I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to give it a go for FA status. While consulting my GA reviewer, HĐ, about the article's potential for further work, I was advised to request a peer review that can suggest improvements and assist in getting the article ready for FA nomination. I would appreciate a peer review very much.

Thank you, Ashleyyoursmile! 07:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: HĐ for further comments and advice.

FAC Note: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, I have added this peer review at Template:FAC peer review sidebar. When you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Best, HĐ (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having reviewed this at GAN, I am happy to review this in-depth so that it will be ready for FAC.

• The body mentions how this song departs from the previous rock stylings of Styles's debut album. I think this is noteworthy in the lead, especially to clarify why critics appreciated Styles's new "direction".

• I added a sentence to the lead. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lights Up" is a pop and R&B song featuring multilayered guitars, pianos, keyboards, and programmed beats in its production. It also makes use of a gospel-choir and pummeling percussions. These can be rewritten to separate the genre and the instruments, i.e. "Lights Up" is a pop and R&B song. It features multilayered guitars, piano, keyboards, programmed beats, and a gospel choir.

• rephrased, see if it reads alright.

• I slightly ce'd a little bit, if you don't mind, HĐ (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably a brief introduction of who Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake are may prove helpful

• I added it to the body. Is it also needed in the lead? Ashleyyoursmile! 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Styles' signature rock style I do not think rock is signature of Styles... especially when it is only apparent on one of his two albums.

• removed "signature".

• Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon (credited under his birth-name Thomas Hull) confusing

• Not sure how to rewrite this part.

• The song was later revealed By whom?

• rephrased.

• Any specific reason why Styles moved from rock to pop? I know this may be more appropriate for Fine Line, but given that this was the lead single, it must have related to how Styles wanted to experiment with new styles beyond his comfort zone

• This is a very interesting question. I did some Google search in the meantime, and came across this Pitchfork review for the album, which states that an interview of David Bowie Styles probably inspired Styles to employ experimental sounds on Fine Line. But there isn't any source that I could find which explains why he specifically chose pop sound for "Lights Up". Ashleyyoursmile! 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe a brief introduction on the album's inspiration should be helpful. HĐ (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HĐ, I have roughly made some changes to the first section. I still need to figure out what to do with the second para of the next section, which is kind of tricky. I'll try to come up with something tomorrow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments to come. In the meantime, feel free to respond to my points above. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend against putting numerous references to support one sentence (i.e. "Lights Up" is a pop[1][2][13][14] and R&B song,[5][10][15]) as it is a potential case of WP:SYNTH and shows a lack of WP:ATTRIBUTION

• I will cut down extra references.

• The song derives its minimalist sound from several vintage and organic elements, including layered synths, drum machines, and heavy bass, among others.[4][18][22] Same problem. Guardian mentioned "vintage" but that element is not supported by the instruments listed; "minimalist" is mentioned by Nylon, but that is a rather dubious claim as it does not elaborate how it is minimalist.

• HĐ, how about this: "The song prominently employs vintage and organic elements, and features layered synths, drum machines, and heavy bass." This is backed-up by The Guardian and Pitchfork. I will probably remove the Nylon ref. since its just stating "minimalist" and nothing else. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds good! HĐ (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The central chorus is uptempo and "high-energy" and uses a piano-driven chord modulation similar to Michael Jackson's "Rock with You".[24] The comparison to Michael Jackson may be subjective and not necessarily factual (cue ATTRIBUTION)
• Probably it's useful to mention which specific part/element received comparisons to Tame Impala and Timberlake
• The second paragraph is rather hard to follow... Reduction of single quotations such as "hazy, tripped-out" or "high energy" would probably help.
• Given the song's unconventional structure, I'd suggest taking a look at Paranoid Android#Composition and lyrics. Breaking the second paragraph down into two-three smaller paragraphs may help tremendously
• Laura Snapes of The Guardian felt that Styles talks through a "conflicted inner monologue" or the lyrics find "him and a former partner talking at cross-purposes around the void of a relationship."[4] Mike Nied of Idolator interpreted the song's lyrics as "being more about self-actualization than a relationship," while Madeline Roth of MTV News wrote that the track is about "all about lucidity and self-discovery."[30][27] I feel like these opinions reiterate the theme of self-acceptance that had been mentioned previously, adding little substance. I'd consider removing them altogether

