Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)/archive1

Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)

 * Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke featuring Lil Tjay. The song is about Pop Smoke having sex with women off their birth control. user:Kyle Peake reviewed the article for GA and made it ready for review here. I want an experienced editor at FA to tell me which sources won't work at FA so I can get rid of them or replace them. Thanks a lot! (P.S. I'm going to be honest. I still sometimes cry that The Woo was shot and killed at only 20 years old. He was just starting to boost his career until he was taken from the world. You cannot say Pop without the Smoke. RIP Pop Smoke.) The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

 * Given that you abandoned your previous two FACs after people left comments and are marked as being 'semi-retired' on your user page, are you actually committed to seeing through this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, I have more faith in this article. I'm also out of school for a couple of days, so I will be able to respond accordingly. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An FAC takes more than a few days. Usually at least a month, if not two. Given the track record here in the past, I'm inclined to archive this unless I see some commitment - a good thing would be to return to work on the abandoned FACs and address those concerns with the reviewers rather than expecting reviewers to weigh in on yet another FAC on a different song. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, I will absolutely show commitment to this article. When it comes to Pop Smoke; I’ll make sure this gets the gold star. I will not let you down! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (The star is bronze P anini  🥪 |undefined 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Support by Kyle Peake

 * I would leave comments about the article, but I am awaiting your conclusion of the GA review for "Clique" first since that's been on review for nearly two weeks. --K. Peake 11:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As it did when promoted to GA status after my review, the article looks very good. However, I would suggest trying to add an image somewhere in the body to improve media like the FA criteria advises. You could add further to the coverage of the song potentially; try to find more detail about the lyrics and write more in the lead about what critics praised specifically since you have currently only noted one aspect. --K. Peake 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How does it look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, I fully pledge to support and do you have any further comments for KSG? --K. Peake 05:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak
Fixes needed:
 * Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, all opinionated quotes need in-text attribution. This is done most places, but some (i.e. "effortlessly" at the end of "Background and composition") still need it.
 * AviationFreak, can you explain what that means? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In-text attribution means mentioning the speaker alongside the quote. So you would have John Doe called the song "bodacious" instead of The song has been described as "bodacious". AviationFreak 💬 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AviationFreak, I did it. How does it look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments below. AviationFreak 💬 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally feel like there's too many quotations in the "Reception" section, but I would wait for other input on this since I'm new at FAC. I understand it's a reviews section, but MOS:QUOTE advises against overusing them.
 * Fixed.


 * Some quotes, like those from Rolling Stone and Complex, come close to 40 words and could be turned into prose or otherwise shortened.
 * Fixed.


 * The "Music videos" section needs improvement:
 * The music visualizer article that is linked in the opening sentence is about non-photorealistic rendering based on audio, which does not include actors. The second sentence then talks about about which actors appeared in the "visualizer," which is contradictory.
 * Double negative and clunky phrasing in the second sentence.
 * The caption on the image refers to "The music video" (singular), while there are multiple videos discussed in the section.
 * The citation for the first sentence of the second paragraph, which claims the video was considered a "huge failure," states "the fans ultimately deemed that it was not enough to do Pop justice, requesting a do-over." This doesn't match up.
 * Fixed all of your concerns.

Comments: After seeing the changes made, I believe all of my initial policy concerns have been fixed. However, there are now new grammatical issues (in addition to old ones) that I think should be tackled by a copyeditor. The first sentence of §Music videos' first paragraph is a run-on, the second paragraph's leading sentence uses "deeming" incorrectly, etc. In my opinion this prose is not "engaging" or "of a professional standard" as the FAC criteria require. I won't !vote either way on this since the FAC review FAQ discourages new reviewers from doing so and I may very well be missing something blindingly obvious. AviationFreak 💬 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from LOVI33
This article looks great and I think it is definitely ready for FA! I just have a few concerns. Firstly, there is a lot of WP:OVERLINK on the work/websites in the references. Also in the track listing section, a BBC Radio 1 ref is used which doesn't back up a track list. It should use one from a digital download or streaming service. Speaking of which, shouldn't the track listing section also show the formats? For example: Digital download / streaming – Remix. Finally, to avoid WP:SYNTH, please place a ref to back up that the song was met with "mixed to positive reviews". Other than that, I think it looks amazing! LOVI 33  21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments LOVI33. WP:OVERLINK is not a problem. Take a look at Blank Space. The article is at FA and has WP:OVERLINK all over the article. The BBC Radio 1 source also mentions that the song was released on August 21, 2020, as a single. Removed the "mixed to positive reviews" and fixed the formats too. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Although, you should remove the track list for the original version. The BBC Radio 1 ref backs up that it was sent to radio in the United Kingdom but it doesn't back up that it was released as a digital single. LOVI  33  21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * LOVI33 I have removed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am now supporting this. Congrats! LOVI  33  22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Panini
I got a list of things to do, so I can't get to this immediately. I'll be back in the near future. If I forget, ping me. P anini 🥪 11:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm here to begin now. Just a note, we aren't trying to be harsh. Consider it being... professionally passive-aggressive.


