Talk:Honey Revenge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Page development

@Launchballer another one here you might be interested in helping me with :)) George (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I can absolutely take a look at this.--Launchballer 11:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgeykiwi: I've done a bunch of work on this, although I may well come back to it. I'm pretty sure this would need an image to become a GA (and in fact I'm still wondering what to do about Sim0ne, which is currently nominated and doesn't have one). Incidentally, while I'm asking, do you by any chance own the copyright to any images of Piri & Tommy that aren't of the back of Tommy's head? I'm planning on renominating Piri for FA when I have 6/7 GAs, and I'm planning on expanding that article nearer the time in order to refamiliarise myself with the sources. (Here's hoping Tommy's mellowed on mentioning his family history - "that Piri & Tommy comprise a member of an aristocratic family and a porn star" would make a brilliant DYK hook.)--Launchballer 12:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! I literally saw Honey Revenge live on Friday night so can add an image I took now! Also, I unfortunately don't have any pictures of Tommy but have loads of piri from gigs! George (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might. (I've been at a few gigs myself, but I have severe coordination problems and so quite literally cannot take photos without risking a fall.) It would be good if you could upload the ones of piri - I don't expect to need them, but given this comment from the first FA it would be nice to have something more concrete, belt and braces and all that.--Launchballer 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Honey Revenge/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 14:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoNominator: Georgeykiwi (talk · contribs)

Introductory comments

Please take all review comments as suggestions. I'm generally willing to discuss anything. If you want to discuss a specific point, please do so right below that point, indenting another level. General comments can go at the end of the page. I try to be thorough with my reviews so this is a bit long. Please let me know if you have any trouble understanding the markup that I'm using.

I did some minor MOS fixes and reference tidying; if you disagree with any of that, let me know and we can discuss it as part of the review. I'm going to try something a little different from my previous reviews and handle the prose in order rather than source-by-source.

Notability

Before jumping in to the review, I want to address notability. It seems that the band has only released one album, hasn't charted or won a major (national) award, so it doesn't get the presumption of notability and depends on the depth of coverage. Most of the sources are interviews, passing mentions, or reprints of press releases. So it's a bit on the borderline of the notability criteria at

WP:BAND
. Looking for the best independent sources which are producing significant original content on the band, I find:

I feel that my wordcounts are being generous because some of this may be paraphrased from press releases, but I feel it still squeaks by for notability, with three different publications. I may not have written the article or brought it to scrutiny at GAN until they'd released a second album, but here we are. Just prepare yourself if someone does question notability.

Criterion

I will udpate this checklist as the review progresses.

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 (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and
    source spot-check
    .
    a (
    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:
    Meets criteria and promoted to GA

