Wikipedia:Peer review/Royals (song)/archive1

Royals (song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because... several users mentioned that a peer review or GOCE would be the fastest way for the article to obtain a bronze star. I previously submitted it for FAC and hope to renominate it in the future. The areas the article needs assistance in include: prose, syntax, and grammar.

Thanks, De88 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) And please add the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

My general advice for FA aspirants is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content; the additional links (and particularly the links to Tony's prose exercises) are helpful.

You can install and run these scripts yourself: User:GregU/dashes.js and User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates
When using non-English-language sources, please give the original name in the title of the citation template, but add the parameter |trans-title= to give a translation to English.
Examine all of the hidden categories at the bottom of the article to see if you can fix anything, samples, CS1 maint: othersCS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown
See WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to write a compelling Reception section.
See MOS:LQ re logical punctuation on quotes.
There is only one critical line in Critical reception; is that believable?

Prose samples

A copyedit by independent eyes would help. Here are some samples only:

Huw Woodward from Renowned for Sound, shared similar sentiments, giving the song a four-and-a-half star out of five rating, praising her mature vocals and production that help "create a catchy and satisfyingly danceable tune without going overboard with unnecessary 'explosives' that take away from the artist." "Her" refers back to the song ? And the sentence has too many clauses (becoming what Tony1 called "a snake"). --> Huw Woodward gave the song ... five rating. Woodward highlighted Lorde's mature vocals and production of a "catchy and satisfyingly danceable tune" that did not go "overboard with unnecessary 'explosives' that take away from the artist".
Here is another problem at the clause level: The singer wrote "Royals" at her home on July 2012,[5] which took half an hour to complete. Her home took half an hour to complete? The singer wrote "Roayls in half an hour at her home on July 2012.
This is not a sentence: Lorde finished recording the song with Little at Golden Age Studios in Auckland within a week during a school break,[7] and her debut extended play (EP), The Love Club, in three weeks. Does it mean -- > Lorde finished recording the song with Little at Golden Age Studios in Auckland in one week during a school break. They wrote the extended play (EP), The Love Club, in three weeks. I really can't tell what the sentence is trying to say.
She explained the lyric "We're driving Cadillacs in our dreams" was a phrase she wrote in a diary at the age of 12. --> She explained that the lyric about driving Cadillacs in our dreams came from an entry in her diary when she was twelve.

These are samples only. Overall, the citations could be cleaned up as above, then RECEPTION rewritten, but a thorough copyedit from an independent editor is needed. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

I have a question about this sentence from the lead: The track's lyrics express a disapproval with the sumptuous lifestyle presented by contemporary artists in their songs and music videos The article later says the song was inspired specifically by hip hop-influenced artists and the lyrics in their songs. I would be more specific in the lead as it would give the reader a better understanding of what the lyrics are a response to.
For this part, appeared on various critics' year-end and decade-end song lists, I would remove "various" as it seems like a filler word.
I am uncertain about this part, It consists of ordinary teenagers in mundane settings with minimal shots. What makes the teenagers ordinary and the settings mundane? I get what this means because of the context of the overall article, but I think it would be clearer to replace this with something like, It shows teenagers in a suburban neighborhood.
I would add a link to alternative in this part, credited the song for paving the way for other alternative-leaning pop artists, to clarify what that word means to an unfamiliar reader.
For this part, has been called an anthem for the Millennial generation, specify who calls the song this. The way the sentence is structured separates this part from critics so it is unclear who is doing this action.
Link Lorde the first time you mention her in the body of the article.
I do not see a need to mention the year Lorde was born because in the next sentences, we already get an understanding that she was young when she was discovered and while writing music. I'd remove that part entirely.
For the Nirvana image caption, specify who is making these comparisons.
I do not see the need for the music video screenshot. I have always been told to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and it should only be used when it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Unless a stronger case can be made for its inclusion, I would delete it.
I would avoid having three wikilink in a row as done here, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
I am uncertain about the Richard S. He quote box. I understand it is a nice quote, but I think it could be interpreted as putting an undue weight on one critic over others.
Link Tove Lo.
I would reword this part, Lorde's "fascination with aristocracy" also inspired the song, to avoid the quote. I think paraphrasing it in your words would make this part clearer to readers.
I would avoid using "the singer" per Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. It is just an essay and not a requirement, but I just find "the singer" to be more distracting than helpful. That is just my personal preference though.
I would encourage you to archive the citations when possible to avoid link rot.
In the first sentence of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation", the citations are scattered throughout in a way that I think actually detracts from the readability. Since all of the citations are only used here, I would consider bundling the citations instead. I just find putting multiple citations after single words or small phrases in such a quick succession is distracting and cuts up the sentence. I have a similar issue with the second sentence.
For this part, Noted as an observation of conspicuous consumption, clarify who noted this.
Who described the song this way in this part, Described as an anthem for the Millennial generation,? Who noted this about the song here, It has also been noted for paving the way for other alternative-leaning pop artists?
The "Critical reception" section could use a rewrite, and I would encourage you to look at the essay SG linked above.
For this part, was praised by publications,, you say multiple publications, but only have a citation to one publication (Rolling Stone)
This review (Tracking the Problematic Path of Lorde’s ‘Royals’ to Rap and R&B Radio) is also critical of the song's connection with race so I would include it in the article to help provide balance, and I would encourage you to double-check for any mixed or negative reviews for the song (regarding its connection with race or the quality of the song in general).

Apologies for the amount of comments and for being rather all over the place with them. A lot of great work has been done with this article, and I have immense respect for you for working on such a popular song that has received a huge amount of coverage. These are things that I have noticed during a quick read-through, and I hope you find these comments helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with SG's comments above. Just wanted to make a note of that. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SandyGeorgia: and @Aoba47: for taking the time to review this. I appreciate it. De88 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: So I tried to bundle each source by using the reference format that combines multiple citations into one (separated by an asterisk); however, it does not read the "ref name" parameter correctly. For example, when I cite a source in that format, I type: * {cite news|...|...|ref name="x"} (removed the second bracket purposely) How do I fix this? De88 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "ref name" parameter as for whatever reason, it does not work with the citation bundle. If I had to guess, the citation bundling treats all of sources as a single citation so having multiple "ref name" parameters break this since it treats the citations individually instead. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]