Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alejandro (song)/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 November 2022 [1].

Alejandro (song)

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk), IndianBio (talk) and Sricsi (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Alejandro, Roberto or Fernando that she's talking about or you are a member of the Catholic church, this song/video should be fine. This is my third FAC of a Lady Gaga song. Thanks to IndianBio and Sricsi for all their help in getting this article FAC-ready, and thanks to all the reviewers for their help in getting this FA status. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

This is a placeholder and I will post my review later in the week. I do have a response to

Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Aoba47, maybe I can respond on behalf of FrB. I re-read the section and I completely agree that focus for Germany and World War II is more from a thematic critical thesis writing on the song. I am wondering what post-Nazi German fashion image is there on commons that can be used? —IB [ Poke ] 11:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I replaced it with a poster from the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will, which is available under public domain. For one thing, it visualizes the recurring theme in the section. For another, the comparison of the video to the film was made by several critics/academics, two of whom I have cited in the article. FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this point. I believe the new image is much better at illustrating the information in this section.
Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I will keep my placeholder posted as it contains a question. Below are comments after I have done a few read-throughs of the article:
The quote was by Billboard staff that is why no author is mentioned. To clarify, I have avoided using author names in cases where they don't exist or where I have listed several publications after one another in a single sentence otherwise it gets very repetitive and long.
  • Thank you for the clarification.
    Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would definitely say it is a fact. RedOne intentionally references ABBA. The Ace of Base influence is documented in a very detailed manner in The Genealogy of a Song: Lady Gaga's Musical Intertexts on The Fame Monster (2009), where the authors scrutinized the melody, tempo, chord progression and chorus of both songs.
  • Thank you for the clarification. It reads that way in the article so it is good as it currently stands. I just wanted to make sure that was the intended meaning.
    Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have written the author of the quotes direct beside them in parenthesis. I realize this way is a little unconventional but I believe this is clear what they refer to.
  • That is fine by me. As long as attribution is provided in the prose, that is all that matters.
    Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is considered an acceptable source by
WP:RSP
. The article's author is fairly well-knows and has written for esteemed publications like Variety and Billboard.
  • Thank you for the clarification. That is a strong rationale in my opinion. You may have to be prepared to defend this source for a source reviewer as I have seen this particular source brought up in the past, but your rationale makes sense to me.
    Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies for the amount. Congrats on all the work put into this article and I will do a few more read-throughs once everything has been addressed.

Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Many thanks for getting to this FAC so quickly. I have tried to resolve your comments to the best of my abilities. Let me know if something is missing or needs clarifying. FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I will read through the article again tomorrow to make sure I have not missed anything. I doubt I will find anything major, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Apologies for the delay and best of luck with this FAC!
Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • For this part, in female
    fishnet stockings
    and heels, I do not think "female" is necessary.
  • I agree the information in the "Accolades" section can be collapsed into previous sections.
  • This part, Released as a
    promotional single
    ., needs a citation.
Removed this; I couldn't find a source.

This should be the last of my comments on the prose. I hope these comments are helpful.

Aoba47 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. These should be done as well. FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks solid and I support it for promotion based on the prose.
Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

GagaNutella
I renamed it "Critical reception and accolades" as just "Reception" would also mean the commercial performance.
  • Ref 24: MusicOMH is in italics
  • Refs 27, 67, 130, and 131: Digital Spy is not in italics
  • Ref 136: wikilink Chicago Sun-Times
  • Refs 159 and 164: is there an archive url?
  • Ref 188: wikilink SNEP
  • Ref 226: Amazon should not be in italics. Wikilink.
  • Refs 154, 155, 156, 160, 182, 183, 184, 188, 194, 195, and 198: add 'trans-title' parameter.
Done wherever possible; some of these sources were automatically generated by template and do not have that parameter.

Another great article. These were some of the points I found as I read. Congratulations! GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments, GagaNutella. All done wherever possible. FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! You have my support. GagaNutellatalk 21:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Ah... back when everything Lady Gaga did was outrageous. Each of her music video was extremely provocative, and I think this one was the most severely scrutinized. Fond memories... I'm committed to reviewing the prose, but please expect some delay because of my tight schedule irl (I haven't got time to get back to my Wiki projects for a week now!)

