Comments from AJona1992

• Too many instances with the word "song" needs variation
• It would flow better if you mentioned that "Make Me Like You" explored themes on renewability, etc, instead of saying "the single is about"
• "Many reviewers" - who? In this case, just saying that the vast majority or the track garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired by part or whole to her relationship with Blake would suffice
• "some critics" - same as above, was there a repetitive theme on some reviewers who said it was musically different to her previous single? When was "Used to Love You" released? Year?
• You link studio album but not digital download?
• "like television shows" - really? You could just say including on...
• You tell us who Gavin is but not who Blake is (first subsection; first para)
• Is it a pop-disco, disco-pop, or as you currently have it pop and disco? (second subsection; first para) → Disco and pop per the sources included
• The link says E! so why E! Online, and E! is not a publication (second subsection; first para)
• Avoid overlinking (Idolator, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, No Doubt)
• The critics comparison of previous recordings by other artists could be better said in your own words (second subsection; first para)
• "the happy parts" - needs to be rephrased (second subsection; second para)
• Inflects...inflecting - avoid repetition (second subsection; second para)
• The link is music journalism not contemporary music journalism (third subsection; first para)
• "highly positive" - also needs to be rephrased into better prose (third subsection; first para)
• " In addition, Kennedy stated" - source? (third subsection; first para)
• If FN#24 is cited for both Idolator critics, why add one in the middle of the sentence? (third subsection; first para)
• It would read better if you just say album or recording (third subsection; second para)
• And when were those songs recorded or released? (third subsection; second para)
• I see a recurring stance on adding a source at the first mention but ignoring it if a critic "adds" more commentary in the following sentence. (third subsection; various)
• I thought Slant magazine was not considered a physical publication?
• Way too many instances with the word "track" and "song" - needs variation
• Who is No Doubt? You didn't provide any information from uninformed readers and completely ignored her involvement in the band.
• "Its radio adds prompted" - its what? (fourth subsection; first para)
• Avoid repetition (fourth subsection; second para)
• "chart" vs "charts", in many cases it should be "chart" if you only had mentioned a single list
• How did it feared well if it fell off the chart a week later? (fourth subsection; second para)
• You say Billboard's Japan Hot 100, but previously you said Canada's Adult Contemporary
• Why do we need to know what she was wearing? Did critics say anything about her choice of clothing? Was it memorable or mentioned outside of the video? Why is turtleneck even linked? (sixth subsection; first para) → Since four critics in the "Reception" section mention the various costume changes, I believe it should remain in the article; I linked turtleneck since it is really only called that in the United States, and may confused readers outside of the country. Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "also black and white" - what value does this provide to any reader?
• "lip-synchs" - misspelled word
• Why is high-heels linked? and "take"?
• ""Reaction towards the music video for "Make Me Like You" was highly positive." - who said that? (seventh subsection; first para)
• "Besides from concert tours" - change to "Aside from concert tours"
• "when on" - is the "when" necessary? (eight subsection; second para)
• Source is needed for her performance on Saturday Night Live.

– jona ✉ 15:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992: I believe I accomplished everything from your very thorough and detailed review. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

• from her third solo → for her third solo
• Set comma after "studio album"
• link "digitally" to music download
• It is a pop and disco song, with influences of light rock, with its instrumentation consisting of chiming guitars, "digi-harps" and a "beachy" drum progression. → "Make Me Like You" is a pop and disco song, incorporating influences of light rock into its sound. Its instrumentation...
• It explored themes on → Lyrically, the recording delves on themes of
• remixes → remixes of the song
• was released on April 22 as a digital download. → was made available for digital download on April 22
• Unlink "digital download"
• You use the word "video" twice in a row; try to alternate with "visual" and "clip"
• newfound → separate
• ended in → ended with
• resulted in → remove "in"
• Set comma after "third studio album"
• the song as a → the song for
• try to somehow improve the last sentences of this section; it's like "It was released. It was released..."
• You may rename the section into "Composition and lyrical interpretation" → Instead I kept "lyrics" since it doesn't solely focus on the interpretation aspect
• remove comma after "disco song"
• described its music as a "bubblegum song" → you can't describe the music as a song
• of "Phoenix's 'Too Young,' → something with the syntax is wrong here (""; )
• well received → well-received → This is actually incorrect per WP:AWB
• of Exclaim! was positive → of Exclaim" was positive towards "Make Me Like You"
• Gwen to churn out", while Bianca Gracie and Mike Wass → Make two sentences here
• You may rename this section into "Commercial performance"
• and dropped off the week after that → and left the chart in its third week
• in the US → never shorten out United States to "US"
• it was shopped → "shopped" is kinda wrong here; choose another word
• Stefani's lowest charting → Stefani's lowest-charting
• single following previous single → two times "single"
• Unlink album here
• For peak in Slovakia, you must add a date → There is a date, but because of the template, the reader/user must manual enter it upon arriving at the webpage (it also gives the directions at the bottom of the article for Ref. #114 if you want to take a look :)

