Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I'm God/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 16 June 2024 (cmts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm God

I'm God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 20 June 2024, 15:12 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, Clams Casino was a random guy, producing random instrumentals for people to rap over it. He didn't get much attention until he got in touch with Lil B in 2009 and produced his album 6 Kiss. One track that immediately got attention was "I'm God", with its ethereal production sampling Imogen Heap. Unexpectedly, Clams Casino and Lil B would be cited as the pioneers of the cloud rap subgenre, with "I'm God" being cited as "cloud rap's seminal track" and "the birth of cloud rap" in the following years. However, it took over a decade for it to be released officially, due to its sample usage. Over these years where Clams Casino tried to get the sample cleared, the song received a large cult following on the Internet. After eleven years, "I'm God" was officially released in 2020 with Imogen Heap properly credited. The article is pretty short, but I believe it meets all FA criteria. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental track by American producer Clams Casino and British singer Imogen Heap" - if it's got vocals then it isn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • "incorporates clips from Perdues dans New York"=> "incorporates clips from the French film Perdues dans New York"
    • Done
  • "Volpe said he didn't find "I'm God" unusual" => "Volpe said that he did not find "I'm God" unusual"
    • Done
  • "He sent the instrumental to different artists" - you just said it sampled Heap's vocals, therefore it wasn't an instrumental
    • Will respond below
  • ""I'm God" is an instrumental cloud rap song" - I know I keep mentioning this, but it can't be "an instrumental song". By definition a song has vocals and an instrumental doesn't
    • Will respond below
  • "when it still wasn't available" => "when it still was not available"
    • Done
  • "with Internet users stating the song's impact while they had depression" - this doesn't really work grammatically. Maybe replace "stating" with "describing"
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comments! Yes, it samples vocals, but most are indistinguishable; here, the vocals are used as an instrument. Instrumental tracks can use vocals, as said in Instrumental#Borderline cases. Multiple sources refer to the track as an instrumental, and it has been released on Clams Casino's albums Instrumentals 2 and Instrumental Relics as the instrumental version of Lil B's "I'm God". Skyshiftertalk 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you are saying, but is there at least a way to avoid using the description "an instrumental song", as that really doesn't make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Instrumental, an instrumental can be called an "instrumental song"; Song says "Through semantic widening, a broader sense of the word 'song' may refer to instrumentals". I think it is valid to call it an "instrumental cloud rap song". Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Can you explain why Red Bull and Vice are high-quality reliable sources for this article?
  • Spin reference should have via=Google Books
    • Done
  • The composition section and first paragraph of the reception and legacy section use quotations for almost every sentence; cut this down to meet MOS:QUOTE
    • Reduced some
  • Clams Casino Productions is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • 4:37 is listed in the infobox but not in the article text
    • Done
  • I didn't do spotchecks

Examples of sources that seem useful but aren't cited:

Because of the overquotation and that there could easily be over a 20% increase in the article's sources, I am going to oppose for now per WP:FACR 1c as I don't think the article is currently "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments! They are in progress. I did a quick skim through the sources and many of them wouldn't add substantial content to the article; many of them seem to mention "I'm God" in passing. However, I'll look at them more closely later and see which of them will add substantial content to the article. Skyshiftertalk 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have analyzed the sources presented and all of them refer to Lil B's version. This is not a problem per se; I've included this source, for example, which lists "I'm God" as a Lil B song, but because it is a list of the "Best Rap Beats", it focus on the production of the song, so it is suitable for inclusion. The sources you provided also say something about the production, though not anything substantial, honestly. The MusicRadar source says the production is "sultry, downtempo", and the Guardian said that it is "dreamy, diaphanous", only. Either way, I'll see how I can add them to the article, while at the same time fixing the quote issues. I'll also add a sentence or two to Reception talking about the influence of Lil B's version. Skyshiftertalk 19:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Heartfox: Some of the sources have been added and I tried to paraphrase what I could; there were some sentences that I think would divert too much of their original meaning if paraphrased. Let me know if you have any more suggestions! Skyshiftertalk 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating some of the sources. There are still a few issues with overquotation. In the second paragraph of the composition section, for example, there are more quotes than sentences. Heartfox (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I've reduced a few more quotes. Skyshiftertalk 17:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: sorry for pinging again! Everything has been addressed; I'd like to ask if the changes are sufficient for you to support the article or, at least, strike the oppose. Skyshiftertalk 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my absence, this passses the source review. Thank you for putting together this article on an obscure but important song. Heartfox (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser

Huh, both are mostly unknown to me. Ok, ok, I've heard Hide and Seek and Derulo's Whatcha Say, but who hasn't? Comments below:

  • Lead: "real name Michael Volpe" - is this necessary considering it's immediately restated in the body? "being unofficially uploaded by fans" - This is a bit unclear compared to the the body, since the lead is quite short I think there's room for a slight expansion.
    • Stating that Clams Casino's name is Michael Volpe is needed in some way, because I refer to him as Volpe throughout the lead; changed to "reuploaded", unsure how to clarify it better.
  • Background and release: "He considers its vocal sample the main aspect he likes from the song." - This is close enough to the source that I'd prefer just quoting him. Preference: "but had encountered issues as many people were involved, since 'Just for Now' washad been released through a major label."
    • Rephrased; changed.

That's it! I'm trying to make sense of one of my c/e notes, if I manage to find out what I intended I'll get back to you. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: would you have any more comments regarding the article? Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm wondering is whether we might put something even bolder as the first sentence under "Reception and legacy". Something like: "'I'm God' is considered highly influential in the cloud rap genre." But, that's just food for thought. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Not so fast! :)

  • Three works of media are utilized in this article; two of them are non-free, while the third is licensed for Creative Commons. Both works of non-free media have sufficient fair-use rationales, being brief, small, and/or low-resolution enough not to impact the commercial viability of those works while still fulfilling worthwhile purposes in the article.
  • All three works of media contribute encyclopedic value to the article.
  • The two images used in the article both have sufficient alt text.
  • Sourcing checks out for all three works of media.

Media review passes; support on media alone. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1

I reviewed this article when it was at GAN a month ago. My opinion is indifferent from then, for I found few issues at the time, and I definitely don't see any issues at present. λ NegativeMP1 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

Because this still needs reviews and I love this song, I figured I'd take a stab at a review. Marking territory here for now, should be back in a bit. joeyquism (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to put down an oppose for now. The prose is undeniably of GA-quality, but I feel that it misses the level of a FA. Below are some things I've noted; feel free to refuse suggestions with justification.

  • I'm noticing that above, others have noted the wording of Clams Casino, real name Michael Volpe. I feel that you could eliminate this by introducing him in the first sentence as "American producer Michael Volpe, known professionally as Clams Casino, and British singer Imogen Heap." You could also use this wording in the first sentence of the background section. Let me know your thoughts on this.
  • Volpe then sent the track to American rapper Lil B, who rapped over it. The final result appeared on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009). - Can likely be combined/edited to be something like "Volpe sent the track to American rapper Lil B; the instrumental is featured on a song of the same name on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009)." Feel free to experiment with the wording, but I believe one good sentence would suffice.
  • The sample is Volpe's favorite aspect of the song. - Tone sort of conflicts with the following sentence (Volpe said he did not find "I'm God" unusual or important and was indifferent to it at first.) Maybe try playing around with the placement of this sentence in the paragraph it appears in, or including this information in a different sentence. I might just be acting pedantic here.
    • Removed it, as, in retrospect, I don't think that information is important. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lil B then recorded his vocals over it. The final result appeared on Lil B's debut solo studio album, 6 Kiss, released on December 22, 2009. This was his first ever collaboration. - Combine these sentences - something like "Lil B then recorded his vocals over it, and the final result appeared on his debut solo studio album, 6 Kiss, released on December 22, 2009, marking his first-ever collaboration" would suffice. I'm noticing a lot of shorter sentences that make the reading experience choppier. Will expand upon this later.
  • Originally, Volpe didn't consider the need to clear the "Just for Now" sample because he wasn't focused on the business aspects and didn't anticipate earning money from his work - The term "business aspects" is a bit vague. I feel that you can omit that part.
  • Volpe said that Heap was interested as long as she was credited; Volpe said she enjoyed "I'm God". - Change the second "Volpe" to "he".
  • On April 24, 2020, the song received an official release as part of Volpe's Instrumental Relics mixtape after he got the rights to sample "Just for Now". Heap is credited alongside him. - Combine these; something like "On April 24, 2020, the song was officially released as part of Volpe's Instrumental Relics mixtape following his acquisition of the rights to sample 'Just for Now', with Heap receiving credit alongside him."
  • Simpson described the drums as "sludgy". - This is the first mention of Simpson in the article, should be "Paul Simpson of AllMusic".
    I went ahead and also fixed the following mention of Simpson in the sentence "Simpson said that the vocals, which bring a deep, cavernous feel, were rearranged with a meticulousness akin to Philip Glass", though I should note that this reads a bit strangely too. I think something like "Simpson said that the vocals brought a deep, cavernous feel, and noted that they were rearranged with a meticulousness akin to Philip Glass" would flow better. joeyquism (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Donne Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm God" received a cult following on the Internet, being one of the first known productions by Volpe. - I wouldn't say the track's status as one of Volpe's earliest known works is the primary factor contributing to its cult following. Perhaps this information is not entirely pertinent to the paragraph's focus either? Let me know what you think; I may just be missing some context here.
    • My intention was not to say that one thing influenced the other; that's just my bad prose acting up again. Reordered, though I don't know if that fixes the issue? I'd still want to say that this was "one of the first known productions by Volpe" somewhere however. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, but I think that "one of the first known productions by Volpe" should go somewhere in the background section; maybe as part of the sentence "I'm God" was produced around April 2009"? Apologies for not having this insight earlier - I did this review first thing in the morning, even before I'd had a chance to make my coffee lol. joeyquism (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this sentence is more related to reception than background. Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red Bull's Cunningham called it one of the most expansive hits from the era of hip-hop's blogosphere - Wikilink "blogosphere"
  • An unofficial music video for "I'm God" which uses clips from the French film Perdues dans New York (1989), uploaded before the song's official release, had 25 million views by May 2020. - Uses too many clauses; a winding sentence. Maybe remove the commas or rephrase?
    Looking better! Though, I'd also mention the fact that it was uploaded to YouTube. joeyquism (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, don't wikilink it - I noticed that it's already wikilinked in the paragraph above. joeyquism (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video became synonymous with the track. Its comment section contains users mourning the death of people close to them. - I feel as if the information in the first sentence can be included in the preceding sentence; similarly, I think you can move the information in the second sentence to the following sentence.
  • According to Balram, the song received a cult following partly due to two suicide stories being related to it - Uses passive voice; something like "in part because of its association with two suicide stories" would probably be better.
  • David Higgs, who referred to it in 4chan posts - I recognize that this was a suicide note after reading the source, but I think that this can be made clearer by saying "who referred to the song in an apparent suicide note posted to 4chan".

