Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Make Me Like You/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016.

Make Me Like You

 * Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album This Is What the Truth Feels Like. I have spent a lot of my time expanding this article to its fullest potential and believe it would make for an excellent FA candidate, hence why I'm here now. I am willing to do anything for to achieve the FA status. It underwent a copyedit and I have tried to model it after other FA songs by similar artists. Any comments would be extremely appreciated. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from AJona1992
 * Too many instances with the word "song" needs variation
 * It would flow better if you mentioned that "Make Me Like You" explored themes on renewability, etc, instead of saying "the single is about"
 * "Many reviewers" - who? In this case, just saying that the vast majority or the track garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired by part or whole to her relationship with Blake would suffice
 * "some critics" - same as above, was there a repetitive theme on some reviewers who said it was musically different to her previous single? When was "Used to Love You" released? Year?
 * You link studio album but not digital download?
 * "like television shows" - really? You could just say including on...
 * You tell us who Gavin is but not who Blake is (first subsection; first para)
 * Is it a pop-disco, disco-pop, or as you currently have it pop and disco? (second subsection; first para) → Disco and pop per the sources included
 * The link says E! so why E! Online, and E! is not a publication (second subsection; first para)
 * Avoid overlinking (Idolator, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, No Doubt)
 * The critics comparison of previous recordings by other artists could be better said in your own words (second subsection; first para)
 * "the happy parts" - needs to be rephrased (second subsection; second para)
 * Inflects...inflecting - avoid repetition (second subsection; second para)
 * The link is music journalism not contemporary music journalism (third subsection; first para)
 * "highly positive" - also needs to be rephrased into better prose (third subsection; first para)
 * " In addition, Kennedy stated" - source? (third subsection; first para)
 * If FN#24 is cited for both Idolator critics, why add one in the middle of the sentence? (third subsection; first para)
 * It would read better if you just say album or recording (third subsection; second para)
 * And when were those songs recorded or released? (third subsection; second para)
 * I see a recurring stance on adding a source at the first mention but ignoring it if a critic "adds" more commentary in the following sentence. (third subsection; various)
 * I thought Slant magazine was not considered a physical publication?
 * Way too many instances with the word "track" and "song" - needs variation
 * Who is No Doubt? You didn't provide any information from uninformed readers and completely ignored her involvement in the band.
 * "Its radio adds prompted" - its what? (fourth subsection; first para)
 * Avoid repetition (fourth subsection; second para)
 * "chart" vs "charts", in many cases it should be "chart" if you only had mentioned a single list
 * How did it feared well if it fell off the chart a week later? (fourth subsection; second para)
 * You say Billboard's Japan Hot 100, but previously you said Canada's Adult Contemporary
 * Why do we need to know what she was wearing? Did critics say anything about her choice of clothing? Was it memorable or mentioned outside of the video? Why is turtleneck even linked? (sixth subsection; first para) → Since four critics in the "Reception" section mention the various costume changes, I believe it should remain in the article; I linked turtleneck since it is really only called that in the United States, and may confused readers outside of the country. Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "also black and white" - what value does this provide to any reader?
 * "lip-synchs" - misspelled word
 * Why is high-heels linked? and "take"?
 * ""Reaction towards the music video for "Make Me Like You" was highly positive." - who said that? (seventh subsection; first para)
 * "Besides from concert tours" - change to "Aside from concert tours"
 * "when on" - is the "when" necessary? (eight subsection; second para)
 * Source is needed for her performance on Saturday Night Live.
 * – jona  ✉ 15:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I accomplished everything from your very thorough and detailed review. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: User is on vacation until early October and may not respond here until then. Carbrera (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything else looks OK. Apart from potential weird comma issues, there's nothing more. A VERY GOOD article. I wish you all the success with it. You may fix my issues and I will support this. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments from Cartoon network freak
 * from her third solo → for her third solo
 * Set comma after "studio album"
 * link "digitally" to music download
 * It is a pop and disco song, with influences of light rock, with its instrumentation consisting of chiming guitars, "digi-harps" and a "beachy" drum progression. → "Make Me Like You" is a pop and disco song, incorporating influences of light rock into its sound. Its instrumentation...
 * It explored themes on → Lyrically, the recording delves on themes of
 * remixes → remixes of the song
 * was released on April 22 as a digital download. → was made available for digital download on April 22
 * Unlink "digital download"
 * You use the word "video" twice in a row; try to alternate with "visual" and "clip"
 * newfound → separate
 * ended in → ended with
 * resulted in → remove "in"
 * Set comma after "third studio album"
 * the song as a → the song for
 * try to somehow improve the last sentences of this section; it's like "It was released. It was released..."