@Carbrera: Everything else looks OK. Apart from potential weird comma issues, there's nothing more. A VERY GOOD article. I wish you all the success with it. You may fix my issues and I will support this. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: I believe I took care of everything? THANKS SO MUCH! Carbrera (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• The final line of the third paragraph in the “Critical reception” section needs a reference.
• I would recommend restructuring the paragraphs in the “Critical reception” section around a clear topic/idea. Right now, this section seems all over the place in terms of ideas. Maybe you could focus one paragraph on the reception of the production, and the other on the reception of the lyrics, and then a final one on mixed/negative reviews. This is just a suggestion, but it would be good if you could make this section a little more like a narrative for your reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other.

• @Aoba47: I really like what your suggesting but I'm afraid I don't really know how to tackle it since some of the reviews jump around so much. I tried heading from positive to mixed initially and I don't know what to do from then on... Carbrera (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: I would suggest attempting to organize the "Critical reception" around topic then if possible, such as a paragraph on the "Production", the "Lyrics/Vocal Performance". This is just one idea (it may not work), but I think this section does need to be revised. As it currently stands, this section is pretty disjointed, especially with the short third paragraph at the end. I would recommend looking at other FA on songs to see how they organize their reception sections. I would also recommend this resource here as a tool to help you out. It does not deal directly with music-related articles, but it gives some times on how to better approach "Reception" sections. Let me know if this helps. Once the comments is addressed, I will be happy to support this article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: Any progress on this front? I also added a comment at the end. An audio sample should be placed in the article. Mymis' comments are also very good so I would highly recommend looking at them below. Once my two comments (the reception and audio sample) are addressed, I would support this article for promotion. Also, please make the changes requested by Mymis. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the “Chart performance” section, I would replace “Elsewhere” with “Internationally”. “Elsewhere” sounds odd and too vague to me, so I would recommend “Internationally” to be a little more specific.
• Revise the following phrase (“The singer’s final televised performance occurred on …) as saying this is Stefani’s final televised performance makes it sound like she either died or retired from music (and obviously both of those are incorrect).
• I would recommend finding a stronger source to support your sentence on Stefani’s performance of the single in the MasterCard and This is What the Truth Feels Like Tour. Beacon Street Online appears to be a fan site to me, and not entirely appropriate for an FA.
• I would recommend moving the sentence (“Credits adapted from the liner notes of…) in front of the “Recording” and “Personnel” subsections. See how it is done on the page for the Rihanna song S&M.
• Please add an audio sample of the song to the page.

@Carbrera: Once you address all of my comments, I will provide my final comments about this. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much! I just switched it up majorly! Feel free to take a look! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Mymis

• "A remix EP featuring three" in intro -> maybe link "EP"
• In refs, Vevo -> Vevo
• ref 15 -> longer dash is needed, and the page is radiodate.it, not radioairplay.fm
• ref 14, 4 February 2016 -> February 4, 2016, same with ref 117
• ref 117 date is missing
• The Ellen DeGeneres Show -> The Ellen DeGeneres Show in refs
• ref 71 unlink Billboard
• ref 4 link Music times → This article was recently deleted
• ref 74 unlink LA times
• ref 23 E! Online -> E!
• "she couldn't believe the" -> could not
• "It was sung during the MasterCard Pric.." -> maybe add that the mentioned tours are Stefani's headlining tours because it's not very clear from reading
• "only, alongside performances of "Dan..." -> what do you mean by "alongside"? was it like a mash-up or medley of three songs?
• "Stefani sung", "she sang" in Live perm sec -> which one is correct?

Also:

• and maybe one more picture? maybe a pic of Shelton in "Composition and lyrics" section?
• would it be possible to upload a song's sample?

Mymis (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: I completed your comments. Thanks so much!!!! Carbrera (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 23

25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Avoid quotes in the lead if you aren't referencing it. Instead paraphrase it.
• Production and release: There also some quotes but referenced. I've often been criticized for relying too much on quotes so the same issue. → I paraphrased one of three quotes in this section; thanks for the tip! Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In charts, Billboard is quite overlinked. → I wish I could fix that but it's all apart of a preloaded template recommended per Template:Single chart. :( Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 114 lacks info "SNS IFPI" (in Slovak). Hitparáda – Radio Top 100 Oficiálna. IFPI Czech Republic. Note: insert (({year))}(({week))} into search. Retrieved March 12, 2016. → This was taken care of above, it's just a note for the reader of the article stating that they must manually insert a bit of information in order to see the chart. Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Critical response and commercial performance have some big paragraphs. I would recommend to split some and decide what is each paragraph about (kinda like a formal letter).

