Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/For the Night/archive2

For the Night

 * Nominator(s): ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke, featuring Lil Baby and DaBaby. This article has received a peer review and has been heavily improved since its last nomination. Any criticism on how to improve the article would be truly appreciated! ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

 * not sure if you want to comment but if so, would you say your concerns from the last FAC were adequately addressed? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna say this article looks a lot better than I remember. There are a few nitpicks, like how the Background section is one long paragraph and I don't see why we're only mentioning top-5 positions of other countries in the lead when there are top 10 and top 20 positions in other nations like Canada that are just as noteworthy, but I prose looks a lot better than I remember it, citations are perfectly formatted, and it's comprehensive, so Support for those areas. This article has yet to be spotchecked, however, although I don't doubt there will be many issues. I will ask someone else to spotcheck info cited from the Complex feature about the album, because on my computer it's somehow too much for my computer to load on, and my computer has a ton of data and GBs on it! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * HumanxAnthro thanks so much. I have changed it to the top-10 in the lead and made the background to paras. ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Essential comment to potential reviewers of this article. Thank you to everyone involved in the discussion! I'm noticing some comments are being made that suffer a syndrome I have been called out for having when considering FA promotions for review; as an experienced FA writer Damien Linnane puts it, "the time spent needing to criticise is extremely minimal compared to the time spend needing to investigate criticisms". Certain comments have been made in this discussion regarding skepticism of its comprehensiveness and other issues that are clearly based on a lack of proper reading on the article as well as knowledge of the actual source coverage the topic has received.

Let me make this clear. I'm not the nominator of this article, nor was I one of its prime writers (I've only made a few quick edits to it), nor am I anywhere near close to a fan of modern artists like Pop Smoke. There is also nothing wrong with being strict and difficult in FA reviews, and it should be that way so that we demand the best of articles. I'm also not a soft reviewer, as I have held nothing back with MOS comments, prose, spotchecking, reliability of sources, on other things when it comes to my reviews on Chromatica, Plants vs. Zombies, Taylor Swift (album), and I haven't even completed them yet.

My point is, we should be strict on the article with our comments. This does not mean, however, to be unreasonable and make comments based on ignorance. Stating an article is short and doesn't have certain info means nothing if there are no sources covering that info, and a short article does not mean a non-comprehensive one. We have had many short FA articles the same length or less as this article. If you think the article is non-comprehensive, research and look into the sources before you can actually conclude it is non-comprehensive. I've seen this issue in GA reviews as well, so please don't spread it here plus other FA nominations. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also changing my !vote to a Weak oppose, because concerns about the prose being weak have turned out to be valid the more I look at this page. I'm considering sections like "Background" and "Reception" may need a WP:TNT. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ImaginesTiger

 * Oppose on prose. I didn't contribute to the original nomination and haven't looked over the feedback there, but the prose isn't working for me. If I had to describe it in a word, it'd be staccato—the prose, to borrow something I saw Sandy say once, "isn't singing". I don't think the prose has to be a work of art, but it doesn't feel like there's any flow; it’s a list of statements that doesn't especially tie together. I don't have the time to do a full review, pointing out all of the issues, but FAC isn't the place to fix this all of this to force through an FA to 'honour' an artist. All of the little issues really do grate me: references are placed after punctuation; there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article; if a source's wording is used, they must also be named; why is the bit about DaBaby in "Writing and composition" instead of critical reception? The article just feels bare. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ImaginesTigers Because it is talking about DaBaby's honoring Pop Smoke in his lyrics. They are not praising his lyrics, just talking about what he rapped about. And I am pretty sure references are placed after punctuation when it comes to articles. HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was that references should be placed after punctuation in the article. That isn't currently the case. Is it a small thing? Yes, but in a tiny article, it should have been caught before coming here, and the issues add up. It’s an oppose from me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues?
 * Thank you for commenting, ImaginesTigers. I don't think the article is in a strong "Oppose" mode. The "little issues" he discusses are either easily fixable or non-issues.
 * (1) "there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article" Is this a MOS requirement at all? Because we shouldn't have the fate of FA nominations determined by extremely personal and trivial preferences of one editor that may not violate any guidelines.
 * (2) "references are placed after punctuation" I'm not sure how this is an issue as we always place citations after periods, commas, semi-colons, and other punctuation. I don't know how this is a problem. Or are you expecting citations after complete sentences, even though quotes, commas, semi-colons, and colons are punctuations too? This is not something to WP:SNOW end a FA nomination over.
 * (3) I expressed similar concerns about the prose ImaginesTigers is worried about in a previous FA nomination of this article, when it was in a lesser state. Honestly, I'm not finding these kind of "staccato" issues in its current state, as it does vary sentence length to keep it interesting. Even if there are instances where it feels a little bit like a list of details in a sentence, that's either easy to fix (at least in my experience working on articles) or the result of available reliable coverage of most pop songs being plain and overly-non-analytic in their opinions, facts, and interpretations. There are exceptions, of course, like "West Ass P-Word", in that they're so discussed within the sociopolitical landscape they can't help but get depthful coverage, but that is far from what "For the Night" got.
 * Excuse me for going WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I honestly think the prose is just as good as the recently-nominated-to-FA "Lips are Movin", which has "staccato" prose especially in its reception and "chart performance" section and are still well-written sections with the material it has to work with. What else is there to talk about with worldwide commercial performances besides peaks and certifications when no analysis of commercial performances of those countries exist, for example?
 * In my honest opinion, in situations like these, the biggest concern would be if the prose was understandable and concise to readers. I still take organization and flow into consideration, don't get me wrong, but I think at its current state its the best it is for the milquetoast coverage it got.
 * (4) "The article just feels bare." If you're referring the length, please understand that featured articles don't have to be long (although they can't be stub length) to qualify; they just have to be comprehensive, and I can tell you it's comprehensive as that's all that was available in the sources.
 * (5) "All of the little issues really do grate me" I understand small things can annoy a reader emotionally where noticing all the other good things about it can get impossible, but please make sure your emotions don't affect the objectivity of your comments. I've been guilty of that before, trust me, and I've been metaphorically kicked in the ass for it.
 * I'd like to get perspectives from this who have reviewed and written pop song articles for featured article promotions., , , would to like to chime in on this? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * HumanxAnthro, it is definitely a weird move to criticize my article (which you made me rewrite for days and eventually supported for promotion) and then invite me to offer suggestions on how to improve this one. Anyways, I am of the opinion that if something truly represented "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" then you wouldn't have to use another article as a scapegoat to defend it.--NØ 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, I wasn't criticizing your article. I was praising it and supporting as an example of good prose. Huh? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

