Jump to content

Talk:Oh My God (Adele song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Genre(s)

@Ronherry: Hello. You wrote "Stop this nonsense" in the edit summary with a link for Wikipedia:Genre warrior; I don't remember having created my WP account to do genre warring, and if I were a GW, I would not use the talk page.

Funny thing is, you reverted an edit to keep the dance-pop genre on 13 January 2022, but now you say that I am doing nonsense because I reverted the modification of the IP... who removed the dance-pop genre.

What I had in mind was not "elements" nor "influences" but rather "R&B" since it's quite clear in the article. What is ironic is that WP:EXPLICITGENRE says: "When you see a source mention a genre, it must use direct language. Like so: ... a successful fusion of jazz rap ...", is considered correct. Now when we read in the article: "... while Consequence's Mary Siroky and Glenn Rowley believed it 'incorporates more R&B sounds'", is it no longer good? Also, the sentence in the article says "with elements of R&B" with a source by Sputnikmusic which says: "Rn'B style pop hits like 'Oh My God'", it is still not enough? An experienced user has done a lot of work on the "Oh My God" article and, just like me, is not bothered by R&B. Oroborvs (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have to talk to me directly, please use my talk page. Now coming to the topic, I wasn't addressing you or any other editor specifically. I saw a lot of reverting activity on this article, and I simply removed the "element" genres from the infobox. I detest genre wars and indeed find them nonsensical because they hinder our editorial ability and make the article unstable. Nevertheless, if you felt like my edit summary was directed at you, I am sorry about that. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 08:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
And no, "experience" doesn't overrule sources. If there is no source calling Oh My God an "R&B song", then R&B shall not be mentioned in the infobox. ℛonherry☘ 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You did address me, and I answer you. The article's talk page is used to reach a consensus, but you are not taking into account the opinion of others. Well, you removed dance-pop without any explanation, and it's the others who are making edit wars. You removed two genres that were initially in the infobox mentioning "elements" while I restored it once, but that's still questionable considering other sources. WP:EXPLICITGENRE does not use the words "genre" or "song" in its two examples but words like "quintessential example of avant-rock" and "fusion of jazz rap"; but according to you, "Rn'B style pop" and "R&B sounds" are not the same thing, and we should not include R&B in the infobox. If it has an R&B sound ... that means it is not R&B.
Ronherry, isn't that unstable? Oroborvs (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Somehow I missed this discussion entirely. Between "incorporates elements of R&B", "Rn’B style pop hit" and "incorporates more R&B sounds", R&B absolutely has to be mentioned in the article in some capacity for the sake of comprehensiveness.--NØ 15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oh My God (Adele song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will take on another article for you now; this one hasn't been lying around for as long so I'm saving it from that! --K. Peake 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

  • Infobox looks good!
  • "Adele wrote the song with its producer" → "Adele wrote the song alongside the producer"
  • Mention that the release was to US contemporary hit radio stations
  • ""Oh My God" has lyrics about" → "it has lyrics about"
  • The reviews should be listed as generally positive instead, per one being negative
  • "and identified commercial potential in it." → "and identified the commercial potential."
  • Wikilink music video
  • "She performed "Oh My God" during" → "She performed the song during"

Background and release

  • "in almost ten years," → "in almost 10 years," per MOS:NUM
  • Wikilink blind dates
  • "explain to her son" → "explain to him"
  • Wikilink "Water Under the Bridge" to itself
  • "into the dating pool but" → "into the dating pool, but"
  • [8] should be at the end of both sentences since they use direct quotes
  • "oh my God'"." → "oh my God.'"" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
  • "on 15 October 2021." → "on 14 October 2021."
  • Pipe adult contemporary radio to Adult contemporary music

Composition

  • Retitle to Composition and lyrics
  • "engineered it at" → "engineered the song at"
  • "Randy Merrill mastered it at" → "Randy Merrill handled mastering at"
  • ""Oh My God" is a" → "Musically, "Oh My God" is a"
  • "Its instrumentation incorporates" → "The instrumentation incorporates"
  • Remove the plural for Afrobeat per the source
  • [26] should be invoked at the end of both sentences using direct quotes
  • "background vocals which Mikael Wood" → "background vocals, which Mikael Wood"
  • "with a fresh person," → "with a new person,"
  • "to begin flirting just yet." → "to begin flirting already."

