Template:Did you know nominations/Oh My God (Adele song)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
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)

Oh My God (Adele song)

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)
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)