# Talk:Smitten (Pale Waves album)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smitten (Pale Waves album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dobbyelf62 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I was looking through the list of good article nominees and noticed that this article was nominated roughly two years ago. To ensure that this does not fall completely through the cracks, I will be tackling this assessment.
This is only my second attempt at completing a good article review assessment, but my goal here is to maintain open dialogue with User:Gen. Quon, who wrote nearly the entire article. Throughout the process, I will provide some feedback on aspects of the article that meet the criteria and other areas that may have some shortcomings. In the latter category, I will do my best to provide some productive feedback, but most changes that I recommend will be incumbent on other editors to complete on their own. This will be done to ensure that I review this with a reasonable level of objectivity that would otherwise be absent if I contributed significantly to the development of the article.

This article provides a fine enough overview on nearly every aspect of the album that a reader would be curious about. This includes a section on the writing, music & lyrics, recording, promotion, critical reception, cover art & title, commercial performance, and personnel. Some sections are comprehensive than others, and I will likely press editors to pad out a few sections wherever possible. In some cases, this might not be possible, as you may have exhausted all of the existing reliable sources, but there is always the possibility for further improvement. In terms of the references themselves, there is a decent number of them, although there are a few listed that I am unfamiliar with, so I cannot attest to their reliability yet. The photos and miscellaneous media included throughout the article should be sufficient to fulfill the 6th item on the checklist.
The prose will likely get the most attention for this review. Nearly all of the points on the checklist deal with the quality of the text in at least some capacity, so it will be my goal to ensure that the prose in this article is brought to the standards expected from a good article. There's a lot that has been done right here, including a relatively good balance between prose and quotes from the musical artist. For articles related to bands, songs, and albums, it's reasonable to include some quotes people involved in the process, but wherever possible, we can also repurpose some quotes into prose unless the meaning from the quote will somehow get lost in that transition.
For my first bit of advice, I would try to focus on eliminating all weasel words, which are unsupported attributions. Examples of this are "some critics say" or "many people think". A good alternative would be to attribute the thought or idea to the actual person or publication who said this. In some locations of the article, particularly in the Critical reception section, this has been accomplished, but there are a few areas, including the lead, where some improvements in that regard can be made. In the Critical reception section, I would also mention the person who wrote the review in the article, as they are the ones saying it even though they are writing on behalf of the publication. For many reviews, you have already done this, but there are a couple where this is not the case, including the review from Dork magazine, which does indeed have an author.
For a few minor changes, I would suggest capitalizing "a-side" and changing 7" record to 7-inch record. I appreciate that you used the dmy format for the references, many of which have also been archived for posterity. Terrific!
Once we get some of these preliminary matters sorted out, I will be willing to scrutinize certain passages of the article that I think can be improved, but I hope this rundown gives you a decent idea of what I am looking for. Please do reach out to me, because the expediency and outcome of this assessment will be contingent on your engagement.
I am looking forward to this process. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dobbyelf62: Thank you for taking the time to look through this, and thanks for the thoughtful comments. I await your full review!--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My initial attention will directed at the Writing and Recording sections. As it stands right now, the Writing section comprises two paragraphs and three references while the Recording section uses roughly four references over the course of two slightly larger paragraphs. In terms of the reliability of the sources, there are no immediate red flags: Chorus.fm, which redirects to AbsolutePunk, a defunct website, is listed as "generally reliable" under Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. For advice, I would try to provide information on when work on the album began. Currently, the first sentence of the second paragraph begins with "When Baron-Gracie began to work on the record", so it would be helpful for the reader to know when this actually took place. This sentence also implies that Baron-Gracie began work on the album herself without any of the other band members. Is this actually the case? I would be curious to read more about the involvement of the other members if possible. Perhaps you can also describe the writing process of a few songs here as well with some of Baron-Gracie's collaborators.
For the recording section, I'm curious if we have an information about the recording sessions that occurred in Los Angeles and London and discuss which songs were written and or recorded in these locations. Also, do we know what equipment was used for the album (both recording gear and musical instruments)? No worries if you're unable to tackle all of these requests, but these ideas can further enhance the article if successful. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dobbyelf62: How does these changes look right off the bat? I tried to make the timeline more explicit, and I also clarified that Baron-Gracie is the band's primary songwriter. I'll continue digging into sources to see if I can find anything about gear, etc.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
This is definitely an improvement. If you feel that further improvements can be made, then I encourage you to make them.