Critical reception

  • "received positive reviews from music critics, who praised" → "was met with generally positive reviews from music critics, who mostly praised"
  • "Bobby Olivier called it" → "Bobby Olivier called the song"
  • "Writing for The Guardian, Kitty Empire found" → "For The Guardian, Kitty Empire found"
  • Remove "on it" at the end of the sentence since this is implied
  • Remove the "Can I Get It" mention, as that is only one of these reviews so only mention the song in the review's sentence
  • Remove "to it" per earlier

Commercial performance

  • Decapitalise gold and mention the date of the certification in the United Kingdom
  • Ditto for the platinum one but write the US per MOS:US
  • Decapitalise platinum and mention the date of the Australian certification (country is already here though)
  • No date is available for the Australian certification; it seems they certify everything in bulk at the end of the year.
  • Ditto for New Zealand
  • I'm confused about the grammar for the grouped chart positions; should it always be commas after the first one without any usage of "in" or should the last of each position use "and"?
  • "earned a Gold certification" → "further earned gold certifications"
  • Cert decapitalisations not done for same reasons as our discussions on prior GANs, since this is a matter of stylistic choice.

Music video

  • Mention that Sam Brown previously directed the visual for "Rolling in the Deep" per the source
  • The shooting date is not sourced
  • The date of shooting is sourced as being the same as "Easy on Me"'s release date from the NME source directly after the sentence.
  • "and it premiered on" → "and the video premiered on"

Credits and personnel

  • Good

Charts

Weekly charts

Year-end charts

  • Good

Certifications

  • Good

Release history

  • Good

References

  • Copyvio score looks great at 24.2%!!!
  • Add url-access limited to refs 4, 25 and 73
  • Cite Audacy as publisher instead on ref 8 and pipe to Audacy, Inc.
  • Why is Billboard linked to its article on some of the refs but not others?
  • Cite All Access as publisher instead on ref 14
  • Cite RTBF as publisher instead on ref 26
  • Ref 31 is a duplicate of ref 4
  • Pipe HRT to Croatian Radiotelevision on ref 61
  • Vogue France should be wikilinked to its article on ref 71
  • Remove The Official South African Charts from ref 96

Final comments and verdict

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; that went to my expectations! --K. Peake 09:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • It's great to see you're on fire again, K. Peake! It is especially appreciated after some nominations sat out for months. All addressed!--NØ 10:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • MaranoFan No problem, had to step in for my duty after so many reviewers stopped! For the Australian certification, mention the year, also add url-access limited to the last Rolling Stone ref (72) and write US before the radio stations in the lead. --K. Peake 12:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kyle Peake: Done with the others but the Rolling Stone ref already has url-access limited in its code but isn't displaying it in the preview for some reason. If you're able to fix this, go ahead, or I guess we'll just have to ignore it.--NØ 12:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • MaranoFan ✓ Pass now, I have fixed the formatting for you! --K. Peake 12:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by MaranoFan (talk). Self-nominated at 13:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Oh My God (Adele song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MaranoFan: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@MaranoFan and Onegreatjoke: The LA Times article states, "Oh My God has bleary backing vocals processed nearly beyond recognition". So the hook needs some tweaking. Our hook says Adelle's vocals. Bruxton (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, Adele actually sings all of the vocals on this song but I understand your concerns so I have now tweaked it to something more explicitly stated in the source.--NØ 03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I think we may have to qualify the statement by stating this was the opinion of the LA Times reviewer. And perhaps quotes.
  • ALT1: ... that a review in the Los Angeles Times claimed that some of the backing vocals on Adele's song "Oh My God" are "processed nearly beyond recognition"?
Bruxton (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems unnecessary to me. The vocal processing (and the unrecognizability for that matter) is an objective fact and can easily be verified if you play the song. We can save the attribution for the article and keep it out of the hook, in my opinion. Regards.--NØ 04:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
A review is akin to an editorial so it is an opinion piece. We probably have to qualify it or we are stating the opinion as fact. It may seem objective, but opinions are subjective: do we have other reviews which also call the backing vocals "processed nearly beyond recognition"? Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Disagreed. The vocals are objectively processed and unrecognisable and you just have to play the first few seconds of the song to hear them. "The song is good/bad" would be an opinion, this is not. Your proposed hook is not interesting or DYK-worthy so I'll stick with the one already approved by another reviewer. That’s all I have to say about that, and the promoter can make the final decision about which hook they prefer.—NØ 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the message. I will leave this nomination for another promotor. Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I have to agree with Bruxton here. Even if one could verify something about a song by themselves, that could still be considered a subjective view and to me at least sounds too close to original research for my tastes. I have to agree that ALT1 or at least some variant thereof is a suitable compromise: while ALT0 is technically accurate, Bruxton has a point, and we have modified or pulled hooks in the past when hooks based on opinion pieces were clearly not indicated as such. We just want to avoid a trip to WP:ERRORS or another WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
What about these, NLH5?--NØ 09:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I will leave it to Onegreatjoke or Bruxton to decide, but personally I supposed both are okay alternatives, although I do have some slight reservations as they may be... uh... uncomfortable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts here @Narutolovehinata5: - I will remove the stop and allow others to make a decision about hooks and promotion. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The alts are all okay. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oh_My_God_(Adele_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1159322658"