Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die with a Smile/archive1: Difference between revisions

Die with a Smile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 9 January 2026, 23:26 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk), CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) and Sricsi (talk)

This article is about one of the most popular songs of 2024 by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. It was highly praised by critics received several awards, inducing two nominations at the Grammy Awards and one award at the same certainty. Furthermore, the song was later included in Gaga’s studio album Mayhem as the closing track. Mars was one of the directors of the music video alongside Daniel Ramos. The video was also praised by critics and received various awards nominations. It was also submitted to the GOCE before nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great song, I’ll definitely take on a review here (especially with Bruno’s new album possibly around the corner). Just an FYI that this is my first FA review ever, but I feel that I have enough experience with song articles in specific to do this one justice. Leafy46 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• “Mars presented the track in progress to Gaga, and they finished it on the same day. Its final direction emerged once she became involved, taking shape from an early sketch made with D’Mile and Fauntleroy.” — These sentences feel weird, probably because it loops back on itself. I’d restructure it so it’s all in chronological order: “ “Die with a Smile” began as an early stretch Mars created with D’Mile and Fauntleroy. Its final direction emerged after Mars presented the track to Gaga three year later, and they finished it on the same day.“
• I’d move the “The song received critical acclaim…” sentence to the end of the second paragraph. This follows the article’s structure, and gives context to the critical points about the instrumentation and lyrical weight
• “Most viral track of 2024” linking to Spotify Wrapped feels like an WP:EGG, since I’d expect something like that to link to a list. Instead, I’d just write Spotify Wrapped out on its own, if the link is necessary to begin with.
• “It earned multiple diamond and platinum certifications in Brazil, France, Canada, Australia, and Portugal.” — This needs a qualifier like “including”, given that the song also received multiple platinum certifications in many other countries not listed.
• “An accompanying music video, directed by Mars and Daniel Ramos, was released simultaneously with the song, featuring Gaga playing piano and Mars playing guitar and singing together in a studio inspired by 1970s television.” — Very much a run-on sentence, should be split either into two sentences or with a semicolon.
• For the sentence about how both artists performed the song in solo settings, I would expect at least one Bruno Mars concert (e.g. Bruno Mars Live) to be listed, instead of having two Lady Gaga tours.

Background and development

• Before I even begin a review of this section, I must ask if it’s really necessary to stretch this section amongst three sections: “Background and development”, “Conception”, and “Writing and recording”. After all, the three sections all are telling the same story from different perspectives (the first from a more broad one, the second primarily from Mars’ perspective, and the third primarily from Gaga’s perspective), and it feels like there is a lot of fat which can be trimmed here by merging the three together into one coherent, uninterrupted timeline of events.

Mars never commented this is Gaga’s and the producers and writers perspectives, they have stories that don’t match very well. I’m all down to trim the fat! I have addressed the lead

When I say Mars’ perspective here, I mean that it focuses on his side of the story when the song originally came to fruition, and doesn’t focus as much on Gaga’s involvement. The issue imo is that this “Conception” section chronologically starts *before* the “Background and development” section (disregarding the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show), but ends *after* the “Writing and recording” section, since the part where Gaga worked on the track and recorded the vocals occurs before the final line in the “Conception” section. In other words, it would be more concise and followable if all these perspectives could be consolidated down into one larger section, with discrepancies between accounts perhaps being accounted for through notes or the sorts. Leafy46 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That had to due with the various perspectives, because some interviews are recent, while some have a couple of months, which led to that kind or organization. Nevertheless, I’m down to cut some of the fat, however, as you read you will see that every different person involved in the song said something different at some point. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that there are some differing details, but one of the featured article criteria specifically says that articles should have an “appropriate structure”, which is to say “a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings”. I feel like having three separate sections discussing the background and writing of this song does violate that for being overwhelming. If I wanted to know, for instance, how the two artists met up for this song, where would I go? That is the sort of thing I might expect under “development” — and indeed there is mention of that fact there — but there is further detail about how they met up in both the “conception” and “writing and recording” section.

I guess what I’m saying is that having conflicting narratives is not an excuse for creating a hard-to-navigate structure like this, especially when notes can be used to explain discrepancies. In addition, many of the details between the three sections ARE actually consistent (as evidenced by the repeated mentions to how Gaga received an invitation from Mars and went to his recording studio). To make a suggestion, I could see these three sections collapsed into two: one “Background” section which talks about everything before Gaga’s involvement, and one “Writing and recording” section which covers everything after that point. Leafy46 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You actually make huge points here. Yes according to the rules, maybe it is too much and it gets repetitive at some points.