From a glance, I don't think the prose is so bad. The only thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was not using Hannah Giorgis's first name when first introducing the critic. A couple more minor issues are instances of two consecutive sentences starting with the same word (namely "The" in the last paragraph of "Critical reception" and "Jess Jackson" under "Background"), which feels repetitive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fixed the author plus the minor issues brought up 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. MoS doesn't supercede common sense. Why include an initialism for it to be never used? 2. Read my clarification -- I was saying that there is a reference not attached to punctuation, which should have been caught in a small article like this. 3. The prose isn't ready to me; this isn't saying that the prose has to be completely stellar, but just because it's better than it was before does not mean it's good. Likewise, article feeling "bare" isn't me saying it is short; it's me saying that the writing does not fill those gaps; the article feels bare because the prose is bare. It isn't about length. I'm not going to comment on other recent successful nominations because I haven't read them. Other stuff does, indeed, exist! 5. Questioning my integrity as a reviewer over emotionality is a bit ridiculous. I gave an honest appraisal, which is that the article's prose grated on me; stuff like "Retrospectively, critics have considered "For the Night" one of 2020's best songs. The Line of Best Fit ranked "For the Night" at number 46 on their list of 2020's best songs". Critical reception is, by my eye, the worst offender. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Actually, I did notice the "retrospectively" thing and thought it was kind of odd, so you're right about that.
 * (2) Just because I don't want to focus on this anymore, I removed those initialisms
 * (3) Apart from a couple of small edits I just made in the commercial performance section, there is not punctuation mark issue. Every reference is attached to a punctuation mark. Quote marks are punctuation marks. Commas are punctuation marks. Semi-colons are punctuation marks. I really hope you know this.
 * (4) I have taken a closer look at Reception and actually, you're right it could be better. Looking at it now 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the first sentence of critical reception. Are we reading the same article? :P That's a disjointed reference — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now we're reading different articles because I just revised it. If you're talking about the cite after the quote marks, quote marks are punctuation marks. If that's the issue, don't simply say "punctuation mark." Specify to cite after only periods or only commas and periods or only, comma, periods, and semi-colons. Otherwise, you're just throwing us off with vague wording. Like I said, this doesn't sound like a blatant issue to WP:SNOW end a nomination over. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The hyperbole is a bit over the top; one oppose is not "ending a nomination". 🙄 — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion about article content instead of at other editors. As someone who's guilty of being sarcastic here and there, if I misinterpreted something, please bring it up civilly. I actually appreciate some of your comments for making me give a second look at the page, and although I'm not the nominator and prime contributor to the article, I've done some edits with these concerns. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Nick-D
Oppose I agree that this isn't a FA-level article at present and would need considerable expansion and copy editing to meet the FA criteria. Some examples (not intended to be comprehensive) are: Why are you replying to my comments here? Are you a co-nominator? If so, please add yourself and strike your vote above. I disagree completely with all of your responses above. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No background is provided on Pop Smoke or the various other artists involved - FA level articles should be accessible to readers who are completely unfamiliar with the topic, and articles on songs should explain how they fitted into the artist's career
 * Background sections in song articles in general are probably a topic to be discussed elsewhere, but I'm gonna propose against this specifically for this article as it would violate 4 of the WP:FAC for "focus[ing] on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Having random short bios of artists in the beginning is annoying and, in other FA song reviews where I've seen background sections of artists proposed, would have nothing to do with the rest of the article. We really need to stop putting random background sections into every article just because other articles do it. I'm absolutely for accessible prose as much as anyone, but an article is not inaccessible to a reader just because there aren't brief bios of the rappers; they have the articles on those rappers and artists to learn more about them. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is somewhat short, and doesn't provide much detail on key elements of the topic (for instance, 'Writing and composition' is a short para)
