Talk:Father Stretch My Hands/Archive 1

Request

Can someone please make this into an actual article. One part of the song was a top 40 hit and the 2nd part got to #54. Its important enough to have its own page.

Kelly Price?

Source for Kelly Price vocals on part 1 of the song? The source listed doesn't include that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4600:EF82:C9D3:B710:5C7F:A3DA (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is two separate songs. Not one song.

Just because it has the word "Part 1" in it does not mean that is literally the same song. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Include accessdate, work and title at all times

I added this information for the references of the In popular culture section because the original editor only added the URL as a reference and included nothing else. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the featured vocalists be mentioned in the introduction?

Resolved

I'm thinking yes, since they are notable in their own right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Father Stretch My Hands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BeatlesLedTV (talk · contribs) 19:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll review this. Will get it done today. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead and infoboxes

• Infoboxes look good, although both should show 'various' on writers and producers for consistency
• In its current state, lead is way too short. Doesn't describe what the songs are about, nor does it discuss reception, only discusses chart listings

Background

• This whole section is out of chronological order. Start with proper background info, then go to late-June, then back to early-February.
• The Lamar sentence should be in 'composition and recording', not background
• The Drake sentence 100% does not belong in this section, belongs more in a 'legacy' section

Composition and recording

• Image needs alt text
• First sentence: Pt. 1 is referenced and Pt. 2 isn't
• Second paragraph is fine
• Third paragraph: Rate the Bars goes in italics since it's a video series (see MOS:ITALICTITLE)

In popular culture

• Section belongs below live performances

Reception

• Would be better to state something like "Father Stretch My Hands" received positive reviews from music critics, with most praising the sample...etc."
• Cudi → Kid Cudi (it's his stage name so the whole name is used)
• Some quotation marks are outside punctuation and some are inside
• "It was wrote by RESPECT." – extremely awkward; even though there's no author, something like "The staff of Respect wrote that Kid Cudi's hook..."
• Accolades

• Better if part 1 then part 2, not vice-versa
• While all West fans have their opinion on the bleached asshole lyric, this fact would be better in 'critical reception', as I wouldn't call it an "accolade"
• Kim liking the song also belongs in reception; it's not an "accolade"
• Table is definitely not needed for 3 awards. Would be better in prose

Samples

• Would be better written out in prose
• Sound Effects → sound effects; on top of that, change to "sound effects from Street Fighter II...

Music video

• Would be better retitled to 'Rumored music video' or 'potential music video', as their never was one so it's misleading
• "included and it gathered" → "included. The video gathered..."
• Last sentence reads weirdly, not sure why the fact that the song going platinum correlates to no music video. Would be simpler to just say "as of February 2018" or something like that

Commercial performance

• Tedious to say "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1" every single time. I know it's titled that way on TLoP but here it gets tedious
• Why is "Pt. 1" going platinum stated before it going silver?

Live performances

• Again, tedious title
• "when he took the Saint Pablo Tour to Inglewood," you can't physically take a concert tour with you. How about "when he performed in Inglewood during the Saint Pablo Tour"?
• Don't need to say the song's title constantly. Just using "Pt. 1" and "Pt. 2" is fine.

Credits and personnel

• Fine

Charts

• Fine

Certifications

• Fine

Final comments and verdict

• All throughout the article, titles are not consistent. Sometimes, "Pt. 1/2" is used, other times "part 1/2" is used. Has to be "Pt. 1/2" since that's how West titled them.
• Many references are green and blue in the toolbox, on top of that, most should be archived.
• In its current state, the article has too many problems, so unfortunately, I'm going to have to ✗ Fail this. Perhaps with a large expansion it can become a GA in the future but for now, it's not GA quality. However, keep up the good work on West's articles, I know a lot of them could use expanding, and maybe you can renominate it the future! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

GA nominee?

:BeatlesLedTV I have heavily improved this article after your good article review and would like to ask in it's current state, would it be ok to at least nominate for GA? Note: I ask this because I don't want you to analyse it in full to see whether or not it's a GA right now because that would make nominating pointless, I would like you to take a quick look through so you can only judge whether it is worthy of being a "nominee" or not and if you notice any MAJOR issues, please point them out. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Ignore the crossed out message above, I have looked for any possible errors in the heavily expanded article and improved them. I believe in it's current state, the article is definitely worthy of being nominated for GA and will likely meet what you wish to see in one, so would like you to review asap please. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake Sure I'll review it. I'll also do another proper review for "On Sight" if it hasn't been done already. Thanks again for improving West's articles! He surely deserves it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thanks, I'll be pleased to see your reviews for these songs, hopefully today! Haha true he does deserve it, if Kanye ever goes on Wiki he'd be happy to see the articles. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I have requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, not because any text is particularly problematic, but because I believe these are very helpful when completed around the time of a GA nom. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Father Stretch My Hands/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BeatlesLedTV (talk · contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Responding to points now Kyle Peake (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV I will be addressing everything you wrote now, could you respond to any questions by me please?