I completely agree with you. Two sections might be enough, even if we think its too much in the end we can end up with one. Feel free to give pointers, more than happy to do it MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Production and release

• I noticed the link which sources the German CD single’s release is broken, and should be replaced with the archive link. It would also be a good idea to check the other URLs in this section for that same issue.

• “Additionally, Andrew Watt revealed in an interview with Rolling Stone that the song had always been intended for Mayhem.” — This contradicts the fact that the song was written well in advance of Mayhem, and was shelved by Mars as an “unfinished demo”. There’s gotta be a better way to put this such that the contradiction doesn’t exist; if not, the attribution to Watt should be enough, if suboptimal.

Composition

• What’s the argument for using Bustle here, especially since it is featured so prominently in this section? WP:RSP calls its reliability “unclear” and says that it should be determined case-by-case.
  • I think some of the use of Bustle is reckless with wikivoice and fails MOS:QUOTEPOV, but its most prominent place in text is used to verify attributed opinions. RSP is concerned with factual reporting, which is not relevant here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. I think I hit on one of the offending uses of this below with the “romantic and devastating” line, but I’ll use this as a learning opportunity and take those guidelines into consideration as I continue on with this review. Thanks! Leafy46 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Bustle source is not problematic here, its generally not a bad source when it comes to “pop music”. The only reason it was used there was establishing a comparison between the lyrics of that song and another by Gaga’s and I quote the article “The song portrays two lovers who want to experience their last moments with each other, not dissimilar to Gaga’s soaring 2011 hit “The Edge of Glory.””. So no MOS:QUOTEPOV at all, so Rollinginhisgrave please be careful before your start point fingers at quotes and someone’s else work. Now if you have a way to improve, we (co-nominators) I guess I can speak for the three of us when I say this, will be more than happy to help further improve MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      MSTF, I see this is your first time at FAC, welcome, and sorry if my comment read as overly harsh. All my comments here are caveated with the page’s introductory text: “It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria”.

      As to the specific matter of MOS:QUOTEPOV, what do you see as the function of the quotation marks in Lyrically, the song is both “romantic and devastating”.? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 18:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I never mention that, that’s not the quote. Sure but I have done plenty of FL and more GA’s than one can count. Yes that’s why I’m here to address what’s not and improve the quality of the article, even if it fails a first time. I will go for a second, a third, how many times needed. I didn’t quote that sentence, I was quoting when you were questioning the Bustle source and its usage. Its just taken from the text there henceforth its on quotes, because its not paraphrased or used synonyms MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Luisa Calle should be attributed to Billboard Español, not just Billboard
  • Using “added” here also looks like OR, since it implies that Calle called the song a “soaring ballad” with all those genres attached when the source suggests otherwise.
• “Ed Power of The Irish Times described it as a “Bond-theme-style duet” that “harks back to Gaga’s underrated collaborations with Tony Bennett” ” — Massive overquoting, this could easily be paraphrased to something like “Ed Powers of The Irish Times likened “Die with a Smile” to James Bond movie themes and the collaborations between Gaga and Tony Bennett“
• I took a look at the source, and Variety never wrote that the song has a quote-unquote “soaring chorus”. This should be fixed.
• “…felt it is comparable…” — Awkwardly worded. Perhaps “found it similar…“, matched its style…“, or something in that vein
• Shoegaze should be linked with respects to the Clash review
• I would move the NYT comparison to Jason Mraz one sentence back, so that the two comparisons to Mars’s other songs are next to each other
  • The NYT should also be linked here and de-linked later on in the article, for consistency
• Remove the duplicated mention of “Variety‘s Jem Aswad“

• Remove “Lyrically, the song is both “romantic and devastating”.” It doesn’t add anything except an unnecessary quote; I’d just get straight to the point by saying “Lyrically, it is presented as an intense love declaration…“

• The lyrical section here feels very slanted towards interviews with Gaga and the press surrounding Mayhem. Did Mars ever talk about the lyrics or the song’s meaning?