I noticed that the Title and cover section relies heavily on one source (Rock Sound), which is only listed at the end of the quote. I would put that same reference at the end of a few other sentences to clarify that all of the claims made can be attributed to that source. For example, it would be a good idea to source the claim that the title had a "timeless" quality. The other sections look pretty good so far, but if I have any further recommendations, I will let you know. Thank you for your cooperation. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a good point, especially considering that the citation initially came after an indented quote, making it harder to tell that the cite was doing all the heavy lifting in that section. I've added a citation to the "timeless" sentence, and I also added a citation for the "magic" quote in the "Writing" section.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks better, thank you. Let me know when you're all set with your changes. I still might want the Writing section to be fleshed out a bit more if possible, but the other sections are in pretty good shape. For the Music and Lyrics section, specifically starting with paragraph 2, I would appreciate it certain sections were attributed to a specific publication. In the article, "Glasgow" is described as a track about "leaving someone because you know it's no good for either of you anymore." I would clarify that Baron-Gracie made this comment when asked about the song, because the sentence currently creates the impression that NPR is making the statement instead. You can also do this for the other songs on the album, which would help clear up any potential ambiguity in the article that still remains. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62: How do these changes look? In the meantime, I'll keep poking around for sourcing to bulk up the "Writing" section. If you want to continue on with the review, I'll also be ready to respond to any comments you make.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62: Also, here's a few changes I made to the "Writing" section. It's not a ton of new material, but it is something.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
These are welcome additions, although I would propose one change. Instead of the mention of "emotional material", I would be more upfront with the lyrical inspiration and instead include how Heather Baron-Gracie decided to write about her "whole life, from years ago" rather than a single specific time period, as per the Chorus FM reference. Also, you could also incorporate some aspects from the Making of documentary into the article as well. Any information that you think would provide further context would be helpful. In the documentary, Hugo Silvani mentioned how "Miss America" began as an acoustic song, but he later transformed it into a fuller arrangement that incorporated the entire band. This would be a worthwhile addition to this article. Once these changes are are made, I will do one more run-through of the article, provide final recommendations and then complete the assessment. Thank you for your cooperation. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62:How's this? I can't believe I forgot to go through the documentary! I did that just now. I've added in some more info from the vid, and it led me to a few articles about musical equipment, too!--Gen. Quon[Talk] 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll read through the article again one more time to see if there is any further potential for improvement. The scope of the article is now more than satisfactory, so one of the final steps on my end will be to ensure that the information included here matches what is included in the accompanying references. I may also make some minor recommendations to some sentences to enhance their clarity and readability. Great job! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62: All your changes look great, and imho make the article read better. Thanks for going through and doing that.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Update: I just went through nearly all of the references. Running through them, I encountered only a few issues. In the third paragraph of the Critical reception, there's a sentence about how Ali Shutler of NME appreciated that the band carved out their own identity for Smitten and that certain publications had criticized the band in the past for adhering to closely to certain music artists. However, looking through the NME article, it appears that Shutler did not necessarily have any issues with the band's previous albums doing so, and they also say that Smitten still refers back to some of their previous work. The addendum of "(something the band's previous records were criticised for)" does not seem to be backed up by the reference, so the options are either to adequately source it or entirely remove it. Personally I'm leaning towards the latter. The second issue that I found is at the very end of the Critical reception section, where a review from The Telegraph links to a scathing Katy Perry review rather than their review for Smitten. If you could link the correct article, that would be greatly appreciated, as I would otherwise not be able to pass the article. In the meantime, I will go back to some of the earlier sections to check one more time to check the references, but the assessment is nearing completion. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dobbyelf62: In regard to your first critique, how does this edit look? And in regard to the Telegraph review, the webpage is kinda weird: It's a giant list of album reviews, with Katy Perry's album being the first. This all is clearer on the archived web page. Maybe it makes sense to foreground that URL first?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
My apologies for not seeing the review on the Telegraph review. I find the new sentence to be more accurate but slightly clunky. Maybe it will grow on me, but I'm curious if this could be rephrased. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62: I went ahead and tweaked it a bit and cut the ending quote, as it's probably not necessary.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I can accept this, thanks. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
After referring to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, I found a couple of words that might amount to editorializing. The examples included in this article are not horrible, but it would be best to remove and replace them. Under this section, it flags the words "despite" and "however" due to the possibility that it implies a relationship between clauses that might not necessarily exist and the potential for them to place undue weight to the second statement in question. A similar issue persists for the word "revealed", which is included in the recording section. The manual of style mentions that certain synonyms for "said" can be considered loaded terms. For alternatives to revealed, "said, described, wrote, commented, and according" are all acceptable. I encourage you to check the manual yourself to catch any further words that might introduce bias. It should be noted that the Manual of Style does not need to be applied rigidly in instances where there are not adequate replacements for certain words, but it is generally preferred to avoid the words included on the list. The assessment is nearing completion! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Here's a few more changes. I'll keep going through it and see if I can find anything else.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, let me know when you're all set. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dobbyelf62: So, I've gone through and considered all the possible weasel words, etc. I kept one instance of "despite" ("Despite promises that their relationship would last, it ultimately fell apart due her suitor's lack of commitment."), since it accurately conveys the meaning of the source. I also retained a few uses of "explained", since they're being used when Baron-Gracie is literally explaining a song's meaning to an interviewer. I think most other pesky "words to watch" have been excised.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 18:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
These examples that you listed are fine to retain. I sifted through the article again and found a few more opportunities for improvement, which I completed on my own. This article is now ready to be promoted to GA status. Thank you for bearing with me for this protracted review. This is only my second GA assessment, so I wanted to make sure that I did my due diligence in providing constructive feedback. I hope that I succeeded in that regard. The article was already in great job when I first read it, but the article has since improved enough to comfortably warrant GA status. Thank you for putting time into finding numerous sources on this album and creating a well-crafted article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: