- I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was originally a demo track that Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery had worked on.) to the following (“Saving Light” was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery.) to simplify the sentence structure.
- You say in the above sentence that the song was originally produced as a demo. I interpret that as meaning that the track was created to possibly sell to another artist. Is that correct? It not, then why do you mean by this?
- I don't think that Emery and Standerwick had any intentions to sell the demo, I think it was simply made out of an idea in a studio session between the two with the possibility of it becoming a full song (as it did). Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. I am actually wondering if there is a way to combine the first two sentences (i.e. "Saving Light" was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery. It was given to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.) into something like this (Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery produced a demo version of "Saving Light", which they gave to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two concerns about this sentence It was given to Emery's manager and sister Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). The phrase (Emery's manager and sister) could be misread as applying to more than just the first name so I would revise the sentence to avoid this. Also, could you clarify what the writing session was for?
- Revised sentence by erasing "Emery's manager and sister", as I don't quite understand what you mean by "applying to more than just the first name". Emery does not clarify what the writing session was for, only saying "this song really began when my sister and manager Roxanne arranged a writing session in my studio, with her, HALIENE, Matthew Steeper, and KARRA." Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- For this sentence (20 versions were produced and tested at Emery's DJ sets before the song was finished), I would revise “at Emery’s DJ sets” to “as part of Emery’s DJ sets” as I do not believe that “at” works in this context.
- I have a question about the above sentence. Is there any information on how the 20 versions were different from one another? In sound, instrumental, vocals, etc.?
- Emery stated in the interview "should it have an EDM drop? A dubstep section? Literally every idea in the book was tested. In the end we settled on a very classic trance interpretation." This could be put into the article, though he only listed two or three interpretations (dubstep section, EDM drop (I don't know what exactly he means by this, maybe about a generic big room or prog house drop), settled on 'classic trance'. The sentence could be revised into:
20 versions were produced and tested as part of Emery’s DJ sets before the song was finished, including the possibility of a dubstep section, though a "very classic trance interpretation" was chosen.
This sentence is rough however and would need changing for it to go into the actual article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest the following revision: (Standerwick and Emery produced 20 versions of "Saving Light" with different instrumentals, which included an EDM drop and a dubstep section. Emery tested each version as part of his DJ set before the song was completed.) Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The following sentence (The song debuted at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in June 2016, during the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival and was released on 30 January 2017.) is rather awkwardly phrased. I would simplify the front part to (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016). The location is not really important and only disrupts the sentence. I would also make the second half into its own sentence, ideally with a semi-colon. The revised sentence as a whole would look like the following (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016; it was released as a digital download on 30 January 2017.). In my revision, I clarified the format in which the song was released.
- I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was featured on Monstercat's thirtieth compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.) to (“Saving Light” was featured on the compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.). I do not believe that the record label part in the beginning is really necessary. I would move the wikilink for the record label to the next time it appears in the body of the article.
- I do not believe that this sentence (It was the first track on the album, which also includes 29 songs by various artists and two album mixes.) is necessary as it does not really add much to the reader’s understanding on the song.
- I would revise this sentence (The song is about standing up to bullying and helping victims in their time of need and giving them support—being their "saving light”.) to (This song is about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their “saving light”.) Also, who is saying this? Is it a critic? One of the performers, songwriters, or producers? I would attribute this in the prose.
- Revised sentence. Emery had stated what the song is about in his Billboard interview, which could be put into the article as
"Emery had described the song's meaning as about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their "saving light".
Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I would revise this sentence (All of the proceeds from "Saving Light" throughout the month of February were donated directly to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying and harassment.) to (Throughout the month of February, all of the proceeds from “Saving Light” were donated to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying).
- Could you expand on this sentence (Emery was previously a victim himself.)? It feels a little too tacked-on at the end?
-
-
- Should EDM.com be italicized? I would assume as a website name that it would not be.