• No. Mars did not publicly comment on the song’s lyrics or meaning. The available commentary comes from Gaga and producer Watt, who discussed the track in interviews conducted as part of the promotion of Mayhem, the album to which the song belongs.–CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct! Maybe it changes during the promotion of Mars’s very upcoming album. However, only if it completes if he is going to say the same, I will add a quick mention that the artists shared a similar POV and source MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else has also been addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

• This section will need a good re-vamp to take care of the large amount of WP:OQ, given that every sentence in the primary section uses some form of direct quote. I’ll list a few examples of possible paraphrases below, but you should take a comb through this section to cut down on direct quotations if they do are being used in lieu of plain text. Also see WP:RECEPTION.
  • “Brittany Spanos of Rolling Stone noted that “the new track puts the duo’s soaring vocals on full display”.” → “Brittany Spanos of Rolling Stone praised Gaga’s and Mars’s vocal performance on the track“
  • “Robin Murray of Clash gave the song eight out of ten stars, calling it “a homage to those lush 70s duets” that “also feels profoundly modern”, and noting both artists “shine” with an “undoubted chemistry” that gives the track its own character.” → “In an eight out of ten stars review, Robin Murray of Clash highlighted the “undoubted chemistry” between Gaga and Mars, and found the track to be a modern yet faithful rendition of duets from the 1970s.“
  • “The Independent‘s Adam White described it as “a tender, gentle love song that serves both Gaga and Mars very well”.” → “The Independent‘s Adam White deemed that the sound of “Die with a Smile” stylistically suited both Gaga and Mars, despite finding that its quality did not measure up to its commercial success.” (This one is especially important, given that the source doesn’t frame the song in a purely positive light, and thus it shouldn’t be reflected as such in the article)
  • “Paul Grein of Billboard called “Die with a Smile” a “match made in Grammy heaven” and an “instant smash”, while the publication’s Stephen Daw noted how “Gaga’s powerful, soulful voice blends excellently with Bruno Mars’ energetic belt”.” → “Stephen Daw of Billboard felt that Gaga’s and Mars’s voices worked well together, while the publication’s Paul Grein considered the track an “instant smash” and a strong contender for that year’s awards season.“
• “Mikael Wood, writing for the Los Angeles Times, placed the track at number 17 and commented, “Think Bruno ever wakes up and tries not to write a hit?” ” — The list was co-authored by both Wood and August Brown, even if the write-up for this track was done by the former. This should be reflected in the prose here.
• Uproxx should be italicized
• The same overquoting principles, as well as MOS:QUOTEPOV, should be taken into account in the “Comments on the song’s placement within Mayhem” section. For instance, “Stephen Ackroyd of Dork opined that due to its “dramatic, cinematic” nature, the song “fits perfectly as the album’s curtain-closer”.” could become “Stephen Ackroyd of Dork opined that the song’s cinematic nature made it a strong conclusion to the record.“

I addressed the things you pointed out but one, can you tell me if the way I did the first paragraph is what you looking for? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh… not really. The problem is that you’re moving into close-paraphrasing territory, where instead of trying to summarize and convey the author’s ideas, you’re just resaying them with synonyms thrown in. This is especially clear in some of the changes you’ve made: the quote “blends Gaga’s emotive pop melodies with Mars’ old-school R&B influences” becomes “fuses Gaga’s emotionally charged pop sensibility with Mars’s retro R&B roots“, which is not only CLOP, but actually creating new details not in the source (just because Mars was influenced by old-school R&B doesn’t mean that those were his “roots”, per se).

A reception section shouldn’t just be a big block of different quotes, it should be a connected set highlighting the main similarities between critical opinions, using quotes sporadically to underline those points. For instance, I see lots of different critics saying that Gaga and Mars worked well together, so I might envision a line like “Critics praised Gaga’s and Mars’s vocal performances, with Robin Murray of Clash highlighting their “undoubted chemistry” and Stephen Daw of Billboard writing that their different voices complemented each other well.” The examples I gave above were steps towards this direction, however I didn’t mean to imply that quotes can’t be used at all (as you seem to have interpreted it), or that these changes could simply be copy-pasted in without a fundamental restructuring of the section. Again, I would highly suggest looking at WP:RECEPTION for advice here. Leafy46 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I got it? Re-read only the bustle source…not sure if I’m on the park-ball there. If not, then I will ask one of the other contributors to have a go there MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might be for the best to leave this to one of your co-nominators, yeah. The “emotionally-charged” part, which was originally in reference to just Gaga’s vocal performance, has been changed in your re-write to refer to the song as a whole, which is completely outside of what the source says. I’m not sure who was the original author of this section, but whoever has the best grasp over all the sources included should ideally be the one to lead this section’s revamping. Leafy46 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original author, but no problem. I will ping them, CHr0m4tiko0 and Sricsi, do one of you guys want to jump here and help? Please take a careful look at Leafy46 instructions MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I previously drafted a more condensed version of the Comments on the song’s placement within Mayhem subsection. That version is more concise and may serve as a useful basis to adapt in line with WP:RECEPTION. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it in the next few days. The goal is not to lose the nuances that make the critical opinions meaningful, but to paraphrase wherever possible so we can avoid overly long quotations. Sricsi (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I perfectly agree with you there, my concern is/was that nearly every sentence uses a long quotation when at least some (if not most) could either be paraphrased, or consolidated into key points. Leafy46 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve revised the Comments on the song’s placement within Mayhem section by restructuring it around shared critical themes, consolidating similar viewpoints, and significantly reducing direct quotations in line with MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:RECEPTION. Let me know if this addresses the concern more effectively. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

