A song that blew up on TikTok and peaked at number 16 in the US Billboard Hot 100 as a result. I intend for it to pass FAC, since a high-quality article on a song that achieved commercial success thanks to viral videos on the Internet would be somewhat intriguing. Thus, I'm listing this for PR as the article's major contributor. I would gladly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes to note some things that need ironing here. Right now some of my concerns about how I can rewrite the prose, but a critical look on other aspects of the article such as sourcing would be nice as well. Thank you!
Doing a full PR on this as requested off-wiki :)) There are invisible comments when you click edit source, where I divide my comments by section. GeraldWL 14:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, GWL! I'll go about responding to some of these points as soon as I can. I am busy with irl stuff though, so at most I can address 3 points at a time.
All my comments have been resolved. Good luck for the FAC! GeraldWL 12:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerald :") For reference to anyone watching - we've had a lengthy discussion off-wiki about the comments below, and after that, he finds that the comments have been sufficiently addressed. elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 12:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments
It's released in a separate track of the 2019 album, right? I think "2019 song" would fit the short description better instead of "2021 single", since the latter is only a rerelease in a new status.
"New Romantics" (2016) and "Delicate" (2018) are FAs about singles that were released in a different year from their parent albums (2014 and 2017, respectively). Despite that, the short description for "New Romantics" is "2016 single by Taylor Swift" and the short description for "Delicate" is "2018 single by Taylor Swift". If those articles passed FAC with that sort of shortdesc, then I think that "2021 single" is as equally appropriate of a short desc for "Streets" as "2019 song".
"taken from her second studio album"-- taken is a weird way to describe it, and I would remove it. It's as if it's originally an unnamed track from the album, then released separately with a name. I get that it's released as a single more than a year later, but "from" has covered that pretty well.
I'm not sure how exactly "taken from..." implies that "Streets" used to be an unnamed track but was then released later as a single with a name. Many song FAs follow the "X is a song by artist Y, taken from their studio album Z (release date)" format, such as "Lips Are Movin", "New Romantics", and "Delicate". Though if I personally were to remove "taken" I would justify it by saying that the lead needs to be succinct and that the sentence's meaning stays the same even without the word. So if you want, we can reword that first sentence to "Streets" is a song recorded by American rapper and singer Doja Cat for her second studio album, Hot Pink (2019).
Yeah I think that's better. I don't know but in my eyes "taken" here sounds like "moved" or "extracted".
"An R&B track, its lyrics talk about a yearning to return to one's former romantic partner." The previous sentence can just be ""Streets" is an R&B song" and "An R&B track" can be removed. I don't think there's a connection between the genre and lyrics.
Possible it can be rewritten as "A sentimental ballad, its lyrics..."? I am a bit torn on putting the genre straight on the first sentence though. Usually song articles do not open with a sentence that already describes the genre, especially song FAs - see the examples I linked above. Iirc, that's usually reserved for the last few sentences of the first paragraph, or at least, somewhere that's not the opening sentence
""Streets" became a sleeper hit" --> "The song became a sleeper hit"
"featured a mashup of the track" --> "featured a mashup of "Streets""
"both referencing the trend in question." "In question" is extraneous.
That has been reworded
The critical reception isn't summarized in the lead
I thought of ways I could possibly fit the song's critical reception in the lead, but given that only two people (Shanker and Starling) gave non-trivial critiques about the song wrt its composition and lyricism... I thought that that aspect of the song was not relevant enough to include there. Compare that to the amount of coverage "Streets" got in reliable sources that talked about its "TikTok hit" status. Its online popularity and commercial success contributed more to the song's notability than the fact that it sounded great to two music websites - hence why the former is included and the latter is not. Note however that per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead section of this article in particular should be around 2-3 paragraphs, so if I've finished trimming unnecessary details in other sections of the prose and the character count still remains around 15k, then we can sneak in the critical commentary somewhere in the lead
"This prompted her to issue a deluxe edition of the album." Don't think this holds any significance in understanding "Streets", right?
Not quite, I do agree. However, it does add context about the admittedly weird status of "Juicy" as being a solo version in one album, and then being present in another album as a duet remix and also its lead single, with the latter version becoming a viral hit. The clarification about where "Juicy" first appeared would help the transition from the first paragraph to the next one smoother - then again, I can simply include that explanation in a footnote. You make the call :")
Actually, scratch that. I think it does contribute to understanding "Streets" and the circumstances around its success. Doja Cat and her team sought to capitalize on the viral fame around "Mooo!", so she did more promo for Amala by issuing a deluxe edition of it. She employs this strategy more than once, and of course she did the same thing to "Streets". This kind of behavior from her is discussed in the article's analysis section---specifically in the second paragraph. Thus, I believe that sentence's inclusion in the Background section is justified.
I assume by "household name" you mean "a very well-known public figure"? If so, you can just replace "household name" --> "public figure"; you want readers to not click on links all the time.
I am unsure if I want to paraphrase solidified her status as a household name. It's one thing to be a public figure, such as when Doja Cat first released "Mooo!", but it is another to be a very well-known public figure, which is what the term "household name" implies, such as when "Say So" was making the rounds on radio and the Internet thanks to TikTok. During the "Mooo!" era (which, mind you, did not gain traction on TikTok but rather on YouTube and Twitter) Doja Cat was known simply as an Internet meme---she was a public figure, but not a household name yet. A lot of Internet memes and meme personalities fade into obscurity within the next couple of years. But with her viral TikTok songs, that is when the general public thought "oh damn she is here to STAY." Household name carries more connotations of impact and longlasting influence than public figure does, and thus I would prefer keeping it.
Many of the one-word quotes here are paraphrasable. "Sultry" --> "sexual". "Soulful" --> "emotional". "Wispy" --> "elegant". "Raspy" --> "Explicit". "Emotional depth" --> "Profundity".
I do not think we have to paraphrase everything in here, especially not the one-letter words. It could easily confuse readers if they want the check the attribution for those words yet fail to find that word being used to describe the song in the source. Plus, not every synonym of a word is a 100% acceptable substitute in some circumstances. For example "explicit rap delivery" makes zero sense in this context (or in fairness, in any context) and is not quite what the reviewer intended to convey. How can a rap delivery be explicit? Explicit in what sense? It would be more accurate to say that her rapping has a rough or rash texture to it, because that's exactly what raspy means here, but texture is already written in the following sentence so I prefer to keep the wording as it is
There is also an issue with trying to use puffery like "elegant", without the quotes, to describe the song, and have it not be fully supported by the cited source.
"after their break-up."-- Colon instead of full stop?
Alright, I'll change the punctuation to that
"considered the track" --> "considered it"
"Speaking on behalf of RCA in an interview with Billboard, COO John Fleckenstein" --> "RCA's chief operating officer John Fleckenstein"
"on the application TikTok"-- remove "the application" since it's previously established what TikTok is.
Good catch! I've trimmed that detail
"Bathed" --> "enveloped"
ngl that is better wording than what I came up with
In the Anka image caption, "(pictured)" can be removed as it's pretty self explanatory. As well as in the following Doja Cat photo.
The (pictured) for Doja Cat does seem extraneous, but I feel like keeping the (pictured) bit for Anka's photo. From what I've seen in FAs it's customary to jot that down especially if it's not clear from the captions who the image subject is about at first glance
Fair enough, since the photo does not start with the name
You frequently alternate throughout the article, between "RCA Records" and "RCA"
"premiered on March 9, 2021"-- where?
"The clip was described as a "sultry" and "scary ... horror-fantasy", as well as an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge" --> "The clip was described as an erotic horror-fantasy and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge". That way you can remove the Rolling Stone ref in the caption.
Reworded, but nope, I will not remove the RS ref. Removing the citation would make it so that "erotic horror-fantasy" is attributed to the Billboard source, when the writer never referred to the music video as such.
"calling "Streets" an "essential track" to which people should listen." --> "calling "Streets" a must-listen."
While I do love how it is shorter, isn't that too informal for enwiki?
"To further explain" is not needed as it kinda makes the paragraph feel too long. One would typically expect the next sentence to be an example sentence.
"2020 Lift campaign"-- give a brief description on the campaign
Done
"In the music video's description"-- but it's a live performance? Or is this an aftermovie?
It's not an MV - reworded
"for a LIFT performance"-- "LIFT" --> "Lift"
"Titled the Hot Pink Sessions"-- I think there should be quotations since it's a video
The Hot Pink Sessions are a series of videos, not just one YouTube clip
Then italics we go :) Web series are typically italicized
"towards a UFO" --> "towards an unidentified flying object"
"Credits adapted from Hot Pink liner notes" --> "Credits adapted from the Hot Pink liner notes" or "Credits adapted from Hot Pink's liner notes"
Reworded to "adapted from the liner notes of Hot Pink
I don't think you need to state the ", California"-s.
