Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royals (song)/archive2

Royals (song)

 * Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... the 2013 debut single by New Zealand singer Lorde. Several editors suggested an immediate withdrawal of the first nomination. After a copy-edit request, a peer review evaluation, and other fixes, I believe this article can now qualify for the coveted bronze star. De88 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see in the previous nomination a couple of editors recommended looking at WP:RECEPTION, but the advice there doesn't seem to have been followed -- see the discussion at that essay of "A said B", for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review

 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Royals_Lorde.ogg: purpose of use should be specific to the article - here it's the same as the one for Lorde
 * File:Royals_by_Lorde_(music_video).png: purpose of use as written is insufficient to justify a non-free image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Support by The Ultimate Boss
This song is literally one of my favorite tracks from 2013! I have so many memories while listening to this song. I would LOVE to see the article at FA. I therefore support! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that FA is first and foremost about the prose—see criterion 1a. A mere adoration for the song is not a strong reason to support, HĐ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * Please add ALT text to the infobox, and make sure all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
 * Since the Golden Age Studios link is currently a redirect, I am not sure if it is necessary to link it in the infobox.
 * The infobox says the song was recorded in July 2012. The body of the article says that was when the song was written, but leaves it a little vague on when the actual song was recorded by just saying during a school break. I would specify this in the prose.
 * Since the articles do not mention a specific time frame of the recording process, would it be best to delete it from the infobox?


 * This is more of a nitpick, but would it be possible to revise this sentence, It was written by Lorde and producer Joel Little, who were brought together by Lorde's A&R representative Scott MacLachlan., without repeating "Lorde" twice.
 * I rephrased it but I'm not sure if it made any improvements to the sentence.
 * I have revised it a little more. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please link extended play and spell it out when you first use it in the body of the article (in this sentence: Lorde and Little wrote songs for the EP The Love Club in three weeks.).
 * I am a little confused by the EP title. In the lead and the cited part above, it is simply called The Love Club, but later in the article and in the EP's Wikipedia article, it is called The Love Club EP. Which way is the correct way?
 * I shortened it to avoid repetition. Should it be added back?
 * I understand what you mean. I think it would better to use the full name to avoid potentially being misleading, but I do not have a strong opinion on this and will leave this up to other reviewers to discuss. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For this part, writing a song about the symbols of luxury displayed by some pop musicians, does Lorde mention any specific pop musicians? If not, that is okay. I was only curious because examples are given for the hip hop-influenced artists later in the section.
 * I just remembered that she mentioned pop musicians and the only example she mentioned was Lana Del Rey. I changed it.


 * Does the citation provide any further information to expand on this sentence: Lorde's interest in aristocracy also inspired the song.?
 * Yes, the source mentioned Marie Antoinette and Henry VII. I went ahead and added this information to the article.


 * The sentence in on Lorde being influenced by hip hop-influenced artists and specifically Watch the Throne has a lot of great information, but is quite long. I think it may be better to make the last part into its own sentence. Maybe something like:
 * Continuing on the same part, I think the "bullshit" quote is fine, but I do not see a reason for the "expensive" quote. I think you can either paraphrase it or use the word without the quotation marks.
 * I would see if there was a way to add a description for Sean Parker as he is not someone I recognize right away and I would be curious if other readers would have a similar response.
 * I am uncertain about the placement of this part, a hybrid between Adele and Ellie Goulding, since it feels a little tack-on at the end of a sentence.
 * I deleted this from the article.


 * Link Ann Powers.
 * For the NPR citations, I would use NPR rather than National Public Radio as it is mostly known and references itself by the acronym.
 * For the Foreign Policy sentence, include the writer's name in the prose. In the same section, I would also add the writer's name for The New York Times sentence that is also about conspicuous consumption.
 * I would link conspicuous consumption, income inequality, consumerism, and cultural imperialism in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section.
 * I had linked all these but the user who conducted the copy-edit removed them.