@Skyshifter: Apologies for the long block of text and the opposition vote, especially after so many weeks of this discussion laying dormant. I understand that you put a lot of hard work into creating this article, which I must clarify that I do appreciate greatly - I really love both this song and its sample, and I'm very grateful that you've given the topic so much attention and care. I'm definitely willing to go over it again once these are fixed, and I am open to discussion with you regarding any of the points that I made above. Also, feel free to call out any pedantry that you may have seen from me here. Thank you again for your dedication to this article, and I hope to hear back from you soon. joeyquism (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: thank you for your review! All applied. I'm quite bad at prose as a non-native speaker, but I'll try my best to improve. Skyshiftertalk 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: Looking a lot better, thank you for the quick edits! As for prose, you're doing a wonderful job regardless of fluency; the points you make come across clearly, and your writing style is engaging. That being said, I have just a few more comments:
  • Originally, Volpe didn't... - I would avoid using contractions like "didn't" and "wasn't". There isn't really much of a rule against this on here that I'm aware of seeing as their usage is undoubtedly proper English, but in an academic context I feel they seem less formal and more colloquial.
  • As the years went by, Volpe tried to have the sample cleared for an official release, but encountered issues as many people were involved, since "Just for Now" had been released through a major label. - "As the years went by" should be substituted for something less fanciful; try "In the following years". Also, I'm not sure if "as many people were involved" is necessary; perhaps cut to "but encountered issues as "Just for Now" had been released through a major label"
  • Done
  • In 2019, Heap's team opened up to an official release. - "Heap's team indicated they were open to..."
  • Done
  • Schube of Complex said that the track had been pseudoviral for multiple years by 2016. - I'm not sure what "pseudoviral" means in this case. I would implement the quote instead: "pseudo-viral for a number of years".
  • Done
I won't scrutinize any further; the rest of the article is some great work, and at this point I'm just voicing my overly analytical opinions. Thank you again! joeyquism (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyquism: all responded! Skyshiftertalk 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better! Thank you for your hard work on this article, and I hope you have a great week ahead! Support joeyquism (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. So far I have only looked at the lead.