After that I don't have no more issues. I will support the article if you solve them. Also I've nominated an article, Allen Walker, for FA here and I would appreciate feedback. Anyway, good luck with this article.

• @Tintor2: Do you have any suggestions on where to shorten the paragraphs? Aoba47, a previous reviewer, recommended a very similar thing and I fixed it per his suggestion. However, I don't think it would be possible to split up the "Commercial performance" section since the first paragraph focuses on US information and the second focuses elsewhere. 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SomeoneNamedDerek

• Infobox: Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm

Lead:

• Where was the song serviced to contemporary hit radio "on February 16"? Ref 14 is a United States radio based website -> specify that it was serviced to United States contemporary hit radio (unless a diff. source is found)
• "incorporating influences of light rock into its sound" -> explain and cite this in the body
• ""beachy" drum progression" isn't mentioned anywhere other than in the lead, unsourced
• "but was tied for Stefani's lowest charting solo single" -> is it necessary to include this? Body does not talk about this unsourced fact (I looked at ref 44)
• "The video garnered a positive reaction from critics, for being "colorful" and "entertaining"." -> "entertaining" isn't mentioned in the Music video section

Production and release:

• This Is What the Truth Feels Like was mentioned twice, but one time it had the year 2016 and the other time didn't -> be consistent or remove year
• "On February 16, 2016, it was released to mainstream radio stations." -> United States radio stations?
• "On April 22 of the same year, Interscope issued a digital EP titled "(The Remixes)"" -> digital remix EP, remove "titled "(The Remixes)" since the cover art of the EP (on ref 16) doesn't show parentheses around The Remixes

Composition and lyrics:

• Song sample description: period needed, ref 5 should come before ref 17
• ref 17 comes before ref 20

Critical reception:

• "its sounds is" -> its sounds are
• "Ryan Middleton of the same publication agreed and acclaimed it "solid production" for causing" -> You left out what you wanted me to change here, but I figured it out! (it --> its)
• "which worked well with the its "well-oiled production"" -> remove the
• "pop candy" was mentioned twice in this section, but in different paragraphs (by Kelly Lawler and Gregory Robinson). Maybe put Robinson's opinion on the end of the first paragraph, since ref 43 also shows that Robinson found that the track was "reminiscent of Gwen’s 2006 single ‘The Sweet Escape’ and ‘Lovefool’ by The Cardigans""

Commercial performance:

• "alongside its debut on the Hot 100, it also peaked at number 12" -> it also debuted and peaked (unless it didn't debut that week on Digital Songs)
• "the song dropped to number 68 on the Hot 100, and left the chart in its third week" -> remove comma (simple sentence with two verbs)
• ""Make Me Like You" re-entered in the United States chart at number 97." -> which United States chart?
• " it peaked in May 2016 at number 27, and spent a total of 18 weeks on the chart." -> remove comma

Music video:

• "Grant Jue of Jesse Dylan's Wondros Collective produced the video" -> change to Grant Jue of Wondros, link Wondros to section in Jesse Dylan#Wondros
• "Stefani expressed how she could not believe the performance happened, also claiming that "she had personally worked on it continuously for about six days". Stefani estimated that she worked on the video for six continuous days, lasting from "7 in the morning 'til 3 in the morning"." -> remove repetitive statement about working for six continuous days
• "it was revealed that an estimate of $12 million" -> an estimated $12 million
• "before being greeted by four women, all wearing full-bodysuits. " -> all wearing bodysuits
• "promoted the video afters its release" -> after its release
• "the event was also sponsored by the Target Corporation. At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, " -> Allow a new paragraph in the section beginning with "At the 2016 Cannes Lions...", and place this paragraph before the paragraph starting with "Although Stefani was the first artist..." (the reason for this is because "the video" in "At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, held in June 2016, the video received"... is ambiguous and doesn't directly refer to Stefani's music video; placing this paragraph before the paragraph talking about other live music video broadcasts allows readers to understand the award was given to "Make Me Like You"

Live performances:

• "including the MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour and This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour (2016)" -> be consistent with years (remove it or add "(2015–16)" after MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour)

Credits and personnel:

• Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm

—SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]