 * You may rename the section into "Composition and lyrical interpretation" → Instead I kept "lyrics" since it doesn't solely focus on the interpretation aspect
 * remove comma after "disco song"
 * described its music as a "bubblegum song" → you can't describe the music as a song
 * of "Phoenix's 'Too Young,' → something with the syntax is wrong here (""; '')
 * well received → well-received → This is actually incorrect per WP:AWB
 * of Exclaim! was positive → of Exclaim" was positive towards "Make Me Like You"
 * Gwen to churn out", while Bianca Gracie and Mike Wass → Make two sentences here
 * You may rename this section into "Commercial performance"
 * and dropped off the week after that → and left the chart in its third week
 * in the US → never shorten out United States to "US"
 * it was shopped → "shopped" is kinda wrong here; choose another word
 * Stefani's lowest charting → Stefani's lowest-charting
 * single following previous single → two times "single"
 * Unlink album here
 * For peak in Slovakia, you must add a date → There is a date, but because of the template, the reader/user must manual enter it upon arriving at the webpage (it also gives the directions at the bottom of the article for Ref. #114 if you want to take a look :)
 * I believe I took care of everything? THANKS SO MUCH! Carbrera (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With my issues being resolved, I now support this nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47
 * The final line of the third paragraph in the “Critical reception” section needs a reference.
 * I would recommend restructuring the paragraphs in the “Critical reception” section around a clear topic/idea. Right now, this section seems all over the place in terms of ideas. Maybe you could focus one paragraph on the reception of the production, and the other on the reception of the lyrics, and then a final one on mixed/negative reviews. This is just a suggestion, but it would be good if you could make this section a little more like a narrative for your reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other.
 * I really like what your suggesting but I'm afraid I don't really know how to tackle it since some of the reviews jump around so much. I tried heading from positive to mixed initially and I don't know what to do from then on... Carbrera (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest attempting to organize the "Critical reception" around topic then if possible, such as a paragraph on the "Production", the "Lyrics/Vocal Performance". This is just one idea (it may not work), but I think this section does need to be revised. As it currently stands, this section is pretty disjointed, especially with the short third paragraph at the end. I would recommend looking at other FA on songs to see how they organize their reception sections. I would also recommend this resource here as a tool to help you out. It does not deal directly with music-related articles, but it gives some times on how to better approach "Reception" sections. Let me know if this helps. Once the comments is addressed, I will be happy to support this article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this front? I also added a comment at the end. An audio sample should be placed in the article. Mymis' comments are also very good so I would highly recommend looking at them below. Once my two comments (the reception and audio sample) are addressed, I would support this article for promotion. Also, please make the changes requested by Mymis. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Once you address all of my comments, I will provide my final comments about this. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the “Chart performance” section, I would replace “Elsewhere” with “Internationally”. “Elsewhere” sounds odd and too vague to me, so I would recommend “Internationally” to be a little more specific.
 * Revise the following phrase (“The singer’s final televised performance occurred on …) as saying this is Stefani’s final televised performance makes it sound like she either died or retired from music (and obviously both of those are incorrect).
 * I would recommend finding a stronger source to support your sentence on Stefani’s performance of the single in the MasterCard and This is What the Truth Feels Like Tour. Beacon Street Online appears to be a fan site to me, and not entirely appropriate for an FA.
 * I would recommend moving the sentence (“Credits adapted from the liner notes of…) in front of the “Recording” and “Personnel” subsections. See how it is done on the page for the Rihanna song S&M.
 * Please add an audio sample of the song to the page.
 * Thanks so much! I just switched it up majorly! Feel free to take a look! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Great job with this article! I am very impressed with the work put into this. I can now support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Also: Mymis (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments by Mymis
 * "A remix EP featuring three" in intro -> maybe link "EP"
 * In refs, Vevo -> Vevo
 * ref 15 -> longer dash is needed, and the page is radiodate.it, not radioairplay.fm
 * ref 14, 4 February 2016 -> February 4, 2016, same with ref 117
 * ref 117 date is missing
 * The Ellen DeGeneres Show -> The Ellen DeGeneres Show in refs
 * ref 71 unlink Billboard
 * ref 4 link Music times → This article was recently deleted
 * ref 74 unlink LA times
 * ref 23 E! Online -> E!
 * "she couldn't believe the" -> could not
 * "It was sung during the MasterCard Pric.." -> maybe add that the mentioned tours are Stefani's headlining tours because it's not very clear from reading
 * "only, alongside performances of "Dan..." -> what do you mean by "alongside"? was it like a mash-up or medley of three songs?
 * "Stefani sung", "she sang" in Live perm sec -> which one is correct?
 * and maybe one more picture? maybe a pic of Shelton in "Composition and lyrics" section?
 * would it be possible to upload a song's sample?
 * I completed your comments. Thanks so much!!!! Carbrera (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You do have my support; good luck! Mymis (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