• How about moving the part of Styles' inspiration in the first section, and just keeping what the reviewers state in this section? Ashleyyoursmile! 06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good idea, HĐ (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, just an update- I've implemented the changes per your suggestions. One thing- even though the sources find the song similar to the works of Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake, they don't mention which part is similar. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm cool with that. Various critics have compared can be reworded to Critics compared to make it concise

• Link song structure
• The pre-chorus is psychedelic and stilted, throughout which Styles uses distorted vocals This reads awkward; probably "The psychedelic pre-chorus features Styles's distorted vocals"
• In its composition, the chorus has cadences in the chord of B♭ led by a backing-vocal refrain, "Shine". I am not seeing a supporting reference for this
• It's probably helpful to mention that the chorus starts from 1:18 (according to Sound on Sound)
• The phrase was connected to Styles after each of the posters featured the Columbia Records logo and the acronym "TPWK" (Treat People with Kindness), I read this over and over and still don't understand what it's trying to say...
• If there is a general consensus of what critics liked about this song, it would be useful to make the "critical section" cohesive (i.e. "Critics enjoyed Styles's new musical direction and the song's unconventional arrangement"). Of course, this should only happen when there is a source for it, or else it is potentially WP:SYNTH
• Similarly, Chris DeVille of Stereogum lauded the song's "linear structure and subtly morphing arrangement" I think this kind of contradicts the analyses on the song's unconventional structure in the previous section
• Some parts of the "critical reception" section read better in the "composition" section, i.e. described it as "a piano and guitar-based track drenched in California Dreamin' vibes" that is "loaded with psychedelic grooves." My personal advice: if a comment sounds like a description of the song (like what I cited as an example), leave it for the composition section. Only include what sounds as a negative/positive assessment for this section.
• Another personal advice is to exclude comparisons to the music of other artists, unless it is agreed on by a consensus of critics (in this case, the Tame Impala comparisons are justified). This can help with better flow; plus comparing one musician to another is commonplace among music critics, and listing some comparisons may constitute an indiscriminate collection of information. Wipe out whatever you think unnecessary/unhelpful to the readers' understanding of the subject.
• the UK Singles Chart dated 18 October 18 2019
• for track-equivalent sales of 400,000 units for 400,000 track-equivalent units
• Consider linking Mexico City

I hope those are my final comments regarding the prose. I hope my comments are constructive and helpful, and I apologize if you have to put up with my excessive list of issues. I will try to reach some other experienced editors I know so that they could have another look at the article and offer some advice I may have neglected. Overall a well written article; I have to say as your first FAC, it is a much better attempt than my first FAC seven years ago, which was a total disaster lol. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, thank you very much for your patience, constant support, and encouragement throughout the review. I appreciate the time that you have devoted on it. I found all the suggestions useful and have tried my best to implement them on the article. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am here upon request. Honestly, there isn't that much that needs to be changed in my opinion. I like to suggest big changes rather than getting real nitpicky, and because of that, I don't have much to say!

Lead

• Anything worth mentioning about production? Release and promotion is already covered.

• The lead already talks about the production, just doesn't explicitly mention the word "production". featuring multilayered guitars, piano, keyboards, programmed beats, and a gospel choir this forms a part of production.

• To follow the order of the article, I would switch around the second and third paragraphs.

• I saw a few song FAs, like City of Angels (song) and Halo (Beyoncé song), most follow this format, music video and live performances come at the end.

Background and production

• Suggest linking Harry Stiles

• Won't that be case of WP:OVERLINK since Harry Styles is linked where I'm mentioning "eponymous debut studio album"?

• Yes, it would. This link was hidden when I first looked over.

• About the interview with Vanity Fair; this is a pretty lengthy interview. Is this all that is worth mentioning, at that only a quote? There could be other parts of this that you could paraphrase elsewhere.

• The interview is mostly about his album, with only one question that revolves around this song, which I included as a quote. The other parts of the interview aren't really relevant here.

• he went through "a lot of personal changes" Such as...