Review comments

History section 1

  • While studying at Musicians Institute in Hollywood, Los Angeles, Devin Papadol formed a band with four of her classmates, which achieved minor local success; one video, of the band performing at a skate shop, Source 1. Did not spot the part about the other four being classmates at MI. The prose is a little confusing. Suggest simplifying the sentence structure: Devin Papadol and four of her classmates from the Musicians Institute in Hollywood, Los Angeles, formed a band, which achieved minor local success. One of their music videos, in which the band performs at a skate shop,
    • Added source and otherwise reworded.Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrase reads better but it looks like the same source to me. That source has "Devin beginning her musical career by studying at Hollywood's Musicians Institute" and "The band Devin had formed while studying at MI" but I don't see it saying that her bandmates were MI students.Question?
Cut "with four of her classmates"; I suppose I could probably get away with using page 13 of [1] for this as it has an editor but I don't think it's necessary.--Launchballer 12:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Checked[reply]
  • went viral. One of the video's viewers was Donovan Lloyd, Nothing in source 1 or 2 about the video going viral. Suggest: was seen by Donovan Lloyd,
  • [Donovan Lloyd] who had been the guitarist as a
    WP:SYNTH
    ). I'm also a bit confused about whether it's Lloyd or the whole Georgia band moving to Los Angeles and joining Papadol (see "They" below).
  • I feel that it might be good here to include that Lloyd had just graduated from high school (source 1).
  • They source 4. Okay, so is this about choice of pronouns? The second paragraph of the source seems to use "they" for each of Donny and Devin, but the third paragraph refers to Devin as "she/her", and paragraph 5 refers to Devin as both "her" and "their" in the same sentence. Later in the interview Donny says he's non-binary. I find this all very confusing, and perhaps the text should (using this source) say a little to explain it for the reader. Something like: Lloyd, who identifies as non-binary and uses the pronoun "they/them", unless it can be avoided altogether. A possibility is to put it in a footnote so it's less obtrusive (I can code that if you want). This may require examination of recent sources. (See
    MOS:SINGULARTHEY
    .) I did not poll the sources, but I saw "they" used for Donny enough that I'm okay with that if you feel it's the right call.
  • [They] contacted the band to ask if they knew of any bands in need of guitarists; as it happened, the band had just lost theirs, so Lloyd sent in an audition video. source 2. Continuing from the above, and with the first sentence of the next paragraph, it's unclear if Lloyd or the whole Georgia band were moving to Los Angeles. It's also repetitive (and confusing) with "band" repeated. Suggest: [Lloyd] contacted Papadol's band, asking about opportunities for guitarists in Los Angeles. Learning that Papadol's band had a vacancy, Lloyd sent an audition video and joined the group.
  • Initially a five-piece, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted three of its remaining members to leave. source 2. Didn't spot the underlined part in source 2, but source 1 can cover it. Suggest: The remainder of the five-member band[1] broke apart during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving Lloyd and Papadol to form the musical duo Honey Revenge.[2] (This might fit better at the end of the first paragraph.) The source has the band's name so let's use that and get it established early.
  • In 2021, source 5.Checked
  • Papadol and Lloyd released their debut single, "Miss Me", under the name "Honey Revenge"; source 6. The citation template for source 6 has |website=Deaf New but the website identifies itself as that of a club called "The Deaf Institute". I feel that "under the name" suggests the name changes, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Depending on whether the previous rephrasing suggestions are used, suggest simplifying: Honey Revenge released its debut single "Miss Me".
  • their name, which took Papadol and Lloyd six months to decide upon, was intended to describe the aesthetic of the band, as Papadol had wanted to make pop rock, and wanted something cutesy but rigid. source 7.Checked Okay, found this 2 minutes in to the 8-minute video. (In the future, though not a GA requirement, please include the time of the information in a video, as you would the page number for a book.) It's a direct quote so should be in quotation marks. Suggest: The duo had considered names for the band over six months, Papadol wanting it to be "sweet and cutesy" but "rigid and rock" to encapsulate their pop rock aesthetic.
  • ["Miss Me"] The song had been initially written by Papadol while in her previous band three and a half years earlier, source 2. Checking timeframe, the source is from December 2021, the year "Miss Me" was released, and says (interview) that it was written about 3 1/2 years ago "for that other project". (An interview in source 8 says it was written in "2018 or 2019" which would have made it between 3 11/12 and 2 years before December 2021.) Does not specifically mention the earlier band (which is never mentioned by name) but that suggests something previously mentioned and, though the interview could have been edited out of order, it's probably a safe bet. I'm going to hold a rephrase here, as I feel the paragraph could use some restructuring.
  • and featured a voicemail from the song's subject; source 8Checked
  • [Miss Me] the track's release was delayed so the band had a collection of singles ready. source 9. I don't think it actually says that. It says that the duo had a bunch of incomplete songs before the release of "Miss Me" and that the duo wanted a collection of songs ready before they started releasing, but not that they delayed releasing "Miss Me". Perhaps another source says this?
    • Reworded.Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Verified[reply]
      • How would you feel about adding something here from source 1 along the lines of "Papadol had learned at MI about marketing music and building a fanbase" ... [and wanted a collection of songs ready before releasing anything] Question?
I think this would be relevant for an article about Papadol, I think it would be INDISCRIMINATE here.--Launchballer 12:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Accepted[reply]

