Talk:Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song)/GA1

GA Review

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

For this part (the American recording artist Ariana Grande), I would just say (the American singer Ariana Grande) as I do not think the "recording artist" phrase or link adds anything particularly more beneficial over the more direct "singer" word choice.
For the first sentence of the first paragraph, I do not think a comma is needed between "Grande" and "from", and I would simplify the "released in 2019" bit to just (2019) directly after the album title.
I am uncertain about this bit (talks about using someone to recover from a previous relationship) since a song really cannot talk. This is admittedly very much a nitpick, but I think a better word choice can be used that does fully anthropomorphize the song.
For this part (while others found it similar to Gotye and Kimbra's "Somebody That I Used to Know".), I would say "too similar" to drive home the fact that this is a criticism against the song and not just an observation.
I am wondering if this sentence (The track was included on the set list of Grande's Sweetener World Tour, which started on March 18, 2019.) can be reworded to avoid the passive tense. Maybe something like (Grande included the track on the set list of her Sweetener World Tour, which started on March 18, 2019) would be helpful here?
Is the exact date the Sweetener World Tour started necessary for this article? It seems more relevant to the articles on the tour itself and the album, but I do not think it really adds to the reader's understanding of this song and could be removed.
For this part (That year she performed it), I would add a comma between "year" and "she". If you do remove the year from the previous sentence about the tour per my above suggestion, then I would make sure to clarify the year here with something like (In 2019, she performed it).

I hope the above comments are helpful so far. I will be working section-by-section with this review to make sure I am being thorough and really paying attention to everything. You can of course address these points as I post each section. I will wait until I look through all of the sections and comment about the prose to look through the sources and do the spot checks. Hope you have a great rest of your day! When I look back on 2019, thank u, next may in fact be my favorite album from that year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I do not think the (pictured) part of the image caption is necessary as multiple people are not mentioned so there would not be any confusion on how is being shown in the image.
Remember to link Ariana Grade the first time you mention her and use her full name. The body of the article and the lead are treated separately with this so it should not just be an unlinked last name.
I would avoid using phrases like “the singer” per the essay, Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation.
This part (who worked with the singer on her Dangerous Woman album) reads rather awkwardly to me. I would say (her album Dangerous Woman) as that reads better to me. Do you think it would beneficial to include the year the album was released and the fact that it was third studio album?
The placement of reference three in that same sentence cuts off the information rather awkwardly, and I think it may hinder readability. Would it be possibly to put it right after reference one at the end of the sentence instead to avoid this?
For reference one, I would also put the album CD booklet citation as a bullet point as it is a little odd to have one part of the citation be a bullet point and the other not.

Composition

I am uncertain of the value of the Max Martin image here as this part specifically deals with the song’s sound and lyrics not necessarily who produced it. If anything, I think an audio sample would be a better fit for this section.
Unlink “trap” here as it was linked in a previous section.
For this part (In the lyrics, Grande talks about using someone to recover from a previous relationship, as indicated in the chorus.), I would use a colon instead of a period to better link into the lyrics in the next.
This is more of a clarification question, but do any of the sources specify what the similarities are between this song and “Somebody That I Used To Know”?
- Comment: Aoba47 the only one that specifies is The Atlantic: "...the Martin-produced 'Bad Idea' has the elements of a future-pop breakthrough. Yet it distractingly cops the melody, cadences, and even abject but defiant tone of that Gotye hit from a few years ago, 'Somebody That I Used to Know.'"
  - Thank you for the explanation. It may be helpful to more clearly say that this song sounds like "Somebody That I Used to Know" just to make sure that the similarities are not about lyrical content. The current wording is good so it would not hold up this GAN, but just something to think about for the future. Maybe I am just dense, but I do not see a strong similarity between these two songs (but that is just my personal opinion lol). Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of the “Ari-chan” sentence seems odd to me. It seems a litle tacked-on at the end of the paragraph, and it is a little confusing to have it come after the description of how the song ends. I would move up this sentence to a place earlier in the paragraph to avoid this.