• So this is what the Rolling Stone interview states: "For Styles, it has something to do with stepping out on his own. When he began songwriting, it was as a member of the group. ‘Happily’ was the first time I saw my name in the credits. I liked that,” he says. “But I knew I’d only sing part of it. I knew if I wrote a really personal song, I wouldn’t sing it. It was like a safety net. If a song was too personal, I could back away and say, ‘Well, I don’t have anything to do with it.’ The writing was like, ‘Well, if I was going to write a song about myself, I’d probably never sing it.’ It’s like storytelling. Sometimes if you’re, like, telling a really personal story, then the voice changes every few lines; it doesn’t quite do the same thing. As the songs got more personal, I think I just became more aware that at some point there might be a moment where I would want to sing it myself."

Other

• I'm not sure how music articles are supposed to be organized, but I think it would be better if "Music video" was a subheader under "Background and production" or "Release and promotion"

• Could preferably come under "Release and promotion" but that would make it to arrive before critical reception and commercial performance, which is not in line with the other FA layouts.

• Just to be safe, I'd recommend a copyediting

• Will make sure to request at GOCE.

Overall, a swell article! Panini^🥪 13:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Panini!, thank you very much for taking this up so quickly. I have a few queries, and have left comments for you. Also, I wanted to ask you about how the current reception reads like? Does it need a bit of work? Ashleyyoursmile! 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me if my suggestions weren't as helpful, music articles are the ones I visit the least and therefore I know nothing about them. But about reception, WP:RECEPTION could be very helpful. I'll give a look at reception soon, so ping me if I go missing for a while. Panini^🥪 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, its okay, I appreciate your comments. Please take your time, I'm in no hurry. Also, regarding the question you asked about the "personal changes" part, I've quoted the section that is mentioned in the interview. Can you go through that as well? Thank you. Ashleyyoursmile! 07:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile, I just wanted to let you know from my experience at FAC, some editors will oppose if you have sources that are not considered FA quality. For example, some sources such as Vice, Insider, and Idolator should be removed or replaced. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Boss, hello. Thanks for stopping by here. I wasn't aware that these sources are not high quality since they are listed as reliable sources for music articles and have been used across several GAs. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here at the request of Ashleyyoursmile. I am not familiar with Harry Styles or his music, so I'm coming at this review from the outside. I've only reviewed the prose, not the references. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Lights Up" received positive reviews – should be something like "generally received positive reviews", see Critical reception comments below

• changed.

Background

• Spring 2019 – seasons of the year can be ambiguous, rather use something like "the second quarter of 2019" (see MOS:SEASON)

• changed to "the first quarter of 2019" since we are talking of Spring.

• he's ever made – should be "he has ever made" (see MOS:N'T)

• changed.

• Styles told the Rolling Stone magazine – "the" could be omitted

• done

• In the last paragraph, "played" is repeated three times – suggest a little copyediting

• changed on to "performed on" on the second instance.

• In the last paragraph, "song" could be used in place of the second use of the word "track"

• changed.

Music and lyrics

• California Dreamin' – this is the title of a song and should be quoted

• added quotes

• vintage and organic elements – to be honest, I don't know what that means; you've linked organic to organ, but vintage?

• Vulture ref. mentions: " it’s packed with organic flourishes, guitars galore, gorgeous piano notes" so I think "organic" is referring to organ. The Guardian re. states: "conspicuous vintage elements" so perhaps vintage is referring to retro? So should I wiki-link it to the latter?

• OK, now I understand what that phrase means. Yes, I think you should link vintage to retro. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done.

Release and promotion

• "Locked Groove" is capitalised here, but not in the Track listing section – which is correct?

• capitalised in the track listing. Thanks.

Critical reception

• "Lights Up" received positive reviews from music critics – you couldn't have checked every review, and besides the AllMusic review was "mixed"; "generally positive" may be better

• changed.

• "soulful, enigmatic return" – return to what?

• removed this part since its ambiguous.

• arguing that it could "only saved from the skip button by the always impressive vocals." – "arguing that it was ..." may be better

• changed.

Commercial performance

• "peak"/"peaked" is repeated often – perhaps a little copyediting may be necessary

• did a bit of c/e myself, not sure if it reads better now.

That's all for now. I may return later and have another look at it. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Bruce1ee, thank you very much for taking this up for review. I have implemented your changes and left a few comments above. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. I responded to the "vintage and organic" comment above. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruce1ee, I've added the target to vintage. Thanks again for the review. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 17:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Good luck with the FAC. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused on how the websites/publications are linked in the references. I initially thought they were linked only on the first mention (which is a valid method), but The New York Times is linked in citation 21 and not in the previous citation 16. How are you approaching links in the citations?