History section 2

  • In June 2022, the band released "Distracted" alongside a music video, source 5Checked
  • before signing to Thriller Records and releasing "Ride" the following August, a track about experiencing good things after low periods. source 10. The reportage matches this sequence of events but doesn't actually verify it. The duo announced having signed to Thriller in August, but there's nothing to say that they hadn't signed before August, maybe even before June. As for the underlined part, this should be "according to Honey Revenge".
    • I've reworded the first part of this. Honey Revenge wrote the song and would know what they wrote it about, so I don't think this requires attribution.Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Verified[reply]
      • Please see note at bottom under General discussion; tagging this with Question?
  • A November 2022 single, "Rerun", source 11. The source, dated 11 November 2022, says it's a "new single".Checked
  • ["Rerun"] was part of a batch of singles produced between making "Miss Me" and releasing it, source 9. Again, I don't think the source actually says this. It says that they were working on "Rerun" for "a long time" in comparison to 2 years, so more than 2 years. When the final version was produced/recorded, I don't know.
    • I cut that clause altogether.
  • ["Rerun"] and was written about Papadol's pandemic experience of living the same day repeatedly. source 2.Checked Consider adding "unhappily" before living.
  • In February 2023, the band released "Are You Impressed?", a track about the stresses of the internet, alongside a music video. source 12. Dated 17 February 2023 for a "new single and video".Checked The description of the song's theme should be 'according to Papadol'.
  • The following month, [March] they announced their debut album Retrovision, source 13.Checked
  • and released "Airhead", Papadol's take on her own impulsive thinking. source 14.Checked I put impulsive thinking in double quotes as a direct quotation.
  • In April 2023, it was announced that Honey Revenge would support Arrows in Action on tour, source 15.Checked This tour, slated for July 2023, only has six dates. The announcement describes Honey Revenge as "special guests". Do you have a source that confirms the tour actually happened and included Honey Revenge?
  • and later that month the band released a further Retrovision single, "Worst Apology", about stubborn people. source 16.Checked Again, this should be "according to Papadol" and that it's about "standing up for yourself" regarding stubborn people who "project guilt". Suggest: which Papadol said was about empowering oneself against victim blaming.
  • A further single, "Favorite Song", was released from the same album that May and was a sarcastic track about an intermittent texter. source 17.Checked Again, the source is a quote from Papadol (according to...) and calls it a "sarcastic melody" and "waiting on a text". Suggest: That May, the single "Favorite Song" was released, which Papadol described as juxtaposing a playful melody with lyrics about frustrations at being "strung along".
  • In June 2023, the pair released Retrovision, which received positive reviews from Kerrang! source 18.Checked
  • and Distorted Sound Magazine, and which included "Distracted", "Rerun", source 19.Checked
  • "Are You Impressed?" source 18Checked
  • "Worst Apology", "Favourite Song", and "Habitual", source 19Checked
  • the last of which a music video was released for. source 20. Might want to check if this is still live; I used the archive.Checked
    • Grrr! No, it isn't, I've adjusted the ref. Checked
  • In October 2023, it was announced that they would support
    WP:HEADLINES
    . Can you find another source, preferably coverage of the tour rather than a pre-tour annoucement?
  • and in March 2024, they announced that they would tour Europe that May, source 22. Only 2 of 8 dates are in Europe (this is following Brexit) but I suppose that's okay.Checked
  • including two shows at Slam Dunk Festival. source 23. I don't think it's all there and that it would be good to add source 22 to the end of the sentence for better coverage.
  • That month, [May] they released "Recipe For Disaster", which had been written on a TikTok Live around the same time as "Habitual" and "Favourite Song" about Papadol's emotions around the time of the band's first tour, and announced an extended version of Retrovision, source 24 "used". Verifies TikTok Live. Dated 24 May, it says they're preparing to release "Recipe For Disaster". At the very end there is an emboldened line "Honey Revenge's new single 'Recipe For Disaster' is out now." but that seems like an update, leaving the release date unclear. I'm also unclear on the timing with the two other singles. The 'about' should be 'according to Papadol'.
  • which included brand new track "Medicine" along with two re-imagined versions of tracks from the album. source 25 ":6".Checked The word brand is puffery and doesn't add anything, suggest removing it. I feel that re-imagined versions has tone issues and is taken directly from the source. Suggest either putting it in quotations or, better yet, to rephrase as "remixes" which is a little less surprising.
Trimmed and changed to "remixes".Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Verified[reply]

Artistry

Assuming the transcript is accurate, 2:30 onwards. (Most YouTube videos have a 'Show transcript' button if you click the description.)Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even finding "description" on the YouTube browser interface, but verified the material at 2:30. Checked

Members

Tours

Breadth & focus

Took a look around via ProQuest and the Wikipedia Library but didn't find anything. Google News turned up this from last month:

Storrs, Mikaila (10 December 2024). "Honey Revenge announces 'The Loving and Losing Tour' with special guests Wolf & Bear and Daisy Grenade". Melodic Magazine.

You could put it under tours, North America scheduled 2025, 33 dates. This mentions the duo by names to include with section Members.

Added to tours. I find it incredible that the actual release of the expanded version of Retrovision has received no coverage whatsoever.Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

No neutrality problems detected.

Stability

Stable: article is less than one year old, under 40 edits, with a single reversion related to a category-for-discussion conflict elsewhere on the wiki.

Media

Two images from concert performances. (Too bad about the security guard looking at the camera front-and-center.) Both have CC licenses. Captions are consistent with descriptions on file pages, and good for MOS formatting.

General discussion

I think that's a good start. I'll have some more prose comments after my second pass. Please let me know here when you're done making changes and you're ready for me to check the article again. Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've responded to all your concerns; I really don't think there's any point attributing the band or any of their members for subjects of songs they wrote, but by all means ping if I've missed anything.Launchballer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I would agree with you if it was "song X was written about" or "song X was inspired by" because it'd be clear that'd be from the writer/creator. But when it's "song X is about", that's very general. Scholars, critics, and popular opinion may vary from that of the artist regarding the overall themes of the work (e.g.: Flower paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe). Looking over them again the context makes it clear that 3 of the 7 'about's are coming from Papadol (or her experiences). If you could also make it clear for the first one, "Ride", then I feel it'd be easier for the reader to assume the rest are also from the artist(s).
Otherwise, I like your phrasing changes and the lead. I've marked three places above with Question? for attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "written" before the "about"s that lack and need it.--Launchballer 12:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Verified[reply]
Okay, great! I'm happy to promote this! Green checkmarkY Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cielquiparle talk 20:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Honey Revenge in 2024
Honey Revenge in 2024
Improved to Good Article status by Launchballer (talk) and Georgeykiwi (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 271 past nominations.

Launchballer 17:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article recently passed its GA nomination; all of its text is sourced and Earwig only flags minor instances of similar text.[2] The citations for the hooks can be found in the article (but please, in future DYK noms, provide the hooks in the DYK submission itself; it makes verification easier). I think ALTs 1 and 2 are interesting, but I can't say the same about ALT0 (it just doesn't strike me as a particularly unique factoid). Picture is freely licensed under the CreativeCommons by its creator, and is clear at a small size. QPQ has already been satisfied. I approve AL1 and ALT2. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honey_Revenge&oldid=1277909853"