Lead and infoboxes

• We talked a while ago about consistency. You don't have to say "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1" every time.
  • Fixed
• "was served to US" → was sent to US
  • Done
• radio → radio stations
  • Done
• "whilst vocals are included in "Pt. 2" from" → while "Pt. 2" contains vocals from
  • Done
• Very minor but there's a space between the T & L in T. L. Barrett
  • Removed
• "A sample of T.L. Barrett's track of the same title as the song is sampled in both parts of it." – this sentence doesn't really read well
  • Reworded
• ""Father Stretch My Hands" was well received by music critics." → "Both parts of the song were well-received by music critics..."; wouldn't hurt to explain the highlights of both parts, like how Chance's verse was the highlight of "Ultralight Beam"
  • Added more in depth
• If you can link any of the awards please do so
  • Done
• "Award Winning" is 'Award Winning' part of the title? If not they shouldn't be capitalized.
  • Yes it is
• Another question: Do you have recording dates? I imagine 2015–2016 but I think that should be noted.
  • Can't find sources for any, sorry about that.

Background

• "meeting and he played" → meeting where he played
  • Done
• The whole second sentence seems like a run-on and reads a little weird
  • What should I change about it now?

• Second sentence now seems like a comma splice.

• Split into two sentences.

• "Shaw was initially not interested in collaborating with West, not doing anything for a week or two, until she dived deeply into West's album 808s & Heartbreak (2008) and went on to release a remix of the album's song "Say You Will" in October 2015." → While not initially interested in a collaboration, it wasn't until two weeks later when Shaw delved deeply into West's 2008 album 808s and Heartbreak that she agreed to a collaboration; Shaw went on to release a remix of the album's song "Say You Will" in October 2015.
  • Done
• "Shaw's vocals on "Pt. 2" don't mark her only appearance on The Life of Pablo, since she also has vocals on fellow album track "Wolves".[3]" → Along with "Pt. 2", Shaw also recorded vocals for The Life of Pablo track "Wolves"
  • Done
• "Two days after The Life of Pablo had been released" → Two days after the album's release"
  • Done

Composition and recording

• Thoughts on having Desiigner's image side-by-side with Kid Cudi's?
  • Agreed
• "featuring a sampled sound clip of Street Fighter II's announcer yelling 'PERFECT'," → "featuring a sampled sound clip of the announcer of the 1991 video game Street Fighter II yelling 'Perfect!'," (doesn't need to be in all caps as he doesn't really shout it)
  • Done
• "A 'rough cut' of the song was first released online in February 2016.[11]" The album was released on February 14 so when in February? If it's 1–13 it should be noted, then said "____ days before the album's release."
  • Removed content as the source says nothing of a rough cut
• Link soul to soul music
  • Done
• The quote from GQ feels like the biggest run-on sentence and feels like their take on it. You can use them as a source, but I would rewrite it to sound more encyclopedic, especially since the entire paragraph is just one sentence.
  • Not sure what to rewrite it as?

• How's this for an opening sentence: ""Father Stretch My Hands" is a hip hop song, with "Pt. 1" containing elements of gospel music, and "Pt. 2" containing elements of trap music."? What you can also do is split the GQ quote into separate areas of the section, or maybe make it into a quote?

• Heavily reworded, how's this look now?

• The sentence about Chance reads as though you already know about the song and gives no context into it. Find a reliable source that includes the lyrics of the whole bleached asshole line and say something like "In "Pt. 1", the song contains the lyrics... or West raps... (something like that) so that it leads into the sentence. Without it there's no context.
  • Done
• Rhymefest → Hip hop artist Rhymefest
  • Done
• Not sure if Genius is a reliable source
  • It is not considered unreliable for news, just for explaining lyrics of songs.
• Why did Kendrick not appear? If unknown that should be noted (like Bieber with "Ultralight Beam")
  • What do you mean? Ultralight Beam does not state that it is unknown why Bieber didn't appear.