• Thanks for noticing, I'd missed out the first instance. I've fixed all the citations now.

• Though linking citations in the first instance may be a valid method, I would personally recommend linking them at all instances, as it is not a case of WP:OVERLINK (which says that linking citations multiple times in ref params could actually prove helpful), and given that upon expansion/copy-edit some citations may be added or removed, it would be a potential problem to go over all the refs again to check whether the first instance has been linked. HĐ (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And done, linked the corresponding publications on all refs. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are certain websites/publications not linked at all in the citations (specifically Sound on Sound, but I would double-check the citations as a whole to make sure everything is consistent).

• done now.

• I'm uncertain about citation 20. I know at one point Musicnotes.com was seen as an appropriate source for a featured article, but I believe that this has changed. Per the featured article criteria, it is encouraged to only use high quality sources, and reviewers there may no longer consider Musicnotes.com to be this.

• I'm keeping it for the time being, if FAC reviewers oppose, I'll have to remove it eventually.

• To continue the above point, I'd encourage you to be prepared to defend each citation as a high quality source. This seems to be a point of discussion in the FAC space at the moment so I just wanted to make sure you are aware of that. To argue that something is a high quality source, you should point to proof that publication has editorial oversight and it would be helpful to point out how this publication has been cited by other sources or if it is connected with a reliable publication company.
• To continue yet again off my above point, I'm not sure that People would be considered a high quality source for a FA, but that may be something worth asking about. On a similar note, I have also seen Idolator being questioned on whether or not it is an appropriate FA source as it is a music blog. Just because these sources are used in GAs, it does not make them high quality in the context of a FA.
• Be careful of citation overkill. I would usually only have three citations together at a time. In the "Music video" section, I see an instance of four. For instance with four or more citations, I would encourage you to either bundle your citations or see if all of these citations are entirely necessary.

• Bundled the citations wherever there are four or more.

• I have two questions on this sentence: The psychedelic temperament of the video was cited to be inspired by Styles's declaration of use of "psychedelics, as well as having sex and feeling sad." Since there are multiple citations attached to this, it is not immediately clear to me where this quote is being pulled from. I would also attribute who is doing the one has cited this about the video.

• I've clarified now.

• I would avoid single-word quotes like "steamy" as they are not particularly useful.

• Removed.

• How can you interpret a music video as a "bisexual anthem"? I get interpreting a song that way, but I do not think it makes sense in the context of a music video.

• Rephrased.

• For this part, The clip takes a "psychedelic approach", I'd clarify who is describing the music video this way rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. I think it is important to make attribution very clear in the prose, particularly when it comes to quotes.

• Rephrased.

• Do you have a set structure for the "Critical reception" section? I'm only asking because I think it is helpful to try and make this section into some type of cohesive narrative by grouping together common themes (i.e. common things either praised or criticized) so the information flows and is engaging. I always recommend reading this essay when working on a "Critical reception" section.

• Tried a bit to arrange it in that format, but honestly I've been really struggling with the reception section since the very beginning and could really appreciate further feedback for this part.

• The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" summary box for the audio sample needs to be filled out (i.e. there shouldn't be anything with just "n.a.").

• Done.

• For quotes like this "more fun and adventurous.", the punctuation should on the outside of the quotation marks. Only put punctuation on the inside of quotation marks when you are pulling a full sentence. Also, I am not really sure what is meant by quote I pulled. Could you expand on what he means by "more fun and adventurous"?

• Elaborated. Kindly see if it reads alright now.

• Please use ALT text for the infobox image. It may also be helpful to add an image of Styles to the article.

• added ALT text. It would be difficult to add an image of Styles performing because I don't think that's available. Do you want me to add a screenshot of the music video or a normal photo of him possibly in the background and production section?

• I have personally never seen the ratings box (which is currently used in the "Critical reception" section) for song articles. I have mostly only seen that used in album articles.

• removed.

• I find the phrasing in this part, billboards appeared across several cities around the world with the phrase "Do You Know Who You Are?", to be odd. These billboard did not just appear out of thin air. They were initially put up as marketing material. I do not think appeared makes sense in this context.