Critical reception

For this sentence (Richard S. He of Billboard ranked the song number 32 on the list in his article "Every Ariana Grande Song, Ranked: Critic's Picks”.), I would add the year the article was released to the prose, with something like (in his 2019 article), as the title will mean something different in the future when there are more Ariana Grande songs.
For this sentence (Kristin Smith selected the song's themes among the "objectionable content" on Thank U, Next.), does Smith explain what she finds objectionable about the song?
- Comment: Aoba47 this is what she wrote: "Objectionable content: Explicit one-night stands, make-up sex, seducing other women's boyfriends and various intimate moments are big themes on more than half of the songs on this album, including “break up with your girlfriend, i’m bored,” “7 Rings,” “make up,” “bad idea,” “bloodline” and “imagine.”" She's talking about the lyrics, but she does not specify Bad Idea's lyrical content (I guess the one-night stands refer to the song)
  - Thank you for the clarification. Since the source does not explicitly pin down one of these themes on this particular song, it should be fine. I was just curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would link Kitty Empire since she does have a Wikipedia article.
Is there a structure to this section? I am a little confused because the first paragraph is focusing on positive reviews, but the second paragraphs opens with a positive review before going to negative reviews. I found the transition in the second paragraph to be somewhat jarring. I think it would be better to put the negative reviews in their own paragraph to help with the overall flow and make a narrative for readers to follow.
For this part (In it he praises its composition,), there should be a comma between “it” and “he”.
There are instances the Oxford/serial comma is used ("Bad Idea" was written by Grande, Peter Svensson, Savan Kotecha, and its producers Max Martin and Ilya Salmanzadeh.) and instances where it is not (In it he praises its composition, the orchestral arrangements, ad-libs and hook) so I would make sure to be consistent with one way or the other. I am personally partial to using the Oxford/serial comma, but it is up to you either way as it is really a stylistic preference. Done
The tense in the second paragraph is somewhat confusing as there are instances of past and present tense with talking about the critics’ opinions. I am pretty sure it should all be in past tense so I would correct parts like (however, he considers the track a copy of) and (he praises its composition,).

Commercial performance

For this part (The next week it dropped to number 51.), there should be a comma between "week" and "it".
There is quite a bit on when the song fell from a chart after its apparent peak position. Is this really important enough to include in the article? For instance, I am not sure it is particularly useful to include how the song fell to number 51 on the Canadian Hot 100 or number 42 on the Australian ARIA Singles Chart.
- Comment: Aoba47 Hi! I included it to show the song's ephemeral popularity on the charts. If you still consider it is not useful, then I would remove it.--Paparazzzi (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes more sense then. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances and remix

For this sentence ("Bad Idea" was included on the set list of Grande's Sweetener World Tour, which started on March 18, 2019, in Albany, New York.), I am not sure about it is necessary to include the exact date and place for the tour.
I think this sentence (Grande also performed "Bad Idea" as her second song at the Lollapalooza 2019 concert in Chicago.) could be misinterpreted as this is not the second time she performed "Bad Idea" as the second song, since the previous paragraph was about the song being the third song during her Coachella performance. I would remove the "also" because of this.
For (on a dark and space-themed setting surrounded by back-up dancers), I do not think the "space" wikilink is particularly useful so I would remove it.

That should be all of my comments on the prose. I will cover the citation formats and do the spot checks sometime tomorrow, but again feel free to address any of these points in the meantime. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

The following references are missing the author's name: 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 22, 48, 49, 50, and 51.
Reference 45 has the same author named twice.
I would think Pitchfork fits the website parameter instead of the publisher one for its reference.
References 17 and 46 format Elle differently. The first does is it as Elle and the second does it as ELLE.

This is my final part of the review. Great job with the article. I will put this on hold and let me know if any of comments need further clarification. Hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paparazzzi: Just making sure you saw this feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hello! Thank you so much for the review, I appreciate it a lot! I have

addressed all of your comments, but I left some points above and I hope you could comment. Again, thank you so much and have a nice day! --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article! I will ✓ Pass this a GA. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC about an article on another non-single song. Either way, have an awesome start to your February! Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.