After that I don't have no more issues. I will support the article if you solve them. Also I've nominated an article, Allen Walker, for FA here and I would appreciate feedback. Anyway, good luck with this article.
 * Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Avoid quotes in the lead if you aren't referencing it. Instead paraphrase it.
 * Production and release: There also some quotes but referenced. I've often been criticized for relying too much on quotes so the same issue. → I paraphrased one of three quotes in this section; thanks for the tip! Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In charts, Billboard is quite overlinked. → I wish I could fix that but it's all apart of a preloaded template recommended per Template:Single chart. :( Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reference 114 lacks info "SNS IFPI" (in Slovak). Hitparáda – Radio Top 100 Oficiálna. IFPI Czech Republic. Note: insert into search. Retrieved March 12, 2016. → This was taken care of above, it's just a note for the reader of the article stating that they must manually insert a bit of information in order to see the chart. Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Critical response and commercial performance have some big paragraphs. I would recommend to split some and decide what is each paragraph about (kinda like a formal letter).
 * Do you have any suggestions on where to shorten the paragraphs? Aoba47, a previous reviewer, recommended a very similar thing and I fixed it per his suggestion. However, I don't think it would be possible to split up the "Commercial performance" section since the first paragraph focuses on US information and the second focuses elsewhere. 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see then I'm leaving my support.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from SomeoneNamedDerek
 * Infobox: Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm

Lead:
 * Where was the song serviced to contemporary hit radio "on February 16"? Ref 14 is a United States radio based website -> specify that it was serviced to United States contemporary hit radio (unless a diff. source is found)
 * "incorporating influences of light rock into its sound" -> explain and cite this in the body
 * ""beachy" drum progression" isn't mentioned anywhere other than in the lead, unsourced
 * "but was tied for Stefani's lowest charting solo single" -> is it necessary to include this? Body does not talk about this unsourced fact (I looked at ref 44)
 * "The video garnered a positive reaction from critics, for being "colorful" and "entertaining"." -> "entertaining" isn't mentioned in the Music video section

Production and release:
 * This Is What the Truth Feels Like was mentioned twice, but one time it had the year 2016 and the other time didn't -> be consistent or remove year
 * "On February 16, 2016, it was released to mainstream radio stations." -> United States radio stations?
 * "On April 22 of the same year, Interscope issued a digital EP titled "(The Remixes)"" -> digital remix EP, remove "titled "(The Remixes)" since the cover art of the EP (on ref 16) doesn't show parentheses around The Remixes

Composition and lyrics:
 * Song sample description: period needed, ref 5 should come before ref 17
 * ref 17 comes before ref 20