• rephrased.

• I do not find it particularly helpful to use a rating in the prose as done with gave the song a 8.4/10 rating.

• removed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I started my review with a focus on the citations as I think it is very important to make sure that is fully handled prior to a FAC. I have not read the article fully (and for that reason, I cannot fully comment on the prose), but these are the things that I noticed when reading through parts of it. Again, I hope this is helpful and best of luck with the future FAC. Please let me know if anything requires further clarification. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And to be 100% clear, I am still taking a step back from Wikipedia at the moment. I left these comments as I always feel bad ignoring a ping for assistance, but I will not be able to help with a FAC so please do not ask about that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Aoba47, I am happy with the comments and found them really useful. I respect your decision with taking time off wiki and under no circumstances I'd want to pull you out of it by requesting for a FA review. That would be rude and disrespectful. I would like to thank you for the time you have taken in reviewing the article and giving me advice. I've implemented the changes per your suggestion and have left some comments above. Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad that I could help in some way. I enjoyed reading through the article, and I wish you the best of luck with your future FAC. Apologies for not being able to fully engage and follow-up with this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See MOS:ALLCAPS, they should be reduced in citations to sentence case.
• Doublecheck MOS:LQ (it is hard for a reviewer to determine if these are all correct without examination of sources).
• Why does this statement require three sources ? This is followed by a personal revelation in the bridge, where he sings, "Step into the light … I’m not ever going back."[1][16][31]
  • Similar here: The phrase, which had previously appeared on Styles's tour merchandise, featured the Columbia Records logo and the acronym "TPWK" (Treat People with Kindness).[6][12][33] Review throughout for same; I see multiple instances of triple citation on statements that appear non-controversial.
• Step into the light … I’m not ever going back ... uses curly quotes ... review throughout for MOS:CURLY.
• Be sure to look at the excellent WP:RECEPTION, to avoid having the reception section be a series of "he said, she said" statements.
• Convoluted ... "Lights Up" entered the UK Singles Chart dated 18 October 2019, at number three, which later became its peak. ... why not the simpler ... "Lights Up" entered and peaked at number three on the 18 October 2019 UK Singles Chart.
• Encyclopedic content ... why do we care what time the song premiered ... will this matter ten years from now? ... The video premiered on YouTube on 11 October 2019, the same day as the song's release, at 00:00 PT (08:00 UTC).[89]

NO need to get back to me ... just some ideas of things to work on ... good luck at FAC! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SandyGeorgia, thank you very much for the comments. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HD asked me to come here, you're off to a great start. I highly recommend going through Sandy's MOS comments above carefully, and looking out for dup links as well. (this script User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, may help with that)
• piano, keyboards, what's the difference here? Are we talking piano vs a synthesizer; piano vs electric keyboard? Keyboard alone is too ambiguous

• piano is what most sources have used, except The New York Times source which mentions just keyboards so I'd kept both. Removed keyboards now, but I would still like to know what you have to say.

• well the piano is a keyboard, so removing keyboards makes sense, otherwise it's like listing both brass and trumpet Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Conceived after a period of self-reflection, the lyrics talk about self-acceptance and find Styles embracing his own identity.—"talk about" seems to non-encyclopedic, though this may just be me. My main issue is how the self-acceptance part seems to be about self-acceptance in general, and the identity embracing just Styles's? IDK if I'm explaining this well, so let me know if I'm not

• Agreed, but then he sings, "I'm not ever going back" so he's also talking about himself? Regarding the "talk about" part, what do you think about "The lyrics are about ..." ?

• The lyrics are about seems better; I think the issue here is that there's three contexts at once: "self reflection", "self acceptance", "embracing identity" but they correspond the "Styles" "general" "Styles"—maybe my confusion is clearer? Perhaps try to couple the issues relating to Styles together in the sentence Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see. But its kind of tricky to phrase that. Please feel free to rewrite this part. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be better if the first two paragraphs don't begin with the title of the song

• first two paragraphs or second and third? If its the latter, I've replaced "Lights Up" with "the song"

• Yes sorry, the second and third; well now they both begin with "the" but better I think :) Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• song's unconventional arrangement—Is this referring to the instrumentation? If so, I would just say "unconventional instrumentation"—otherwise I'm not sure what this means

• mostly its structure. The song has a weird structure, which has been noted in most reviews.