• I reckon the “America” header should be changed to “Americas”? Just because the section speaks about both North and South America
• What makes Forbes usable here? It is used quite a few times, despite Hugh McIntyre being a “senior contributor” (making it a generally unreliable source, per WP:FORBESCON)
  • Ditto for the previously-used Forbes article by Chris Malone Méndez, who is listed in the byline as a “former contributor”
• “…where Gaga and Mars became the first non-Filipino artists to reach number one on the Philippines Hot 100 since the chart’s reintroduction in July 2024.” — I feel like “artist” should be changed to “act” here, one because that is the language used by the source, and two because Mars is part Filipino and thus this sentence could come across as confusing.
• Same EGG problem here, with Spotify Wrapped being linked to “most viral song of 2024” when the principle of least astonishment would instead suggest a list of the “most viral songs” of some kind.
• “Its success, along with Rosé’s “APT.”…” — Change to “along with that of “APT.”…“, since it’s already established earlier in the section that APT. was by Rosé and Mars.
• Is there a better source that the Guinness Book of World Records that can be used to source the Spotify Global daily chart info? Per WP:GUINNESS, as a source with no consensus on if it constitutes due weight

All points raised have been addressed. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are still quite a few sources by McIntyre used in the article, even if the line quoting him was removed. Leafy46 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those have been removed MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

• “Gaga appears in red tights with a hairstyle inspired by Dolly Parton…” — Maybe “reminiscent of” instead of “inspired by”? I know that the source says “inspired”, but the wording implies that basing the hairstyle off of Parton was a deliberate choice made by the directors, when in reality it seems to just be the opinion of the Telegraph writer.
• Neither Billboard nor Variety calls this video a quote-unquote “retro Nashville concept”, so the quotes should be removed and the line replaced with something else
• The year next to Joker: Folie à Deux isn’t necessary here
• “Fashion publications pointed out the 1970s Western influence in the wardrobe, noting Gaga’s blue minidress designed by Ashley Eva Brock and styled by Chloe and Chenelle Delgadillo, with hair by Evanie Frausto and makeup by Alexandra French using Haus Labs products, while Mars appears in a coordinated blue suit and red shirt reminiscent of Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner’s duets.” — Definitely a run-on sentence, I’d split this into two for the sake of clarity (especially with the amount of names being dropped)
• “The A.V. Club‘s Drew Gillis found it largely unengaging, as it offers little visual material beyond the pair singing to each other…” — WP:WIKIVOICE. “The A.V. Club‘s Drew Gillis described the video as unengaging as he felt that it offered little visual material beyond the pair singing to each other…“
• “Hilarious” to “Fairly hilarious”, gotta keep it accurate to what the source is saying.

Concerns addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

• The source doesn’t say that the performance at Mars’s Vegas residency was the second live performance of this song with both Mars and Gaga, so either a source should be added or the article shouldn’t say that.
• “…during an intimate show at The Belasco in Los Angeles…” — I would remove “intimate”, as that line links to Lady Gaga in Harlequin Live: One Night Only and it could be seen as being promotional (and isn’t in the source, to boot)
• “California Dreamin'” was released in 1965 per its article, not 1963

Cover versions

• Looks fine to me. I’d question if the BBC Radio 1 performance is due weight because it’s the only one which has only a primary source, but otherwise this section feels alright

Added a new source

Accolades

• Add a source to the Musa Awards, the NRJ Music Awards, and the MTV Europe Music Awards in the prose

Concerns addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

With that, that’s all the prose checked (at long last). Aside from these smaller changes in the last few sections, the two larger changes I’d like to see are a consolidation of the first three sections (‘Background and development’, ‘Conception’, and ‘Writing and recording’), and a re-write of the ‘Critical reception’ section keeping in mind OQ and RECEPTION. After these changes are made, I’ll give the article one more pass, and would be happy supporting the prose of this article (with no opinion as to its media use and its verifiability). Leafy46 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to read all of this. Any ideas regarding the first three sections? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I would recommend consolidating all the information up to Mars’ phone call to Gaga under one section, and everything after that point in another. Whether you choose to follow that or come up with some other way to consolidate the sections is up to you or your co-nominators. Leafy46 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]