Critical reception:
 * "its sounds is" -> its sounds are
 * "Ryan Middleton of the same publication agreed and acclaimed it "solid production" for causing" -> You left out what you wanted me to change here, but I figured it out! (it --> its)
 * "which worked well with the its "well-oiled production"" -> remove the
 * "pop candy" was mentioned twice in this section, but in different paragraphs (by Kelly Lawler and Gregory Robinson). Maybe put Robinson's opinion on the end of the first paragraph, since ref 43 also shows that Robinson found that the track was "reminiscent of Gwen’s 2006 single ‘The Sweet Escape’ and ‘Lovefool’ by The Cardigans""

Commercial performance:
 * "alongside its debut on the Hot 100, it also peaked at number 12" -> it also debuted and peaked (unless it didn't debut that week on Digital Songs)
 * "the song dropped to number 68 on the Hot 100, and left the chart in its third week" -> remove comma (simple sentence with two verbs)
 * ""Make Me Like You" re-entered in the United States chart at number 97." -> which United States chart?
 * " it peaked in May 2016 at number 27, and spent a total of 18 weeks on the chart." -> remove comma

Music video:
 * "Grant Jue of Jesse Dylan's Wondros Collective produced the video" -> change to Grant Jue of Wondros, link Wondros to section in Jesse Dylan
 * "Stefani expressed how she could not believe the performance happened, also claiming that "she had personally worked on it continuously for about six days". Stefani estimated that she worked on the video for six continuous days, lasting from "7 in the morning 'til 3 in the morning"." -> remove repetitive statement about working for six continuous days
 * "it was revealed that an estimate of $12 million" -> an estimated $12 million
 * "before being greeted by four women, all wearing full-bodysuits. " -> all wearing bodysuits
 * "promoted the video afters its release" -> after its release
 * "the event was also sponsored by the Target Corporation. At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, " -> Allow a new paragraph in the section beginning with "At the 2016 Cannes Lions...", and place this paragraph before the paragraph starting with "Although Stefani was the first artist..." (the reason for this is because "the video" in "At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, held in June 2016, the video received"... is ambiguous and doesn't directly refer to Stefani's music video; placing this paragraph before the paragraph talking about other live music video broadcasts allows readers to understand the award was given to "Make Me Like You"

Live performances:
 * "including the MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour and This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour (2016)" -> be consistent with years (remove it or add "(2015–16)" after MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour)

Credits and personnel:
 * Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm

—SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Awesome work! The quality of the article allows for my support for the nomination. Best of luck! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on prose (nothing else checked once I saw the state of the prose) Worryingly, I see five supports above but a quick read reveals that the article contains prose such as "The song lasts for a duration of three minutes and thirty-six seconds" [spot the redundant words], "According to Daniel Kreps, writing for Rolling Stone, its sounds are 'refreshing' and favorably referred to the lyrics as "all about renewal" [the sentence makes no sense], and "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with." [err...]  This nomination really needs some close attention from experienced eyes, because the prose cannot be said to be "engaging and of a professional standard".  These are examples only, so please don't fix these three sentences alone and then think that the problem is solved.  I suggest that you read every sentence out loud, asking yourself as you do so whether what you have written makes sense, whether it sounds polished, whether you're repeating yourself, whether you can say the same thing in fewer words, etc.  As examples of these last two points:
 * in the "production and release" section, you twice mention the album and that the single is from, but only tell us on the second occasion that it's her third album, so you could combine this point with the album's first mention and then call it "the album" the next time;
 * you say words to the effect of "This song was the second single from the album; something else was going to be the single to follow the first single, but then this song was chosen instead."  Even assuming we need to know that it wasn't the original choice as second single, the whole idea can be expressed in fewer words
 * Your list of dates of release can be trimmed (combine sentences so that you don't have "mainstream radio" twice in successive sentences; in any event, avoid constructions like "Five weeks later, the single was released in Italy to mainstream radio on March 25, 2016", where we don't need both the date and the period of time elapsed since the previous date).

FA is a big step up from GA, I'm afraid, but with more work I hope you can improve this article so that it becomes more interesting to read. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I took care of your above comments. Yes, I realize that won't exactly fix this problem, but I'm currently going over every sentence in the article to search for cohesiveness. I agree that doing this should help solve the issue, but to be honest, I think it would be hard for each sentence structure in this article to satisfy everyone's needs and liking. Perhaps one statement that I worded sounds brilliant to myself but confusing to another user. Like I previously stated, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to FA status, and if this will do the trick then sign me up. What I'm asking is that when I conclude making my changes, would you be willing to perform another spot-check on this article? You seem highly experienced in the 'featured' side of articles so your knowledge would be welcomed. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , do not strike through my comments again. That's for me to do, if and when I want to do so, not you. BencherliteTalk 14:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean any disrespect; I was trying to mark my progress in your suggestions. Since it's frowned upon to leave the "done" symbol, a strikethrough seemed most appropriate. I apologize and didn't mean to offend you. Carbrera (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed several issues regarding the prose. You are free to look at the article again if you so choose. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC).
 * It's still not an example of Wikipedia's finest prose. Just from the opening section:


 * “she pushed herself” – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with “she then wrote” or something along those lines?
 * “newfound relationship” – we have “new... newfound”, but more importantly “begin new ones” is redundant (she could hardly begin old ones) and “newfound” feels like the wrong word
 * I’m left unclear as to whether the divorce songs were part of the third album or not - we're not given any indications about when the divorce was, when the new relationship started
 * Why do we need a sentence, with two quotations, about a Jimmy Kimmel interview just to confirm that the song is about Shelton, which was established in the previous sentence? If the point is that it was speculated that Shelton was the subject but only confirmed by Stefani at some later point, then make this point more clearly and in fewer words (we don't need "about that guy" for instance).
 * Why do we need to know that Idolator and Warner/Chappell Music both said on the same day that she was working with Mattman and Robin for the single, let alone that Warner confirmed this via a particular outlet? Why can’t we just say that she worked with M&R on the single?
 * Does working with M&R on the single precede or follow working with Tranter and Michaels on the writing? I would assume that you write it first, in which case the sentences need to be moved around.
 * However, the lead says that M&R co-wrote the single, which is not what this paragraph says, and so this needs to be sorted too
 * Then we get Mattman and Robin mentioned again, complete with our second and third links to the same article (“Mattman and Robin”, hiding as Easter egg links under “Larsson” and “Frediksson”). The repetition is capable of elimination
 * I’m unhappy with “channelling” left as an unattributed quotation because it is an opinion rather than a fact.
 * My oppose stands. This needs too much work and I'm not going to conduct a line-by-line rewrite of the article. I suggest you withdraw and go to peer review, seeking an experienced FA level copyeditor.  Pinging  who may have some other thoughts as to whether I'm way off line here, given the current majority view that this article is of FA-standard. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do have to agree with the comments from /. I apologize for reading over a lot of the problems that were identified above, as I should have done a more comprehensive review. I agree with the recommendation to re-read through this article for prose errors. I would suggest looking at how S&M (song) to see how the song's length could be more seamlessly incorporated into the section or remove it all together as I have found that it is not a necessary component for a FA on a song. I think you need to be careful with the use of quotes, as shown the Kreps' sentence quoted above, as you sometimes rely on the quotes to convey information without spelling it out fully. I would recommend avoid using one word quotes, and instead convey the information through your own words. Remember that everything that can be paraphrased should. Direct quoting is primarily for when something would be lost if the quote were not used directly. A lot of the prose problems stem from the overuse of quotes (for instance, the "Critical reception" section has a lot of unnecessary quotes). And the "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with" definitely needs to be completely revised. Another example of an awkwardly constructed sentence is "At the 57th Annual Grammy Awards in 2015, Imagine Dragons did a similar concept to Stefani, performing live during a commercial break". I will leave my support vote up for now, but I may strike it in the future as I agree with Bencherlite's assessment. The article is definitely on the right track, but the prose needs to be polished. I apologize again for reading over and missing this in my initial comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed everything you brought up above. I'm currently going through the article sentence-by-sentence. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. I am happy with the changes you made as I do believe that they made the article stronger. I will keep my support vote that I left above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Stefani co-wrote the recording with Justin Tranter, Julia Michaels, and its producers Mattman & Robin. - why "its" producers?


 *  it garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired - why not, "thought to have been inspired..." (not controversial as Stefani later confirmed it)


 *  upbeat environment and its radio-friendly vibe. - why not just " upbeat and radio-friendly vibe."


 *  During the song's bridge, - can we link bridge?


 *  Stefani joked that she could barely believe the performed occurred.  - umm, something wrong with the grammar here...


 * I trimmed some words during my copyedits. Make sure no meaning is lost.
 * I have fixed the things you mentioned in your review. Thank you very much. Carbrera (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok stricken. Let me take another look...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, in general, only keep stuff in quotes if it is memorable or distinctive - in the second para of the Composition and lyrics section, both "the gloom lifts" and  "inflecting emotion in her voice" should be able to be rewritten without resorting to quotes.

Responding to Bencherlite's ping.
 * First, that reviewer's comment: " 'she pushed herself' – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with 'she then wrote' or something along those lines?" I couldn't find anything to support the "pushing" in ref. 1, a half-opinion half-whatever journalistic piece for Pitchfork. So unless the nominator can provide reasoning or evidence in RSs, I'd say replace as suggested (or better, "she wrote", since "after" has already conveyed the sequential meaning).
 * Bencherlite's other comments seem actionable too.

I looked through just the opening paragraph of just five sentences:
 * Start: ""Make Me Like You" is a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani for her third solo studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like (2016). Issued as the album's second single, it was released digitally on February 12, 2016, while being serviced to contemporary hit radio on February 16 in the United States."—There's tension between "issued" and "released". "recorded by" makes it sound momentarily as though it was trashed and not released; it's superseded by the subsequent sentence anyway. Or is the contrast between non-digital first, then "released digitally"? I know I'm a pop-culture dunderhead; maybe I'm missing assumed knowledge in a targeted readership, but this seems to need recasting. Perhaps we need "2016" twice ... hard for me to tell. What does "serviced to" mean? Maybe that's assumed knowledge, but surely there's a more standard way to put it.
 * "the latter two"—I think it should be "the last two"; and we have "serving" soon after the problematic "serviced", so why not ", of whom Larsson and Fredksson were also the producers"?
 * "Described as a pop and disco song,"—as soon as you ascribe agency (even suppressed by passive voice), we need to know who was doing the describing. There's no ref. Maybe you wanted to draw back in certainty by ascribing those epithets out into the fog rather than simply stating them in Wikipedia's narrative voice? If not, why not: "In genre a pop and disco song", or something like that? Agency problem without ref. again in "it was though to have been". Who thought?
 * ""Make Me Like You" incorporates influences of light rock into its sound, that consists of chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody."—Do we need "into its sound"? There's redundancy-tension between "incorporates" and "influences". The join of comma+that is ungainly. Why not: ""Make Me Like You" shows the influence of light rock, in chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody." (I presume your readers will associate beach-like with rock.)
 * "themes on"? "themes of" would be standard.

Maybe the rest is a little better (the opening is usually difficult because thematically more intensive); but I have to agree that this needs too much work to be considered for promotion this time around. I encourage you to keep writing and editing, but developing a razor-critical stance in your reading of others' and your own text will take a while. (Try my "Advanced editing exercises", in my user space, although I hesitate to recommend them because it's been so long since I revised them. Perhaps you could give feedback on that talkpage on any mistakes you detect or suggestions you might have for improvements.) Tony   (talk)  13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- In light of recent comments, which have highlighted fundamental prose concerns, I'm going to archive this nom and recommend that after actioning outstanding points (and combing the article for similar issues to those identified) you try a Peer Review before looking at a renomination at FAC. As an alternative to PR, I encourage you to consider the new FAC mentoring scheme that's aimed at nominators who have yet to achieve their first FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.