• You're right I guess it doesn't. If there isn't a stated reason as to why Kendrick didn't appear then you can just leave it.

• ""Pt. 1" is lyrically centered around models, and sequels directly into "Pt. 2", a soul-baring confessional dance track that starts with a sampled sound clip of the announcer of the 1991 video game Street Fighter II yelling 'Perfect!'" – need more about "Pt. 1". Sentence also isn't consistent as you talk about lyrics in "Pt. 1" but the sound of "Pt. 2". You already mention the sound of "Pt. 2" in the sentence before so discuss the lyrics here.
  • Added a sentence solely for "Pt. 1"

Release and reception

• I added some additional info on the song's release before reception. Also mentioned it's single release, which will need a ref or two.
• space between T & L
  • Done
• "Sheldon Pearce of SPIN claimed that when West "tweeted that The Life of Pablo was a gospel album during one of his longer stream-of-consciousness fits [he can certainly] be taken literally" and Kyle McGovern of the site pointed out West's verse on "Pt. 2" in praise for being one of the album's "flashes of vintage [Kanye]".[17]" – this doesn't really flow together. Is there missing punctuation in the first quote because I had to reread that like 3 times? Kyle's review can also be his own sentence; these refs can be used more than once
  • Edited
• Sometimes periods are outside quotes and sometimes they aren't
  • I don't really think this matters, as long as it shows what the critics meant.

• I would keep it one or the another. Consistency is key.

• "It was wrote by the staff" – written not wrote
  • Done
• Have there been more people that have commented on the bleached asshole lines? It definitely is one of West's most divisive lyrics when determining good and bad.
  • Listed another opinion, fine now?
• "The site listed "Pt. 1" as" → "The site also listed "Pt. 1" as"
  • Done

Potential music video

• " for "Pt. 2" and one month" – again run-on; end with a period after "Pt. 2" and just start a new sentence with one
  • Done
• "with the caption "2 times" included." included where? At the top? Bottom? In the background?
  • Added "on the monitor."
• You spell out thirteen earlier and use numbers for 11 here. MOS:NUMS doesn't require numbers to be spelled out after nine but if you do make sure it's consistent throughout the article.
  • Changed to 13th and left this one as it is.
• "was deleted in the day of it being posted." – reads weird; "was deleted within 24 hours of it being posted." that apply or was it less than 24?
  • Done

Live performances

• "which served as a tribute to Cudi because he was in rehab at the time and HipHopDX shared a recording of the performance via Instagram.[30]" – again run-on; → "which served as a tribute to Cudi because he was in rehab at the time; HipHopDX later shared a recording of the performance on Instagram.[30]"
  • Done
• Chance → Chance the Rapper (see the GA review for "Ultralight Beam" where I did the same thing and it was addressed)
  • Done
• Has he ever performed "Pt. 2"? Or even then has Desiigner?
  • Added a source for its live debut, but West hasn't performed it as many times as "Pt. 1".

Commercial performance

• "Prior to the two-part single being released," – "Prior to the single's release,"
  • Done
• "The song did this on the Canadian Hot 100 as well," did what? – just say "The song did the same on the Canadian Hot 100,"
  • Done
• You say " after the two-part single's release." quite a bit. Saying it once is fine.
  • Done
• "the two-part single had been released." → the two-part single's release."
  • Done
• "On top of this" – not really encyclopedic; saying "It was later certified 2x Platinum in the US on March 7, 2018."
  • Done

Legacy

• Honestly in popular culture can be combined into this since it's also a part of the song's "legacy"
  • Done
• Should Kim's opinion be in reception or here?
  • Legacy because it was expressed months after the song's release.
• Is Metro Boomin's intro really a "meme"? I don't recall it being used in ways other internet memes are used, but I do recall that line being in dozens of other rap songs after. Meme should also be linked to internet meme
  • Yes, the source even says it's a meme.

Personnel

• Good

Charts

• Good

• I changed my mind. Put them into columns so "Pt. 1" is on the left and "Pt. 2" is on the right.