I'm not the one who put the credits and personnel, and unfortunately I don't have the album vinyl, so I am unsure how to approach this. At first glance it does seem unnecessary, but what if that's simply how the credits are written, and we're supposed to copy the liner notes exactly how they're written(?)
Why are the "for Blaq Tuxedo" and "for Roselle New Jersey" given a small tag? Also for the latter, is it a band name or is it the actual Roselle, New Jersey?
Blaq Tuxedo is the stage name under which Darius and Dominique Logan are credited as producers. So that's clarified through a small tag. And given that information, I'm fairly certain "Roselle New Jersey" is the name of a band, but I need to check just to make sure
I have two points about this sentence: An R&B track and a sentimental ballad, its lyrics talk about a yearning to return to one's former romantic partner. The introductory phrase (i.e. An R&B track and a sentimental ballad) is tied to the noun of the following phrase (in this case its lyrics) so if you read this literally it says that the lyrics are a R&B track and a sentimental ballad is obviously not the case. I would also avoid using verbs like "talk" with lyrics to avoid anthropomorphizing them.
Excellent points! I've reworded that part of the lead to "Streets" is an R&Bballad with lyrics that chronicle a desire to return to one's former romantic partner
I believe you can just say R&Bballad as I have seen FAs like "Delicate" (Taylor Swift song) just use ballad without using the full sentimental ballad phrasing. It is likely because ballads are now strongly associated with this form in pop culture.
Reworded
For this part, after an Internet challenge that used the song, I think I'd say "when an Internet challenge used the song" since a previous part of that sentence used "after..." so the revision would avoid repetition.
Reworded
For this part, both referencing the trend in question, I think you can just say "bother referencing the trend".
Reworded
The lead should mention the critical response and the live performances.
When that article passed GA, it had less than 15k characters (so there should only be 2 paragraphs in the lead per MOS:LEADLENGTH) and there was not enough content for both sections to warrant getting mentioned in the article --- the Silhouette Challenge and the commercial success it gave "Streets" was far more notable than the fact it sounded nice to two publications, and those topics already took up much of the lead. Now that there's new content and the character count has gone past 15k though, I am definitely considering mentioning those somewhere. Thing is, I don't know in which paragraph they should be included. Do you have any suggestions on what to include for both sections, and where I should write them in the lead?
I have expanded the lead section to include the songwriters and producers for the track, as well as all the live performances mentioned in the prose. I also added a description about the song's composition to make it more consistent with other song articles. Admittedly I'm still lost as to how we should include the critical reception bits in the lead---I would appreciate suggestions.
I would look at recent FAs for songs. From my understanding, it is standard to include a link about the reviews in the lead. You can see "Shake It Off" or "I'm Goin' Down" as two examples. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "some critics who reviewed Hot Pink praised the track for demonstrating Doja Cat's versatility as a musical artist" in the first paragraph and "Observing the song's success, Billboard believed that "Streets" showed Doja Cat's skill of prolonging the commercial success of her albums." in the second paragraph. Is that good?
For this part, Demonstrating her "emotional depth", Doja Cat admits, it is unclear who said this quote. Did Doja Cat say this about herself? Was this something that a critic said about her? This quote needs clear attribution in the prose.
That quote came from Billboard's Jason Lipshutz. I've rephrased that part to Doja Cat admits in the lyrics that she can't imagine herself without her ex-partner after their break-up, which Billboard editor Jason Lipshutz interpreted as a demonstration of her emotional depth
You previously had subsections in the "Commercial performance and release" section, and I think they were beneficial for providing structure to this part.
I honestly have no idea why I thought it was okay to remove those. Reinstated!
While I enjoy images, I am not certain about the music video image as it is rather small and is not really clear in my view of the article at least. I would also avoid having quotes without clear attribution as done in the caption.
Scaled the image using upright=1.3 --- also, what do you mean when you say the screenshot is not "clear in your view" of the article? Does it look too dark for you to make out anything? Is its purpose in the article unclear? If it's the first case, then wouldn't that be somewhat appropriate given the "sultry and scary horror-fantasy" description?