 * I agree with Mike Christie that further work could be done the "Critical response" subsection. I do not think it would take too much work. This subsection just needs further sentence variation as it gets somewhat repetitive.
 * I actually used another FA to guide me in restructuring this section. I was under the impression that writing too casual can weaken the syntax and flow of a paragraph, but it seems like the exemplars on here use a more relaxed writing style.
 * I would not refer to it as a more casual/relaxed writing style, but to each their own. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would go into a little more detail on why Véronica Bayetti Flores finds the song racist. It does not have to be long, but a little more of an explanation would be beneficial to readers. It may also be helpful to make the part on the song's perceived racism into its own paragraph, as it does not really fit with the earlier sentences that praise the track.
 * Is there a reason for using Slant rather than Slant Magazine?
 * I noticed that other publications are written this way as well. I'm not sure if this is incorrect or not.
 * I was only asking because the Wikipedia article uses Slant Magazine as part of the full title for the website. I have done further investigation, and at least on their contact page here, they use only Slant so the current wording appears to be correct. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would highly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot. For me, citation 82 no longer work and goes to a "page not found" screen.
 * To be frank, I have no idea how to archive citations. Is there a Wiki guide for this?
 * Here you go, Help:Using the Wayback Machine. Just visit the Wayback Machine and then save each of your links there. It's a good practice to archive web links because, say, 5 years from now a number of them will be dead. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You could also use the IABot to more easily archive larger groups of citations. I have used it to archive the citations in this article. The IABot sometimes does not cover everything so I would go through to see what it missed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Great work on the article. It is very admirable to work on a song that just got massive amounts of coverage and is without exaggeration very influential on music as a whole. I am glad to see this up for another FAC. A majority of my comments are mostly nitpicks. I will read through the article again once all of my above comments are addressed, just so I can make sure that I do a thorough review, but I think this should cover everything. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all the feedback you provided. I appreciate it! De88 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses. I will look through the article again today to see if I missed anything. In the future, please avoid using graphics such as the green check mark as it can slow down the page load time and is discouraged in the FAC instructions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This sentence, Birdy's "Wings" replaced it seven days later., seems unnecessary. What song replaced "Royals" at the top of any chart seems rather trivial to me. I have the same comment for the earlier bit on Eminem and Rihanna's collaboration "The Monster". It not really notable what song hit number one right after this.
 * I think the audio sample is still useful. I do not think Nikkimaria was saying to remove it completely (although I cannot speak for them), but rather to better modify the purpose of use so it is specific to this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the reception section to include more information on the media attention that the comments from the Feministing blogger received. I feel that the audio sample could be removed as there is already an image in place and it sort of clogs the section. De88 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. As I have said above, I would recommend that you remove the done graphics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Putting this as a placeholder. As I am increasingly busy irl, there may be a delay in my reviewing the article. As this song plays an important role in my teenage years, however, I'll try my best to do a comprehensive review on the prose, HĐ (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick comment: the lead says "Royals" sold 10 million, but the source in the "Certifications" section says 22 million. Why so? HĐ (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a number that the chairman of Universal Music New Zealand gave in a documentary. However, there are no written sources for this, just re-uploads of the documentary on YouTube. Should I change it and add the 10 million number instead? De88 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case keep the 10 million figures, HĐ (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * brought together by her A&R representative Scott MacLachlan I don't think MacLachlan is really notable in the lead
 * number one in New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and on the US Billboard Hot 100 I'd suggest separating US from this sentence. A Diamond certification by the RIAA is also noteworthy imo
 * of all-time of all time
 * Perhaps some inspirations for Lorde to write "Royals" would be helpful
 * I remember Lorde saying that pop songs don't really reflect the lifestyle of teenagers, so she decided to write this song as sort of an anti-pop song that could speak on her generation's behalf. After all, as this song is noted for its representation of teens' disinterest in luxurious stuff, it's worth mentioning in the lead
 * Is there a source for this comment? I remember Lorde used to be adamant about not labelling herself as an anti-pop star (she always said she was a pop star) so this is interesting.
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those two points sort of already mentioned in the first paragraph? "The track's lyrics express disapproval with the sumptuous lifestyle presented in songs and music videos by pop and hip hop-influenced artists." I feel that adding the inspiration and anti-pop song bit would be repeating information twice since it is implied from the previous sentence that the lavish subject matter of those songs inspired her to write about this topic.
 * I understand, but I want to see some sort of elaboration, especially on the track's relation to Lorde's teenage background. I remember in an interview she said that popular TV shows (like Skin) did not truly reflect that normal daily lives of her and her peers, so this song was sort of a response to the trendy stuff we see on TV. Its importance to a young generation of teens is notable, don't you think? HĐ (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The minimal production should also be mentioned in the lead

Writing
 * During the songwriting process, she criticized their "bullshit" references to extravagant alcohol and cars.[12] According to Lorde, their songs include references to lavish lifestyles that did not represent her reality.[11] These two sentences can merge
 * She considered writing a song about the symbols of luxury displayed by some pop musicians, such as Lana Del Rey This discusses the same thing mentioned in later sentences. Consider grouping them to convey a central idea: she wrote this song in response to the luxury discussed by mainstream/hip hop artists

Release
 * She decided to release She released
 * sent it to online stores "released" would fit better; "sent to online stores" may not mean that the song was officially distributed, but rather an offer
 * Consider adding the record labels that released "Royals" to US radio (i.e. Republic/Lava..)
 * Consider separating the T-Pain remix into a single sentence

Composition
 * Its minimalist instrumentation has been compared to Grimes,[29] Animal Collective and James Blake,[30] while its synth-influenced sound was likened to that of Purity Ring and Noah "40" Shebib.[31] Attribution needed
 * Is Pop Music Theory a trustworthy source?
 * it is followed by the chord progression it follows the chord progression
 * Lorde's vocals were compared to those of Amy Winehouse,[34] Lana Del Rey,[35] and Florence Welch[35] for their low-pitched vocals Ditto with the attribution issue
 * Shouldn't the commentary on the song's lyrics be in the third paragraph?
 * The track's message was compared to Nirvana's 1991 single "Smells Like Teen Spirit"[45] because it "decried the pop industry of which it became a part".[39] Attribution + consider putting the sources altogether at the end of the sentence
 * On first glance there is ref format inconsistency. I'll leave it to the source reviewer
 * Are there some specific lyrics that receive interpretation?
 * I am not sure. When "Royals" came out, publications seemed to analyse the song as a whole, rather than taking apart specific lines.
 * Thank you for your explanation, HĐ (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