• Say structure then! (or "musical structure" perhaps) Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• changed to "structure".

• rock-influenced production, "production" seems too vague here, I understand something that's music has 1970s rock influence, but "production" throws me off a little here

• Would you prefer "sound/music"?

• Definitely Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• changed to "sound".

• "of his previous record" – is the previous record being referred to the Harry Styles album or the third track of Fine Line?

• changed to Harry Styles

• the Gift Shop—surely this should be a gift shop, unless the name of it is "The Gift Shop"?

• Thanks for noticing, changed to "The"

• It follows a chord progression of D–E in the chorus and Em–D–Dsus–Am7 sequence everywhere else. Styles's vocals span from B♭4 to B♭5, I sympathize with the predicament, but it's probably not a good idea to be sourcing chord progressions from the sheet music it self, nor vocal ranges. This seems a little bit like WP:OR; we also have no idea how music notes (which is often not the highest quality) is following the original song carefully or accurately or not. Example: unless he's singing in falsetto, which I don't think he is from listening, it's physically impossible to sing Bb4-Bb5 comfortably (male opera singers generally don't go above C3), Bb3–Bb4 would be the correct, but musicnotes ignores this; another example: The lyrics video I listened to was 2 minutes and 45 seconds, but musicnotes says two minutes and 52 seconds. I could understand how the lyrics video might be longer from added footage or video, but am baffled that it's shorter

• removed the chord progression and vocal range, if that helps.

• IDK—were really shouldn't be sourcing from third party sheet music designed for fans to play. The key signature and time signature are one thing; but the tempo and run time? We really have no idea to know if that actually correlates with the real song Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The music sheet has been published by Sony Music, and is the "Singer Pro" version, so does that still not count? --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's less about the publisher and more about the context. Musicnotes is a sheet music website for amateur musicians, we have no idea of knowing how accurate or truthful it is to the actual song "Lights Up" mainly because they're not going for accuracy, they're trying to create a product they can sell fans of the song, so in this sense it's unreliable. The high quality is also absent since this is information from a sheet music shop! Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When using time stamps, e.g. "0:30", you should use four digits, "00:30"

• changed to four digits.

• more soon Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aza24, thank you very much for taking this up. I've implemented the changes per your suggestions and have left some comments above. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Planning to get back to this later today, left some responses thus far. Aza24 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it impacted the—not sure what this means, another way to say released? Otherwise I'm wondering, how did it impact it?

• yes, you're right.

• IDK, the Critical reception is pretty good but there seems to be way to many quotes—as I'm not familiar with writing articles on pop songs, I'd take it up with someone who is

• Yes, that would be really helpful thanks. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You have "Do You Know Who You Are? (Locked Groove)" but later "Do You Know Who You Are?" (Locked Groove)—noice the quotation marks placement—not sure which is right

• it's the former, I've changed it.

• the rest seems fine; I just wonder if there might be page numbers for the two uses of Fine Line (booklet) Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately I do not own the booklet so I won't be able to provide the page numbers.

• If you don't own the booklet, how can you verify the information from it? Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aza24, because the same information is also available here. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to be annoying on this; but we need actual verifiability from the source you're citing. I'm not really sure how OK this is... @Nikkimaria: (sorry to ping so randomly) would Ashley be allowed to cite the booklet for the album of this song, with the assumption that it'll have the same info as the tidal link? I would assume not, but this is kind of a weird situation Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The applicable guidance is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; if you're looking at Tidal and not the booklet, you cite Tidal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, thank you very much for the rest of the comments. :) I've made some changes accordingly and have left a few comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aza24, apologies for following up late. I consulted with User LOVI33, who had originally added the credits to this article, citing the booklet. They have since provided the page numbers from the booklet. I hope it takes care of the problem of verifiability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's perfect Ashley, I think your article is progressing nicely. The only thing I would still suggest is having someone in the topic area look at your Critical reception section, as there does seem to be too many quotes. Alternatively, I recall that the essay WP:RECEPTION is good for this kind of thing. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead states: The song was written by Styles and producers Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon. In contrast, the infobox uses Kid Harpoon's real name Thomas Hull. I'm of the mind they should match because at first glance, it appears to be a mistake, especially for readers who are not familiar with Kid Harpoon.

