Talk:Making the Bed

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the lyric video for an Olivia Rodrigo song included a teaser that she would tour in support of her album Guts before one was actually announced?

• Source: Billboard

• • ALT1: ... that in "Making the Bed", Olivia Rodrigo compares someone's love for her to how someone would admire a tourist attraction? Source: Los Angeles Times, MusicOMH
  • ALT2: ... that in "Making the Bed", Olivia Rodrigo describes a recurring dream? Source: The Guardian, Billboard
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-antisemitism in Germany

Moved to mainspace by MaranoFan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 73 past nominations.

NØ 11:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A well-written and well-sourced article. It is new and long enough, and Earwig shows that it is copyvio-free. I think the original hook is interesting enough, and the sources provided for the hooks check out (although for the ALT2 hook, both The Guardian and Billboard sources used the word "dream" instead of "nightmare", it might be better to change the word choice back to "dream" in accordance with the sources). Good to go! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I changed it to dream.--NØ 07:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Making the Bed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 11:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon! FishLoveHam (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose

Incredibly strong prose, I only have a few comments.

Lead

• "personal flaws" → "flaws".

Background and release

• "&" → "and" (WP:&)
• "over a period of" → "over".
• Remove the comma after "album" (para 3).

Critical reception

• "about it" feels a little clunky, try rewording or remove.

References

• Why are some sources archived, yet others aren't?

• The use of singlechart templates is usually encouraged, and I haven't seen anybody adding archives to those. The others are all archived.--NØ 12:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would, but it isn't a requirement, so I'll leave it up to you. FishLoveHam (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot check

• [1] Y
• [6] Y
• [10] Y
• [15] a. Y b. Y
• [19] Y
• [24] Y
• [28] Y
• [33] a. Y b. Y
• [37] a. Y b. Y
• [42] Y
• [46] Y
• [51] Y
• [55] Y
• [60] Y
• [64] Y

Earwig's copyvio reported 32.4% in similarity

Seems like a fine score since it's not catching authored content but rather attributed song lyrics.--NØ 12:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a good score, just something I felt was necessary to point out. FishLoveHam (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Overall, this should be a quick, easy pass, ping when you've addressed my comments! FishLoveHam (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, FishLoveHam. All should be addressed now. I am glad you found the prose strong. I do love this song and worked quite hard on this!--NØ 12:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You've done a great job. Passing :) FishLoveHam (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Progress

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 (references): b (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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·