  • Unless a concrete reason is given, I think it's safe to remove the bit mentioning "Dance in the Dark" as the intended third single.
  • "Gaga's "Fear of Men Monster" " I think it's reasonable to add some explanation to this quote, or else I'd remove or paraphrase it.
  • "mainly due to the influence from the pop acts ABBA and Ace of Base." was this something Gaga said herself or the critics said?
The influence of ABBA was intentional by RedOne, who is also from Sweden. The Ace of Base influence is documented in a very detailed manner in The Genealogy of a Song journal, where the authors scrutinized the melody, tempo, chord progression and chorus of both songs.
  • "the Monster Ball Tour and many of her subsequent tours." I'd name the tours.
That would be too much for the lead I think since it's three more of them.
  • "a commitment-phobic Gaga" I think this is weirdly worded... Idk if other reviewers feel the same.
  • "a bitter-hearted pre-chorus" sounds POV
  • "the three protagonists" I think Gaga's character is the protagonist here; the three lovers are supporting characters
  • Same query as in the lead regarding the musical influences
  • Not sure if Idolator, Digital Spy, PopMatters qualify for FA.
Idolator and Digital Spy are both listed as reliable for entertainment news at
WP:RSP. PopMatters has been referenced by several esteemed sources here, here and here. According to its "about us
" page, it has been quoted in many other ones, including BBC, New York Times, The Times (London) and The Guardian, and many of their members have written for publications like BBC, NPR and MSNBC.
Thank you for your review. I look forward to the rest of your review. There's no rush so take your time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ippantekina, just a gentle reminder in case you find time to finish your review. FrB.TG (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the ping. I'm happy with the changes made but still irked by Idolator and Digital Spy. But it's my personal preference anyways, so it should not affect the FAC.
Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The overall "Music video" section is well-researched but imho, not the best in terms of prose. Probably because of the huge volume of scholarly analyses; below are my comments.
    • The "Development and release" subsection of "Music video" is clunky imo. For example, I would leave out the part mentioning "Alejandro" not being the sequel to "Telephone"; I don't see relevance for inclusion here. In March 2010, Women's Wear Daily reported that photographer Steven Klein would direct the music video, which Gaga confirmed herself → could simply be "Steve Klein directed the music video". No relevance mentioning Walliams and Stone (they didn't film the video anyways?) a "homoerotic military theme". And that "It is a celebration of... clunky.
    • I'd switch the passive voice for the active i.e. was praised as "fantastic" by Nate Jones of Time, was described as complicated by some critics, comparisons were made to Jackson's "Rhythm Nation".
    • A third-party source not from the Catholic Church would be great to corroborate the criticism; also, the lead explicitly says that the Church accuses the video of blasphemy; perhaps that word should also be explicitly written here?
    • Not sure if the Katy Perry tweet should be included because she said it was not about "Alenjandro"
I think it definitely needs mentioning as many reputable sources linked her comments to the music video, and some even mocked her.
    • The "Themes and influences" section is well researched but I'm not seeing a narrative here and it reads like a disparate collection of separate interpretations. I'd look to see if this could somehow be incorporated with the "Synopsis" or "Reception" or both sections.
  • the song was performed on Today where she sang it on a stage outside the studio again, the passive voice
  • The Iddon and Marshall (2014) reference is not being used in the article.
That's the whole book, with Iddon and Marshall being the editors. Because the article cites different chapters, written by different authors, the overall book needs to be referenced first.

Again, thank you for your patience with my review. Please ping me again once you address my comments, or if you have any query thereof. Although I'd be away for the weekdays, I can spend some spare time during the weekend to check up on Wikipedia. —

Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Ippantekina, thanks for responding so quickly to my ping. I have tried to tighten the themes subsection and moved some parts to synopsis and reception as per your suggestions. Let me know if it needs more work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Ippantekina: not to be pushy but do you think you could finish your review soon? That would be great. FrB.TG (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, sorry for letting this stall as my real-life concerns have been more time consuming than I expected (thus I intend to retire soon, but I do commit to finishing what I started nonetheless). I have to say I'm still not sure if prose quality is at where it's supposed to be, just from the couple first sentences of the Music video section (a black-and-white portion from the video was released, where Gaga passive voice, plus wrong placement/usage of "where" Incorporating a "homoerotic military theme", Gaga said, wrong subject? conflicting bits that the video is "anti-fascist" but at the same time The video's themes include fascism... (?) I might be too strict here, but I do hope other reviewers can jump in and assess whether my judgements are rational. For now, I am not confident in prose quality specifically for the Music video section...
Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for getting back on this. After a further round of copyedits to the music video section, I believe it has improved much more now. Given that you have provided feedback twice and are busy IRL (I myself relate to this somehow as my future FA-plans don't look good due to RL affairs), don't feel obligated to return since I believe you have done your due diligence as a reviewer, although I would be grateful if you did. I will have an uninvolved reviewer go through it. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)