• changed to Kid Harpoon in the infobox, if that helps the readers.

• The lead: Conceived by Styles after a period of self-reflection, the lyrics are about self-acceptance and find him embracing his own identity. From an encyclopedic perspective, lyrics can't find anything (& it's acceptable for marketing & promotion, etc.) so I would change that to simply read the lyrics are about self-acceptance and embracing his own identity.

• changed.

• The lead: The song received generally positive reviews from music critics, who enjoyed Styles's new musical direction... - we don't know that music critics "enjoyed" Style's new musical direction. It's a bit of WP:PUFFERY mixed with a bit of WP:WEASEL that is not supported in the section Critical reception. The song received generally positive reviews from music critics, some of whom have commented about Styles's new musical direction and the song's unconventional arrangement. The sentence that follows, Critics have compared the production to.... is properly attributed in the body text, so it works fine as is.

• rephrased.

• Section Music & Lyrics - The New York Times's music critic Jon Caramanica... "Times's" simply doesn't flow...Music critic Jon Caramanica with The New York Times characterized its sound as "somewhere between...

• changed.

I'm of the mind that you have received a good going-over by some excellent peer reviewers above, and I doubt there's much more I can add, except to wish you good luck with the FAC. Kudos to you for a job well done!!! Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, thank you very much for the comments, I've implemented all the changes. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite surprised with the copyedit. Twofingered Typist had c/e'd quite a few of my previous FACs, but I do not recall that he removed critics' name as in "Lights Up". Very strange... I would re-add the names of critics/publications in the "Critical reception", but perhaps you would want to ask Twofingered Typist why they removed them in the first place. HĐ (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Twofingered Typist's reasons at their talk page. I appreciate their efforts, and the paragraph indeed reads smoothly, but I am uncertain if it raises questions regarding lack of attribution. Mentioning critics' names should be ideal, I believe--and there are ways to design the section without straying into "X said Y" formula while still retaining critics' names. HĐ (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, I have not seen comments regarding sources, so I might as well ask why these following sources are of high quality. I know that this would be done at FAC as well, but I think it is of no harm to do this right here (to note--don't feel urged to remove any, just find evidence for editorial oversight/recognition etc.):

• Nylon
• musicnotes.com
• Singles Jukebox
• Vice--I believe this source is only of marginal reliability
• Insider
• Idolator--I believe this source is of marginal reliability
• The Fader
• Stereogum
• Gay Times

Content-wise the article is very good. Some minor things still bugging me include my concern for lack of critics' names as above, and the second and third paragraphs of the "Composition" section should be revised a bit so that it reads neutral (i.e. wordings like hazy, tripped out vibe are the composers/writers' opinions rather than facts, I suppose?) HĐ (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, thank you for the quick response, I have re-added the names of critics (not all of them, but most). I'll try to look into the prose and sources and ping you when I've done that. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, I've trimmed the prose, kindly check if it still needs to be re-written. Here are my comments on the sources:

• Nylon - removed
• musicnotes.com - removed
• Singles Jukebox - removed
• Vice- This is actually i-D, which I've also used for my recent FL. The editor has written for The Guardian [1], which is a reputed source.
• Insider - The editor has written for the Daily Beast and Gothamist.
• Idolator- removed
• The Fader - removed
• Stereogum - The author is a senior editor, and has written for Billboard and Spin, among others.
• Gay Times - removed. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I c/e'd a bit in the "Music and lyrics" and "Critical reception" sections. Overall I think the article is in good shape, and I agree with your treatment of potentially problematic sources that I mentioned above. One final thing I would recommend before you proceed with FAC: make sure the article uses British spelling consistently. I know this is not a requirement, but given Styles's background, I think it is best to do it that way. Best of luck with the FAC, HĐ (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ, thank you very much with all the help over the past two months. Just one final question, the Music and lyrics" section currently has five references at the end of one sentence, would that constitute an overkill? --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does. That's why I noted in my edit summary that I had not examined the sources to properly organize them. You could cut some of them (if possible) or include a ref at the end of each instrument. I think it's better, though, to include only instruments that are also listed in the liner notes, for factual verifiability (i.e. I'm not seeing synths being listed in the liner notes). HĐ (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]