Talk:Music Sounds Better with You

Music Sounds Better with You has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 12, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

We should really merge this article with Stardust - it was, after all, the ONLY record released by them and is the sole reason they would be encylopedic. The song is bigger than the group behind it - perhaps we should merge that article with this one. Well?? Anyone? ~~

Merge proposal[edit]

I think Stardust (band) should be merged with this article. Just about all of the information in that article is explained here, or could easily be explained here. It seems this was informally requested nine years ago, but now I'm making a formal request for a merge. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard anything and I'm confident this will be uncontroversial, merging. If anyone has any concerns, please leave them on my talk page. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (May 2020)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. TSP (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above since 2006(!), I propose Stardust (band) should be merged in here, as the band is only notable for this single, roughly per WP:1E. This actually was proposed without opposition and done in 2015, but the band page was unmerged a few months later without discussion and has developed in parallel.

Given that the project only existed to record the song, there seems no benefit in them having separate articles, and currently they largely duplicate each other. I'd also be happy with only the band page existing, but I think the song page is on balance more sensible. TSP (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything can be covered in a single article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and keep Stardust (band) as a redirect: one-off band, with one-off song... by definition, everything related to the song is also going to be related to the band, and vice versa. The song was successful in many countries and is recognised as a classic house track: far more likely that people will search for the song's title than the group's name. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was on the cusp of doing this previously but yes, WP:1E applies. – The Grid (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the only way to go. «ias!|,,.|^usbk» 12:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per reasons above. Seems only logical. AshMusique (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move[edit]

Shouldn't this title be Music Sounds Better With You, capital W? This is how, like, every source writes it, and I can't think of a reason why "with" would be lowercase - it's common to lowercase short prepositions in title case but not longer words like "with". Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says not.

"Not capitalized: For title case, the words that are not capitalized on Wikipedia (unless they are the first or last word of a title) are [...] Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, into, like, over, with, upon, etc.)"

Seems pretty clear.

TSP (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSP, thanks for that. Yes, looks like the Wikipedia MOS is clear, though I have to say that's an unusual position, and I've read a few style guides in my time... Popcornfud (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Music Sounds Better with You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll get this review done sometime within the week. --Joeyquism (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, on second thought, I'm going to have to withdraw my review. I've bit off more than I can chew in the past week, and I don't think I'll be able to get to this in the time mentioned. Apologies. Joeyquism (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse Joeyquism (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. reppop^talk 21:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Music Sounds Better with You/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reppop (talk · contribs) 05:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this review. I'm a bit of a fan of the single, as well as the trio's individual electronic works. Will probably be doing the bulk of it tomorrow, or at least throughout the week. reppop^talk 05:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and concise, although there are some minor things I would suggest for a little more clarity: ~~"They wrote more lyrics, but discarded them." – Add "initially" between "They wrote" and replace "discarded" with "decided to discard" for a little more clarity.~~ ~~"The single was intended for DJs, but…" – (optional) You could have it start as "Initially intended for DJs,".~~ ~~"Bangalter did not enjoy…" – add a "However," before Bangalter.~~ Striking per discussion below. For Critical reception, you should start the first paragraph with a little one-sentence summary of how it was received (ie. The single was critically acclaimed) and the second paragraph how the song has been recognized in rankings. Striked as done by Popcornfud. *The group created several demos, but abandoned them." – I think adding "for the album" and replacing "but abandoned" with "but ultimately abandoned" would make it a little clearer. Striking per discussion below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows MoS for the lead, layout, and doesn't have any words to watch within the prose. Fiction and list incorporation not in article.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed by order of appearance with appropriate information given.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I will be checking six random sources. [12]: Source has a scan that shows that the single was number five on the RPM Dance chart. Y [17]: Source directly states what is quoted, as well as the quote in Critical reception. Y [18]: Source directly states what is quoted by author. Y [24]: Source shows that it is ranked at 46 on Pitchfork's list. Y [33]: Source is about Daft Punk's work together during the Discovery era, and relates to Bangalter working with de Homem-Christo after the single. Y [37]: Source is directly about the re-release by Because Music. Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Don't see any glaring problems with any original research. Opinions are attributed to their respective sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A check through Earwig shows no likely violations. Text that are highlighted are quotations or phrases. I would still try to recommend paraphrasing some of them so as to not overly rely on quotes though.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the main aspects as laid out by each section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The prose stays focused on the topic of the song and the related events and maintains summary style throughout the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral in its representation of the events and opinions surrounding the song.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Generally stable. ~~Hasn't been edited since June 4, and~~ there have been no edit war or content dispute from what I can see in the previous days.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One three images are included on the page currently, so I will be reviewing them individually. File:Stardust - Music Sounds Better with You.png: Tagged with PD-ineligible-USonly. Y File:Daft Punk in 2013 2 (cropped).jpg: Tagged and checked by license reviewer. Y File:Alan Braxe press shot.jpg: Tagged, and although I'm suspicious of the upload itself, it is currently on here. Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only caption is for the Bangalter and Braxe photos. ~~I was going to ask for a better caption than just the names, but as I was writing this, another user gave it a more succinct caption for it.~~ Media is relavent as they are two artists part of the trio.
	7. Overall assessment.	All in all, the article is in very good shape. With the discussion, I've decided to strike my suggestions and pass that part, and with that I will be passing this article.

Comment: I hate to be a negative Nancy, but I don't think any of those prose suggestions are improvements. They all involve adding words of the sort I routinely remove when copyediting articles. For example, this suggestion:

"They wrote more lyrics, but discarded them." – Add "initially" between "They wrote" and replace "discarded" with "decided to discard" for a little more clarity.

It's obvious that they wrote the lyrics before they discarded them, as the reverse would be impossible, so "initially" doesn't add information or clarity. Likewise, it goes without saying that they decided to discard them; the reader won't wonder if they discarded them by mistake if we don't say otherwise. Popcornfud (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, even I was a little worried when putting them as I saw that its pretty clear on its own. You probably have way more knowledge of doing these things, so would you suggest me getting rid of those? reppop^talk 18:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the suggested edits again and made a few tweaks to the article. The ones I haven't implemented are suggestions I don't agree with.

Just for the record, I'm (probably) responsible for most of the writing in this article, but I didn't nominate it for GA — I'm not particularly bothered about GA/FA noms. So feel free to pass or fail or whatever you think is best. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, and I'm fine with your disagreeing with my suggestions. reppop^talk 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.