  • WP:ALT text (to be frank, I did not know that was a crow on her head). The WP:FUR
    is complete and justifies the inclusion of this piece of non-free media in the article.
  • File:RedOne 2017 press image.jpg: Everything checks out here. The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
  • File:Lady Gaga - Alejandro.ogg: The audio sample is an appropriate length and has an appropriate WP:FUR. My only concern is the caption. I am not sure if the "Don't Turn Around" comparison is the most useful point to emphasize as it is not particularly helpful for readers who have not heard that song before (or recently).
  • File:ABBA - TopPop 1974 1.png: While not necessary for this FAC, I'd encourage you to archive the source and permission links to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot and death. Otherwise, everything checks out here as well. The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
  • File:Gaga in Alejandro Video.jpg: The caption emphasizes the blasphemy part of the video, and while this is a great image to illustrate that (as I remember this part of the image being cited everywhere at the time), the WP:FUR does not completely match. The "purpose of use" parameter focuses on the fashion and not the blasphemy. Also, wouldn't this image be better suited for the "Religious iconography" subsection? The image also needs ALT text.
  • File:ExpressYourselfUnderGround cropped.jpg and File:Lady Gaga Alejandro Manchester.jpg: Both images are solid. They have appropriate ALT text, clear purposes for being in the article (and I love the side-by-side view as that is particularly useful), and the licensing for both are appropriate. As I have stated above, I'd encourage you to archive source and author links, but that is not a requirement.
  • File:Katy Perry 2 November 2014.jpg: The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear. However, if the video screenshot is moved down here, it would probably be best to delete this image. If it is kept, I'd archive the source link (and apologies for being a broken record on that). To avoid repeating myself, I'd say this comment also applies to the next three images.
  • File:Triumph des Willens poster.jpg: The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
  • File:The Monster Ball - Alejandro revamped2.jpg and File:Lady Gaga JWT Alejandro, 2018-01-31 (cropped).jpg: Both images are solid. They have appropriate ALT text, clear purposes for being in the article, and the licensing for both are appropriate. As I have already said in my prose review, I think the Joanne World Tour image is helpful, but I would not opposed to it being replaced in the future if she performs it again and a different free-use image becomes available.

I hope this image review is helpful. To summarize my points, I am uncertain of the effectiveness of the "

Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for the detailed image and media review. I have removed the DTA comparison from the audio and moved the rosary image to the religion section. As for the archiving of the permission links, I'll do it later. FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments. This passes my image/media review.
Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review (pass)

All of the sources are appropriate for a song article. Spotchecked some literary sources. Heartfox (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • per
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE
    album titles like Born This Way should be italicized in references.
  • ref 226 live url does not support June 15, 2010, date.
  • where does ref 227 support MC/MCD releases?
  • ref 84 and 92 are duplicates
  • "composed and filtered to create a distant but focused effect" → source writes compressed not "composed"
Thank you for the source review, Heartfox. I have amended as per the concerns above. As for ref. 227 (now 226), the live URL says 7", Maxi-Single, CD Single under the title. FrB.TG (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Heartfox (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "and reached top five in the US" => "and reached the top five in the US"
  • "Burns, Woods and Lafrance believed by referencing "Fernando"" => "Burns, Woods and Lafrance believed that by referencing "Fernando""
  • "confirmed the song is either set in Latin America or Gaga's lover is Hispanic" => "confirmed either that the song is set in Latin America or that Gaga's lover is Hispanic"
  • "Kustritz believed beyond these instances," => "Kustritz believed that, beyond these instances,"
  • "introduce themes but do not develop further" => "introduce themes but do not develop them further"
  • "Comparisons with other artists, especially ABBA and Ace of Base's work were constant in reviews" => "Comparisons with other artists, especially ABBA and Ace of Base's work, were constant in reviews"
  • "and reached the top on the issue dated July 7, 2010" => "and reached the top in the issue dated July 7, 2010"
  • "where Gaga's character is seduced by Nazi fugitives assuming a false Spanish identity" - which of them is assuming the identity?
All (three) of them. I have pluralised the noun.
  • "but opined the video" => "but opined that the video"
  • "Padva wrote the intimate interactions" => "Padva wrote that the intimate interactions"
  • ""Halo", which she alluded to Christianity" - not sure this is worded quite correctly, but I'm not 100% sure why...
  • Think that's all I got. Great article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Chris, I think I have taken care of these. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alejandro_(song)/archive1&oldid=1123039200"