if the "controversy" section could be better incorporated into the reception section? There's sometimes a worry that "controversy" sections can affect neutrality. Perhaps a subsection called "Racial components" or something (this requires some thought- it should be done carefully and I'm just thinking aloud, here).
 * What is "Dialogos Online Forum"? This doesn't seem to be a great source, particularly for the fairly large claims you're using it to make.
 * "In Australia, "Royals" was released simultaneously with "The Love Club" and was classified as a single for charting purposes and spent two weeks at its peak position of number two on the ARIA Singles Chart; sales of tracks on the album counted toward the EP, and therefore could not chart separately." Long, complex sentence
 * "for longest reign by a woman" Reign?
 * The charting section, too, feels US-centric.
 * "As of November 2014, "Royals" has sold over 10 million copies." Is that worldwide?
 * "On her lack of appearance in the video" Clumsy
 * "The US version also received 300 million views meaning this video is now certified." I don't follow.
 * "The 'Royals' music video also won Lorde a VMA for 'Best Rock Video' at the 2014 VMA'S. The video has 387 million views at the time." Unsourced, badly formatted.
 * The Japanese version of the video probably should be mentioned in the lead. Any more information?
 * Why should we care what she was wearing? I'm also unclear why we need details of all these television appearances; I'd be happy with just a list of the shows/venues with a bit more space given to details about the tour (which is currently not mentioned) and the promotional single.
 * The covers section is a bit all over the place. I'd recommend focussing on those covers actually released, followed by parodies (which are moderately important) followed finally just by live covers (I'd just list the artists who have performed them rather than providing any details- it's interesting, but not that important).
 * The rationale on the sample could do with looking at, and, technically, the cover should be reduced to no larger than 300 by 300.

I've not looked closely at the references yet (reference formatting is generally outside of the remit of GAC but poor sourcing certainly isn't- in addition to those already mentioned, I'm seeing Tumblr, "Clipland", Direct Lyrics, Google+, Twitter and YouTube, which aren't ideal), but I am afraid my concerns about poor sources, lack of detail in the reception section, sloppy writing (particularly in the "covers" section) and editorialising affecting the neutrality (particularly in "background" and "controversy") give me enough to say that it is better to close this review at this time. Take some time to make the changes I've suggested (and I'd be happy to help out with copyediting, finding good sources and so on if you like) and then renominate; I would be happy to offer a review again if I don't have any further input on the article between now and then. This is a topic which deserves a decent article, and while this isn't there yet, it's coming along well, but more successful songs are always going to be a little more difficult to write about. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)