  • In the lead you don't say when it was originally produced, nor when it was sent to Lil B, which causes confusion. That first paragraph has just two date in it. The first is "It was officially released on April 24, 2020". So a reader will reasonably assume that it originated around that date. Then "the instrumental is featured on a song of the same name on Lil B's debut album, 6 Kiss (2009)." As this is 11 years earlier one is left thinking that the instrumental originated on 6 Kiss and was copied on to "I'm God". I assume this is not what happened. It which case the lead needs tweaking to make this clear. Adding the two dates I mention at the start may do the trick.
  • "Volpe released "I'm God" unofficially in 2011 and again in 2012 as part of the Instrumentals 2 mixtape." What is an 'unofficial release'; what was it about the release of Instrumentals 2 that made it 'unofficial'?
  • "it received an official release in 2020". And, how does it differ from an "official release"?
  • "being unofficially reuploaded by fans". Guess which word is not clear? In addition, why would it need to be "reuploaded"?
  • The paragraphs break in an odd, to me, place. Between "... compilation" and "A cloud rap ..." seems more natural.
  • The lead is supposed to make sense when read on its own. Currently it doesn't, IMHO. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PerfectSoundWhatever

Hey, I'm trying to get more involved with FA, so here's some comments after a readthrough. This is one of my favourite songs as well.

Lead

  • Would prefer "song" to "track" in lead sentence. A "song" is a musical composition, while a "track" is a specific rendition of it, so it feels more precise to use song here.
  • "through Clams Casino Productions" This is not a label label, correct? Should say self-released in my opinion per WP:BLUE. Also, why only mention the streaming label? It was physically released via Second City Prints (per [3], [4])
  • "unofficially in 2011 and again in 2012" per Gog the Mild, I dislike how this reads. Required context is not provided.
  • "it received an official release in 2020" -> "it was officially released in 2020"
  • "'I'm God' is considered a highly influential cloud rap instrumental" -> something like "'I'm God' went on to be influential to the cloud rap genre"
  • Overall, I find the lead's prose to be rather clunky and lacks the flow I would expect from a FA. It's hard to suggest specific changes when it feels like many sentences need a complete restructuring. A round through GOCE would help.

Background and release

  • "became serious about music production in late 2007" too informal for encyclopedic tone.
  • per the source, he didn't get serious about music production in 2007, but became serious about releasing music; these are distinct things.
  • "reach out" informal -> "contact" or a similar word
  • "Their first interaction" kind of a strange way to put this, would maybe say "They first met in September 2008" etc.
  • "Volpe discovered her through a friend, who sent him a song for Volpe to sample." So confusing on first read. Maybe: "Volpe was introduced to Heap's music by a friend, who also suggested a song for Volpe to sample."
  • I would just remove "While not managing to do it for that song", this is implied by the next part of the sentence (he went through other tracks)
  • remove "said he" from "Volpe said he did not find".
  • "unusual or important and was indifferent to it at first" Do not like how this is structured. Perhaps try: "Volpe was indifferent to "I'm God" at first, and did not see it as unusual or important."
  • The Lil B footnote is superfluous. Why is this extra information needed at all?
  • remove "his" from "recorded his vocals"
  • "released on December 22, 2009" -> "which released on December 22, 2009"
  • "marking his first-ever collaboration" Lil B's or Clams Casino's?
  • The above is also a run-on sentence
  • "Instrumentals 2 mixtape", would this not be an "official" release then? why is it considered unofficial in the lead?
  • "Volpe said that Heap was interested as long as she was credited; he said she enjoyed "I'm God"." -> "Volpe said that Heap was interested as long as she was credited, and she enjoyed "I'm God"."

Composition

  • The Guardian didnt say those things, the authors did. Since it's multiple authors, I would say "The Guardian writers"
  • Same with MusicRadar.
  • Giant overcite with note b. 7 citations is not needed; pick your best three and remove the note.

Reception and legacy

  • "influential in the cloud rap genre" -> "influential to the cloud rap genre"
  • Remove comma from "Smith said, that when the"
  • "Red Bull's Cunningham" Just say Cunningham
  • "from the era of hip-hop's blogosphere" I really don't understand what this is trying to say. What is "the" era. Perhaps "from hip-hop's blogosphere era", if that's what you're trying to say?
  • "interest of every Internet user", it didn't literally capture every internet user's interest. Not something that should be stated in wikivoice.

Overall

I have to Oppose based on prose-related issues: the prose is currently not "engaging and of a professional standard", especially the lead and background sections. This is not an exhaustive list of issues, as I was only providing comments for prose issues I felt were the most pressing. Hopefully these comments were useful, and good luck! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC) "[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I%27m_God/archive1&oldid=1229457235"