More to come... HĐ (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Has there been any progress on this FAC so far? HĐ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late response. I plan to edit the article with everyone's suggestions later this week. De88 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I edited the article using most of your suggestions. Let me know if I missed any. De88 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi HĐ, what is your opinion of De88's changes? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review
I'm happy to do this, but I see that hasn't made any edits to the article in ~3 weeks; are you planning on continuing this nomination? I'd rather be sure of that before spending time going through the 300 sources. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, seems to be moderately active, so I am checking if you are still able to do the source review? If not, I can post a request on the FAC talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, will do so soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just borrow this section to leave a placeholder of my own! :) I'd be happy to review and I should have time later in the week but I'd like to see some of the outstanding comments addressed first to avoid unnecessary duplication. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay well there is going to be quite a bit of (probably tedious) work required here, which I apologize for in advance
 * There is quite a bit of inconsistency with retrieval dates and the linking of publishers/works. The approach here doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent; e.g. all have retrieval dates/are linked, or none do. For linking specifically you can also link just the first mentions. For spotting missing retrieval dates you can do command/control f "retrieved" and see what's missing either
 * When you have bundled refs you're inconsistent about using bullet points, e.g. ref 6 & 125 vs ref 27 & 28. Personally, I think the inclusion of bullet points makes it far easier to read, but again, the issue here is lack of consistency, not a stylistic thing
 * you format refs 8 and 121 from youtube differently
 * ref 26 missing author and date
 * ref 31 is missing a publisher/work
 * ref 32 and 175 appear to be the same ref
 * ref 53 is missing the year and I'm not convinced it's a high quality reliable source, especially to warrant calling the song "racist"
 * ref 94 has an extra "("
 * ref 90 has the wrong date and missing author
 * okay I've gone through ref 94 thus far, and I still have some reliability/quality concerns but I need to go through the rest first. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will not be able to dedicate time to fixing the article today or in the upcoming weeks as I begin school tomorrow. Apologies for this. I hope someone else can take over and improve the page if that is possible. De88 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * considering the comment above, and the fact that this is the second-to-last oldest nomination, I would recommend archiving. Happy to continue a source review if this is resubmitted to FAC in the future. Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tks Aza -- one their own these might not be stoppers because someone else could probably rectify them but if you still have a way to go in your review, and taking into account the other open comments on the article, then yes we would need to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SatDis

 * Background and Writing section - the repetition of "in half an hour", "in one week", "in three weeks" could be varied to make the prose more interesting.
 * By varied, do you mean finding more general terms, such as "written swiftly" or "in less than a month"?
 * I was thinking something like Lorde wrote "Royals" in half an hour at her home in July 2012. Within one week during a school break, she and Little recorded the song at Golden Age Studios in Auckland. Lorde and Little had written all of the songs for the extended play (EP) The Love Club EP in less than a month. SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Was Lorde's interest in aristocracy what inspired her name? Perhaps this could be mentioned in that (3rd) paragraph as well, even if just as an endnote?
 * Release section - the sentence beginning She decided has "because" twice in it - try varying it up.
 * The song provoked an immediate reaction on social media what exactly does this mean? Could it be expanded? The reaction could be positive or negative, and "provoked" makes me lean towards negative (but I know it wasn't).
 * sent it to online stores - could that be changed to published or something similar?
 * from SoundCloud and release it to online stores I think this needs to be "released". SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reception section - the album's highlight - specify which album, e.g.
 * Chart performance - being from Australia, I find interest in this paragraph.
 * sales of tracks on the album counted toward the EP's sales and therefore could not chart separately. Could this be worded as ?
 * Likewise, "Royals" spent two weeks change to . I just think the idea that the EP charted as a single and not the song by itself needs clarity.
 * ARIA awarded it nine platinum discs; could you say ?
 * I think this line needs to be removed completely The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has certified it six-times platinum for shipping 420,000 units.[118], as you state it was certified 9 times platinum in the following sentence. Also, that reference didn't support the information - remove it.
 * The prose says it charted in the ARIA Singles Chart, but the table says Digital Singles Chart (there is a difference, but seeing as it's both #2, I'm wondering if it's the same?). I would stick with ref [117] for both and purely state the regular Singles chart.
 * This one is unaddressed. I'm wondering if it's Singles or Digital chart? SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Cover version section - You say television series Reign, but could you push that up to and then just link Reign?
 * Hopefully these comments help. SatDis (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you respond to SatDis's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies again for the late responses. I just fixed the article using these suggestions. De88 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries, take your time! Thanks for making those changes... just a couple of responses above.SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)