- I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the website's address, not name? The website shows that 'EDM.com' is the actual website name, same as 'Your EDM' or 'Billboard', whose names are italicized. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I would shorten the Lennon Cihak quote (i.e. "Haliene's vocals are truly what brings this piece to a completely new level. She powers through the entire piece, placing her emotions, feelings, and strength behind the lyrics.”). I do not believe all of it is necessary.
- I am confused by this part (Writing about the overall video production, Cihak described it), particularly the “overall video production”. I thought this was just a remix. There is a video?
- There is a video of it on YouTube, yes. It's just a video of the choir performing the song but I think it's best to clarify that a video was released on YouTube before going into the reception. I could put in as this:
On 17 August 2017, an acoustic rendition of "Saving Light" was released as a collaboration between the Saint James Music Academy Choir and Monstercat. A video showing the choir performing the song was released by Monstercat via their YouTube channel.[citation to the video on YouTube or just use one of the already existing citations]
I want to see what you think of it before putting it into the article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would definitely add that sentence to clarify that point. I just have two comments for your suggested sentence. For "the Choir", I do not believe choir needs to be capitalized. And I would say "showing" rather than "depicting" as I do not think that the current word choice fits this context; whenever I think of the word "depict", I think more along the lines of depicting a fictional event, but that may just be me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would cut down on the use of this quote (“warm, subtle, and comforting emotion throughout, and they only scratch the surface at describing what this song does to one's emotional state.”). You can definitely use parts of it, but I do not think that all of it is necessary.
- The Lisa-sun Nguyen sentence contains two rather long quotes. I think that this first quote is fine, but I think you can safely paraphrase the second one. I use a lot of quotes too tbh so I understand where you are coming from, but I would look more carefully on why you are using them and what they add to the article.
- I would revise this sentence (On 18 August 2017, a remix extended play of "Saving Light" was released, featuring six remixes by various artists, including a remix by American producer Notaker.) to (An extended play of “Saving Light” was released on 18 August 2017; it features six remixes by various artists, including one by American producer Notaker.).
- There are two typos in this sentence (Jim Babaoglu of EDM Sauce write, "Notakers ability to add a gritty digital feel to this song really let him display his own version of this already incredible track.”). I believe you mean “writes” and “lets”.
- I do not believe that the "second to none” quote is necessary and you can paraphrase. You include so many quotes that I think this one can safely be revised out.
- I would look critically at the quote use in the “Critical reception” paragraph as there are a lot of them. I also do not get a sense of a strong narrative or structure here. It just seems to rather randomly hop from one critic to the next without any real rhyme or reason. I would work on the sentence structure and flow to have it read better. I would look at this resource for ideas on how to improve this section.
- I am not too sure how to improve this section. I had a look at the critical reception at Habits (Stay High) and it is fairly similar to this article. It would help me greatly if you could provide examples and help me improve it so it could be as good as it could possibly can. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Move the wikilink for Beatport to its first use in the body of the article.
- I would try to make the following two sentences more concise ("Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again". This was an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to buy the song on Beatport to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label.).
- Might re-phrase it into this, however it might need more editing to be adequate:
"Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again", an initiative that encouraged fans to purchase the song on Beatport to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label (who received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February) and for the song to enter the top of the Beatport charts.
Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think the above revision actually makes the section worse. It is far too much of a run-on sentence and contains a lot of content for a single sentence. Upon re-reading the section, I think it is fine as it currently stands as I am struggling to think of a way to improve it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would clarify what you mean by “it” in this sentence (It received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February.). I would actually just revise this whole paragraph. The context is good, but the prose is not that great.
-
-
- Is this part (They hoped it would reach the top of the Beatport charts.) really necessary? I would believe that any artist would want their song to be commercially successful?
-
-
- Wouldn’t all of the information in the “Make Trance #1 Again” subsection make more sense in the “Background and release” section. It is really not about the critical reception of the song.
- I really do not understand the Christopher Lawrence part. I do not think that enough context is given to help an unfamiliar reader understand the connection to the song? I am assuming that Emery promoted this song as saving trance music, but that is not made clear at all.
- Although I can see what you are saying, I am not sure how to achieve this and make it clear. :
In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the Beatport charts. Lawrence wrote that Emery had been "waving the EDM flag for years", stating that trance does not need saving and that it has been doing "just fine without him". Lawrence has since deleted his post.
Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the first part of your revision (i.e. In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the beatport charts.) makes the situation clearer to an unfamiliar reader like me. Just remember to keep "Beatport" capitalized. Good work with the revision as it helped me a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (for his widely syndicated radio show), I would remove “widely syndicated” as it seems to be overly positive language toward the program. Just saying “his radio show” is enough.
- I would work on the prose for this section to make it flow/read better.
- I might rephrase it to this, though it may need further editing:
On 1 November 2017, Armada Music opened voting to select for the 2017 Tune of the Year for Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance. On 19 December, Van Buuren revealed the top 50 most voted tracks, which included "Saving Light". These songs were to comprise his mix album, A State of Trance 2017. On 21 December 2017, Van Buuren concluded his four-hour radio show special, announcing that "Saving Light" had won Tune of the Year. Matthew Meadow of Your EDM noted that this marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award.
Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- For this sentence (It was noted this marks the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award.), who is doing the noting?
- This part (conceived the idea of developing a music video dealing with the theme of bullying and harassment.) is unnecessarily wordy and repetitive . I would just say (developed a music video to focus on a theme of bully and harassment.).
- For the first paragraph of the “Production and release” subsection of the “Music video” section, you use the word “develop” twice in the first two sentences. I would revise this.
-
-
- I would revise this sentence (They wished to showcase its negative and harmful effects which can lead to thoughts of suicide, and show how just one positive voice can save a life) to (They wished to showcase its harmful effects, potentially leading to thoughts of suicide, and the positive impact of one voice.)
You done good work with this article, but a lot more work needs to be done for this to meet the FA criteria. After my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again. Please let me know if you need clarification for anything. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some points that I've marked with "Fixed" or "Addressed". This means that I believe that the point has been addressed fully and points without "Fixed" or "Addressed" means that I do not believe they have been met and need further attention to be fixed. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I have responded to all of your comments above; thank you for leaving such great responses as I appreciate that you took the time to explain all of your reasonings to me. The article is in much better shape now. I will look through the article again and provide further comments, but if you do not hear anything from me by Saturday night, then please ping me. I hope that this receives more feedback, but I have heard that summer is a hard time for reviews. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thank you for addressing everything so far. It is cool to read and learn about this song. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could comment on my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't consider myself very well qualified to judge if a GA is qualified to become a FA, I will have a look at the Abby article and if I see anything questionable, I would comment on the candidate page. Good luck with the FAC. Micro (Talk) 03:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, but do not feel pressured to comment on it. I completely understand what you mean; good luck with your current and future projects. Upon further examination, here are some further comments:
- For this sentence (After this, Emery and Standerwick tried different ideas for a musical style for six months before settling on a classic trance interpretation.), I would avoid the use of "After this". Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, deleted the wording.
- I do not believe the two subsections in the "Music video" section are necessary. I would put the paragraph in the "Critical reception" subsection with this sentence (The music video was announced by Monstercat via their YouTube channel on 24 January 2017 and was released on 30 January 2017.[23]). I would change this sentence (The music video for "Saving Light" met with a mostly positive reception.) to (It was met with a mostly positive reception) during this edit to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Combined paragraph with sentence, rephrased latter. Although I deleted the first "Production and release" sub-heading, I didn't delete the "Critical reception" sub-heading as it seems awkward not to have the latter sub-heading. I would erase the sub-heading if you believe that it is unnecessary. Micro (Talk) 07:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
After these comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