Looks better to me. I am not sure if we are supposed to set an image size in a FA, but I'd leave that matter up to an editor who is more familiar and comfortable with images as that is not me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:IMGSIZE, "Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width ... Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified. This ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible."
I have also provided clear attribution to the quotes present in the MV screenshot caption. Kinda similar to how I did it for this phrase in the production and songwriting section: has been described as "sultry", "melancholy", and "soulful". Let me know if that is sufficient!
Given Doja Cat's popularity, I would have thought there would be more reviews for this song? It could be a case where this song was released later in the album's cycle as a single and music critics were more so gearing up to cover Plant Her, but I just wanted to ask about the coverage here.
You would be right to say that the song became notable and was released as a single waaaay after everyone thought the Hot Pink era had ended, which I'm sure explains its lack of widespread coverage in critical reviews. I'm not sure whether we could attribute the silence to critics focusing more on the upcoming Planet Her album, though, since its lead single "Kiss Me More" hadn't even come out yet.
When I scoured for reviews of Hot Pink posted at the time of its release, there were only two of them that described something about "Streets" in non-trivial detail. Actually, the Pitchfork review for Hot Pink, quite annoyingly, has said very little about the song itself, and the most you get is a sentence that says "It's not hard to picture her recording a ballad like 'Streets' from within an all-pink lair." Not very helpful. So I had to do the legwork of taking what they had said about the "soft" and "slow" songs in the album and apply it to "Streets" specifically. That and the Consequence review were all the critical commentary I can find for the song during 2019, unfortunately
Though I will say this---after "Streets" finally blew up on the Internet, Pitchfork ranked the "Streets" music video as the third best MV for March 2021, saying that it was the best single off the album. And a Paste writer included it in a "10 Sexy R&B Songs for Valentine's Day" listicle posted in 2022. There's definitely a little bit of critical commentary around the song after it became a single, but I have no idea whether including these comments in the "Critical reception" section add anything of value to the article. Up to you.
Fair enough. Although the song was not released, it was quite clear that Doja Cat was gearing up to another album at this time. I agree with you that those lists (i.e. like the Paste ones) are not great and it is best to avoid them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who said this quote, "most ambitious studio build to date"? It is not clear in the prose. As I have already said above, I would avoid having quotes without attribution as it is not immediately clear to readers where the quote is coming from.
For this part, She included "Mooo!" in the tracklist for the new version of Amala, I would drop " for the new version of Amala" since the previous sentence already covers the deluxe edition so this feel repetitive.
Reworded
I would condense this part, from a 2003 song entitled "Streets Is Callin", performed by R&B band B2K from their soundtrack album You Got Served, to something like the following, from R&B band B2K's song "Streets Is Callin" from their soundtrack album You Got Served.
That would put two "from"s in the second sentence, which is redundant
There are already two "from"s in that sentence though. I will leave this up to other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Set (film and TV scenery) needs a link in this part, into the set design to evoke cat imagery.
Delinked
The following sentence does not have a clear citation: It climbed to number 16 in its second week, before moving into the top-10 in its third week placing at number ten.
This seems like extraneous info, so I have removed it
Shouldn't the certifications also be covered in the prose? I see them discussed in the lead and in the table, but not as much in the actual prose?
Certifications from the UK, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Australia, NZ, Brazil, and Mexico are now covered in the prose. I've also added info about the song's chart performance in multiple other countries, in the "In other markets" section. Citations for those bits have yet to come, however
I hope these comments are helpful. Great work, especially when tackling such a successful song. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to read through the article again. If you'd like I can either collapse my comments or move them to the talk page once they have been addressed. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Aoba47! I appreciate the response. It is currently nighttime where I am at, so I will be addressing all your points here piece by piece instead of replying to everything all in one go. Cheers! elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @Aoba47! I believe I have addressed most if not all of your comments for the peer review already. Please take the time to check if my responses are sufficient, and if you're satisfied, you may proceed to read through the article again the second time. Thanks! elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I will read through the article a second later in the week if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. The article looks like it is in good shape to me. Best of luck with the peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Aoba! Once GWL is done with their comments, I'll close the PR and start the FAC next week. PS: would you mind if I pinged you in the introduction for the FAC in question, just to indicate I got the PR from y'all? :) elias. 🧣 💬reach out to me 📝see my work 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works with me. Best of luck with the future FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