 * While I appreciate that you're putting the article under scrutiny, the lack of certain details and a short length does not automatically equal a non-comprehensive article. The article is the length it is because that was the all the info available in sources. Keep in mind that a short article doesn't mean an incomplete article (although you can't have an article stub length), and we cannot magically produce new reliable sources to fill in some details out of thin air.
 * ""For the Night" was written by Pop Smoke, Lil Baby, DaBaby, CashMoneyAP, Palaze, and Wylo." - what was the writing process, and what did each of these artists contribute?
 * Unfortunately, there is no info from reliable sources to be used to answer those questions. If you're looking for all the info that was available on the making of this song, that's in the "Background" section. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "while Wylo, Jess Jackson, and Mike Dean were credited as additional producers" - what were their roles?
 * Again, no reliable coverage to specify this. All we have is credits from the liner notes. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first para of the 'Critical reception' section makes little sense, as it confuses the views of individual critics with a consensus, even going as far as to seemingly claim that all critics" suggested it could be a "monster hit" and a "social media ready smash""
 * I'll let the nominator and prime contributor of this article address what's going on with this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto the claim in the lead that " Critics named "For the Night" one of the best songs of 2020, noting the rapper's performances and instrumentation."
 * First paragraph of reception section starts with "Critics called "For the Night" one of the best songs of 2020,[4][15]". Second paragraph states "Other critics highlighted the song's vocals and instrumentation," with the rest of the paragraph elaborating what specific opinions were made about them. Body already satisfies lead. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the prose is frequently clunky (for instance, "Pop Smoke's team was surprised when he recorded his vocals as it was the first time they heard him singing", " Jackson's main challenge was hot to combine Lil Baby's timbre work with DaBaby", "The three rappers dream about events that normally happen during the night", etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox
Given my comments above, I would have to oppose as well. I am also disappointed The Ultimate Boss has not edited in almost seven days and comments by other editors above have gone unaddressed. Given their comments elsewhere, that may be out of their control but the FAC instructions say "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly"—that is not happening right now. Heartfox (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three commas in the first sentence (and they're not after a date or list or something)? This should be rephrased for better flow.
 * "about nighttime events" → this is too vague.
 * "DaBaby his fourth, and Lil Baby his fifth top-10 hit in the US" → I don't think this should be in the lead.
 * "The song reached the top-five on the Billboard airplay Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Rhythmic charts" → why do we care about mentioning these charts when it was in the top 10 on the Hot 100? Usually genre/format-specific charts would only be mentioned if it didn't chart on the main one.
 * "the rapper's performances and instrumentation" → the rapper's instrumentation?
 * "background" needs a lot of reworking/elaboration.
 * WP:CITEOVERKILL in "writing and composition"; seven footnotes in a row is distracting.
 * "The three rappers dream about events that normally happen during the night" → what events? This could be interpreted in so many ways.
 * "convincingly dragged-out, haunting angle on his craft at the precipice of global stardom" → I don't know what this means; maybe try paraphrasing.
 * "While Wongo Okon" → using "while" in this way seems non-neutral because it's implied that the second critic's views are more credible than the first.
 * "declaring" → this is too strong of a word to use for a review of a song I think.
 * "Ashton Howard of Earmilk declaring the rappers delivered a "phenomenally charismatic appearance" → what does this have to do with the song's "vocals and instrumentation"?
 * It's hard to follow which rapper(s) the critics are referring to; maybe reorganize.
 * "The vocals and instruments incorporated had lesser reviewers" → I thought the song's vocals and instrumentation were highlighted? And what does "lesser reviewers" mean?
 * "The song was later released as the album's fifth single" → this may be hard to cite, but all the source gives is the radio add date, not that it was the "fifth single".

Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)