Certifications

• Good

• Do the same thing as I said in 'charts'

Release history

• Center ref col
  • Done

I'm gonna stop there for now since there's already a ton of work that the article could still use. I'll get to the other sections when everything else currently listed gets resolved. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Finished up for now. Might have some other things later. Still quite a ways to go. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake Question. Was this song one of the song's West updated in March 2016? The most notable fix was "Wolves" and the addition of "Saint Pablo" but did this song change at all? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV I have looked now and found out that updates were made to "Pt. 1" and "Pt. 2".[1] Just on a note about this, XXL states in part of the "Pt. 2" update "Kanye's vocals become even smoother." Would writing in the article "The production of "Pt. 2" was tweaked and fine-tuned, with West's vocals become even smoother." read correctly or does 'even smoother' sound unencyclopedic? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Even smoother" definitely doesn't sound grammatically correct. You can just say "West's vocals sound smoother according to XXL" or something like that. I actually only heard the originally version of the album once and before I could again he updated it so making note of the changes is important. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Meant to put unencyclopedic, fixed the typo and I will find a way to reword it, maybe something like "becoming smoother" would be alright... also does my editing of the Desiigner content in the background section read fine? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's my main question. "Pt. 2" is built upon "Panda"'s beat; "Panda" was released in December 2015. When West played "Pt. 2" for Desiigner, did it already contain the "Panda" beat and Desiigner loved it or what exactly happened? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV The source doesn't state whether it contained the beat or not. It also doesn't say when he met West. Take a look at my rewording in composition and recording and give us feedback please. Kyle Peake (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The composition section should contain a full rundown of the song, from beginning to end. Also, part of Desiigner's verse is directly from "Panda", which should be mentioned. You can see what I wrote for "Ultralight Beam" to get a gist of what I mean. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV I have added in content about the updates, please tell me if there's any errors with it and I fixed the reception section for consistency. Honestly though, I can't break down the song as a rundown and where the samples are included exactly in it via sources able to be found. Isn't this content fine as it is? --Kyle Peake (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking like timestamp specific, just meaning a proper order. Like the 'Perfect!' clip appears right at the start of "Pt. 2", West performs his verse, then Desiigner. Things like that. Also, I made some lead expansions and am gonna make some additions and background on the changes. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV I have now managed to edit the article into a proper order, any improvements still required or not? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is ever done being improved. I posted some more comments above and will see if anything else needs improving. I'm sure there is but we'll see. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry about adding the col to commercial performance, I misread your feedback initially and have improved the other sections now. Anything else needed? --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Made a comment up in the comp section. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Looked now and split sentences, is this adequate? --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better. Also, who is the "contemporary classical composer" that uses the vocoder? Is it Caroline Shaw or someone else? If it's Shaw just say it's her. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV It is her, but should I write "meditative piece spoken on a vocoder by Caroline Shaw" or "meditative piece spoken on a vocoder by Shaw"? --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just say Shaw since you already say her name earlier in the paragraph. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Done. Any other improvements I should make or can this pass as a GA? --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely very close and looks so much better than the first time you nominated it. I'll do some final read-throughs, do any minor stuff myself, and if there's anything major I'll bring it up here. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will not be awake for too much longer as it is 22:43 in the UK timezone which I have gathered you don't inhabit, but I will respond to anything of importance tomorrow or later. --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I live in the US. You'll obviously get a notification on whether I pass it or whether there's another issue. I'll most likely pass it. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That's dope, I've got like another 10 minutes or so until sleep time so may witness it today! --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Satisfies the GA criteria. I will ✓ Pass it. Great job on this! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV That's awesome to hear, I'm glad to have been the lead contributor to two GA's now! Am I allowed to add this to the list of good articles and update the WikiProjects if it hasn't been done yet? --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just did it so no need. A bot will put the icon at the top. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Continue GA review?

BeatlesLedTV I have now resolved the issues you listed in GA2 and would like to ask will you now complete the review, as you already hinted at doing once I've made the edits? --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake Yep I'll get to it later today. A bit busy irl. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Great to hear, but by later do you mean in a few hours or minutes? --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake Later tonight. Be patient I'll get to it. :) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Haha I can wait, may be asleep at the time you've finished reviewing though because I live in UK so have a different timezone. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV I have made many improvements to this article, do you think it can now be placed on hold for becoming a GA? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thanks for putting this article on hold, could you respond to the questions asked by me about how to improve it so I understand how to improve all of it? That would be much appreciated. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Please be patient. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit

@Miniapolis: Thank you for reviewing this article! @Kyle Peake: You might take a look at recent edits to make sure you agree. Happy editing, both! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thanks for this submission, I would've done it myself but was confused as to how. :p --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, Sure thing! Submitting to the GOCE request page is pretty easy -- I definitely recommend getting copy edits before Good article nominations, makes the review process easier. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)