I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it so hard for the last 5 or 6 years. A million edits later, I think it's ready to be a FAC. Thank you. Nightclubbing 16:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing... Oh dang, that is rather comprehensive. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has an empowering message Describing a work as "empowering" seems like it might be skirting on WP:SUBJECTIVE. Might be safer to say that it's been described as empowering (by the band, or critics, or whoever).
Greetings, thank you for your review. Before the copyedit, the line was originally It has an empowerment message/message of empowerment... is this better? The lyrics are about empowerment. I think the tense of "empowering" makes it subjective. Nightclubbing 06:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think that small change actually makes a big difference in terms of encyclopedic vs. subjective tone. All the other edits look great as well. 👍 Colin M (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The song was well received by music critics; it appeared in No Ripcord's year-end list. This could use some context. Is No Ripcord a magazine? A website? (Also, if it's not notable enough to have an article, I would maybe reconsider whether appearing on its year-end list is noteworthy enough to include in the lead)
It's strange that No Ripcord has no article with it being a featured reviewer on Metacritic. I've changed it to The song was well received by music critics who complimented its catchy tune, confidence and the group's vocals. Nightclubbing 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Max & Dania-directed music video shows... again, if Max & Dania aren't notable enough that we can wikilink them, I might leave that detail out of the lead.
They had so many ideas and verses for the track that they could not decide which to include. I would attribute this in the text (e.g. "According to ___, they had so many ideas...") rather than repeating it as a fact. Though I think the article would be better served by deleting that line altogether - it reads a bit like puffery, and could easily be excised.
paparazzi teasing of their elimination interview on British daytime television programme This Morning the following Monday I'm finding this hard to parse. Is the idea that paparazzi said something to them about expecting to see them give an interview the following Monday, therefore implying that the paparazzi believed they would be eliminated from the show? Or they did an interview and the paparazzi teased them about the content of the interview? I think the wording could be clarified.
I've replaced "teasing" with "predicting". Nightclubbing 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brief use of wobbly bass synthesizer during verse intervals add... What does "verse intervals" mean? Is this just saying during the verses? From what I read later, it sounds like maybe this is referring to intervals between the verses? Either way, I think the wording could be clarified/tightened.
Removed the interval bit as it is explained later in the section. Nightclubbing 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Little Mix began rehearsing choreography for the video on 3 May 2012. This strikes me as the kind of extraneous detail that could be trimmed.
The § Critical reception section has a lot of direct quotes from reviewers, which can kind of break up the flow of the text, and make it a bit harder to read. In some cases, it might be cleaner to just summarize a reviewer's main points, e.g. "John Smith of Foo Magazine gave the track five stars, praising the group's vocals."
Reviewing... Oh dang, that is rather comprehensive. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