 * Background and release
 * "Imperfections" (Interlude)". There are three quotations here, so either there's a duplicate or it needs to be formatted as "'Imperfections' (Interlude)".
 * Fixed.


 * Music and lyrics
 * "...which The Atlantic's Hannah Giorgis said "complements the artists' amorous lyrics." This is a sentence I think would fit better in Reception.
 * The music and lyrics section is very small. I think this should stay here.
 * According to Grammarly, "said" should be followed by a comma.
 * Fixed


 * Same thing to say for the last sentence.
 * Fixed


 * Reception
 * "In late July 2020, the song started trending on video-sharing app TikTok." I'd move this sentence down to "Commercial performance" below.
 * Done


 * Commercial performance
 * "Following the release of Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, "Mood Swings" debuted at number 44 on the US Billboard Hot 100. The song later reached number 17 on the chart." Could you combine these sentences for better flow? Maybe do "Following the release of Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, "Mood Swings" debuted at number 44 on the US Billboard Hot 100m later reaching number 17."
 * Done


 * All the sentences in this paragraph begin with "it". Maybe refer to it as "the song" in some instances.
 * Done


 * Music videos
 * The second sentence has four citations, which I believe to be a bit much. If each of these cites a specific part of the sentence, I'd cite them throughout. If they all support the entire sentence, you don't need all four.
 * Removed a source.


 * "an eternal blue flame". Does it ever specify that it is eternal, or is it just a blue flame?
 * The Billboard source cites it as an eternal blue flame.

Other people are a lot more nitpicky than I am. To me, you did a really Good Job! Once my concerns are addressed, I'll be happy to support. P anini 🥪 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Panini!! I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Other oppositions are fine, so I'll support. P  anini 🥪 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Guerillero
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Darville 2020 doesn't seem to add much
 * Guerillero are you talking about all the The Fader sources used?
 * No just that singular source. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guerillero are you talking about the review he left for the remix?
 * I get why Tidal is used for an Album's personnel. I just don't like that it is a streaming service
 * It can also be used to showcase a songs, albums, or EP's release date.
 * Was there a discussion about this? I don't see why streaming services would be considered to be reliable sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There has to be a better source for the remix's release date than apple music
 * Apple Music is the highest quality source when it comes to showing a song's release date.
 * Was there a discussion about this? I don't see why streaming services would be considered to be reliable sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed it with 'Rap-Up
 * Sounds good -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There has to be a better source for X songs were on Y EP than Tidal
 * Replace with Spotify
 * I don't think you understand my objection. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guerillero I really don't. Can you please explain? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is Def Pen a high quality source?
 * Removed
 * Why is Slant Magazine a high quality review?
 * It is used in other song articles that are FA. Take a look at "Blank Space" for example.
 * We don't normally have binding precedents for sources from their use. Is there a discussion on WP:RSN about the source that you can point to or something about it that tells you that it is a high quality source per WP:FA? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe HĐ can help me explain.
 * Slant Magazine is generally reliable for music/film-related articles, as listed at WikiProject Albums/Sources. The New York Times described reviews by Slant Magazine as "passionate and often prickly"; Reuters reported that the site is among the reliable sites for reviews, alongside NY Times, LA Weekly, and WSJ. HĐ (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may also be noted that critics who write for Slant Magazine are part of New York Film Critics Circle, NYTimes, LATimes. I know this is not related to music, but for film reviews, Slant is described by Cineaste as an outlet that "regularly produces smart, idiosyncratic, and well-written criticism." Given their reputation within critics' roundtables, I'd argue that Slant is among the professional reviews that are of high quality for popular culture-related articles. HĐ (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may also be noted that critics who write for Slant Magazine are part of New York Film Critics Circle, NYTimes, LATimes. I know this is not related to music, but for film reviews, Slant is described by Cineaste as an outlet that "regularly produces smart, idiosyncratic, and well-written criticism." Given their reputation within critics' roundtables, I'd argue that Slant is among the professional reviews that are of high quality for popular culture-related articles. HĐ (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just like to second HĐ's comments. I would say that Slant Magazine is a high-quality source in the context of music and film as it is a publication cited and respected by reputable publications. I think it is a fair question (and it is important and beneficial to have these discussions on sourcing), but I believe HĐ did a wonderful job with supporting why this should be considered a high-quality source. Just wanted to provide my opinion (and I have not looked at the article so I cannot comment on anything specific about it). Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Either link or don't link Billboard
 * Done
 * Either link or don't link Official Charts Company
 * Done
 * Why is HotNewHipHop a high quality source?
 * Removed
 * Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed the content
 * Why is OnSMASH a high quality source?
 * Removed
 * Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed the content
 * Why is SOHH a high quality source?
 * Removed
 * Did you remove the content that it was used to support or did you replace it with another citation? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed the content


 * Hi, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Ultimate Boss
I was wondering if I could nominate another article because this one now has three supports? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This one will need passes at both source and image review before that can be considered. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this on my talk page:

"Before the article can be promoted, it needs an image and source review. This might take a while because nobody likes doing it."

P anini 🥪 02:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ
I will not be able to give a full review on the prose, but I have some concerns. As FA, the prose should be "engaging and of professional standard." Sentence structures and wordings can be improved, i.e.
 * Production was handled by Beat Menace, Dizzy Banko, while Kiwi contributed co-production -- passive voice; I also don't think "while" is good writing; could one "handle" or "contribute" the production? Why not "Beat Menance and Dizzy Banko produced the song with assistance from Kiwi", which is much more simple and straightforward?
 * Changed.


 * A remix that features Summer Walker was released as a single on September 18, 2020, while an extended play (EP) was released for the song on September 22, 2020 -- ditto "while"; do these releases matter for the lead?
 * Done


 * "Mood Swings" sees Pop Smoke rap about "see" is not very appropriate. Probably "the lyrics are about..."?
 * Done


 * with a number of them praising the lyrics and the remix "with" is not good writing. "... critics, who praised..." should be better
 * Done


 * The song has received several certifications, including being certified double platinum off-grammar
 * Changed


 * visualizer why not simply "music video"?
 * The sources call the first video made for "Mood Swings" a visualizer.

As my points are not exhaustive, I'll leave it for other editors to examine the prose. These issues should be plausible after a careful inspection of prose issues. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * HĐ thanks a lot for your comments. I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Note: I have never conducted a formal image review before this.

File:Lil TJ.jpg is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and hosted on Wikimedia Commons. There appears to have been a copyvio at one point as a new image was uploaded in its place, but that has long been reverted. I believe an OTRS team member that the original image is from the uploader. Is there a particular reason the cropped version is not being used? Additionally, fixed px should not be used per MOS:UPRIGHT; you could edit the upright parameter instead. As there is a slight MOS:SANDWICH with text between the image and the infobox (at least on my desktop browser), consider removing "left" so it goes to the right side below the infobox as it is preferable to avoid this where possible.
 * Done

File:Moodswingsremixcover.jpg has an appropriate FUR, but it would be nice to provide a link to where you obtained the image, rather than just "Tidal". In the infobox, the prefix "File:" is unnecessary, and there also needs to be an alt text parameter and info added. It appears the Summer Walker remix cover is being used because there is no other cover specifically for the song, is that correct? Heartfox (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Heartfox Added the link, and yes the Summer Walker remix cover is the only one available as the regular song was released as a single almost two months after the album was released. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
I will not be able to conduct a full review either, but I have similar concerns about the prose as HĐ. This FAC has accumulated a good deal of support, but I find there are areas of prose that could use further polish. This is not meant to be a comprehensive review. I would just like to point out some examples of what could be improved.


 * I find these parts, also known as Bashar Jackson and who has the real name of Tione Merritt, to be rather awkward. I understand their purpose as I am assuming both men are credited under their legal names for the credits, but I think this information could be presented better. I think it could also be made clearer that these are their legal names as opposed to their stage names.
 * Changed the wording.
 * The structure for this part, An R&B track, the lyrics are about, is incorrect as if you read it literally, the beginning phrase (in this case An R&B track), should be describing the noun of the next part (in this case the lyrics). Since the lyrics themselves are definitely not an R&B track, I would revise this sentence to avoid that and be mindful of that in the future.
 * Changed the wording.
 * Would it be beneficial to link "visualizer" to music visualization?
 * Done.
 * I'm not sure if this part, the latter of the four is from Lil Tjay's May 2020 extended play (EP) State of Emergency, is needed as I do not think it is particularly relevant where this song appears.
 * For this sentence American record producer Beat Menace was contacted by Pop Smoke's team to create a new beat since the label wanted his "flavor.", I am not entire sure what is meant and I think further clarification would be helpful. Also, avoid using single-word quotes (like in this instance and with "sultry", "raunchy", "effortlessly", "delicious, "corny", and half-assed later on in the article), and put punctuation on the outside of the quotation marks unless you are citing a full sentence.
 * Done.
 * I may be missing something but I'm not fully certain what this sentence, Because Pop Smoke's cadence was over the old beat, the producers had to work with the same flow, but managed to create a completely new sound., means. I am guessing that this song was initially recorded by Pop Smoke with a different beat/production, but after his murder, Pop Smoke's team then had it completely reworked and had Lil Tjay added to it? I just think the chronology of the production can be made a little clearer, particularly for a reader like me who knows absolutely nothing about Pop Smoke.
 * Done.
 * I think the prose for this particular part still needs work. I would recommend looking at it and testing out different ways of saying this information. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The managed to create a completely new sound part reads awkwardly to me.
 * Changed the wording
 * I am not sure what this part, gently percussive production, means, specifically the gently word choice. Gentle percussion?
 * Removed the word "gently".
 * Is there more information to expand on the "Music and lyrics" section?
 * There wasn't really any more information. I merged it with the background section.

Apologies for getting involved in this review as I should be enjoying my retirement lol. These are just a few points that I had questions about after doing a brief look through the article. I hope that it is helpful (and I wish the best of luck with the FAC), and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also strongly encourage you to archive these citations since the web sources could die and you would want to make sure that the information is still readily available and accessible to support whatever is being cited.
 * Done
 * You use opined a few times in the article, and I'm not entirely sure if that is the best word choice.
 * Changed the wording.
 * Aoba47, thanks a lot for the review. I have addressed all of your concerns. And tbh, I should be retiring from Wikipedia too lmao. I'm starting college in about four months and should be getting ready. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. Best of luck with college! Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Both of these parts, which The Atlantic's Hannah Giorgis said, "complements the artists' amorous lyrics." and wrote that Pop Smoke effortlessly raps, read more like positive reviews for the song and do not really fit the section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Aoba47 how does it look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know this part was reverted. I'm still not entirely convinced that the prose meets the FA standard, but I will leave that to other reviewers to discuss. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators
please close this. All the time I put into this project is just not worth it with all this negative feedback. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi The Ultimate Boss, just checking that you are sure about this and are not just having a bad FAC day - goodness knows that I have had enough of those when reviewers have given one of my nominations a good kicking. I am aware that only two weeks ago you told a fellow coordinator "I will absolutely show commitment to this article. When it comes to Pop Smoke; I’ll make sure this gets the gold star. I will not let you down!" Obviously it is your call, but feel free to cancel the request if you feel more positive having slept on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the multiple reviewers here, it is a good article. When it comes to FAC, reviewers get reaaaal nitpicky, because an article that becomes featured means it is some of the best Wikipedia has to offer. It's not that people are giving negative feedback, as almost everyone will change to support in due time, it' simply that we need to look as closely as possible to simply places where grammar can be changed, etc. I believe you should keep this one up, as per the comments above you're doing a good job. But, if the process stresses you out, it's understandable. P  anini 🥪 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog the Mild, sorry, my teenage angst was taking over me. I would like for this nomination to stay up. Is there a chance if the article had enough supports that it could be promoted by February 19? It'll be the first year since Pop Smoke was shot and killed in a home invasion at the age of 20. I want to honor his career by making some of his music articles FA. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did wonder if you were channelling the song title ;-) . FAC is usually rough on the nom. If you think that you are getting a hard time, look at my last FAC review, for a nominator with three promotions behind them; or the 20,000+ words of review on my 31st FAC nomination! It ain't personal, it's just that the bar is high and the process rigorous.
 * The 19th is not impossible, but I note that a couple of reviewers have commented on the standard of the prose. ("engaging and of professional standard" is tough.) I would want to see at least one thorough review of and support for the prose before considering promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild never mind then. There is no way that is going to happen. Please close the nom. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)