SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) archive 1 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) archive 6 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==August 2011== |
==August 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wishology/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asif Ali Zardari/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Sanchez/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pretty on the Inside/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pretty on the Inside/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2}} |
Revision as of 01:29, 15 August 2011
August 2011
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [1].
Wishology
The article's first FAC nomination failed mainly because the issue was pointed out that it was yet needed to be copy-edited (admittedly I was a bit impatient so I initially thought skipping the CEs would be okay). Someone finally got to my request at the WP:GOCE page, and here are this user's copy-edits: [2][3][4]. All that in mind, and assuming this article might match up with FA criteria, I put this article up for renomination. 89119 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - the previous nomination was closed 3 August, less than two weeks ago. Per the FAC instructions, you must either wait 2 weeks or seek delegate permission to renominate early when your nomination is archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How can we go about to seek delegate permission? Because the previous nomination was, as mentioned above, closed early due to a need of a copy-editor, and thus did not get a chance for a full article scrutiny by others. Now that the copy-editing is done, I was hoping this one could get a chance of a full review, though I understand if FAC instructions still need to be followed regardless and this nomination need to be procedurally closed. (If this nomination is closed, does the two week waiting period reset from today?) 89119 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your best bet would be to post to one of their talk pages (probably either User talk:SandyGeorgia or User talk:Karanacs). My understanding is so long as this nom is procedurally closed (not failed), the waiting period would not reset. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This will likely be closed, but just for the record... I shan't conduct an in-depth review, but the plot summaries in both the main section and the lead are written quite childishly. For example, the last paragraph includes "Cosmo is fed up with..." Why not simply "Cosmo is angry with" or "Cosmo is at his wits' end"? "Fed up with" is rather colloquial. It is important that you summarize well, because the plot summary is often all that readers view in articles about fiction. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are more problems with the article beyond fundamental copy-editing issues, as pointed out by User:Interchangeable so far, I advocate this nomination should be closed procedurally, and hope to seek further improvements with writing prose at a more professional standard. 89119 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. We have our WP:WAF and WP:MOSTV guidelines. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [5].
S&M (song)
- Nominator(s): Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...this article failed FAC last time, and I was advised to wait a few weeks before re-nominating. Also, the article has been through WP:GOCE, which was suggested to me by someone to imrpove my chances, and I feel now that it has further improved upon what it was before. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check WP:MOS issues like quotes within quotes, italicization, etc
- Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines or not
- As far as I can see, they all have publishers. I think this was mainly to do with Rap-Up? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite - for example, FN 12. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite - for example, FN 12. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, they all have publishers. I think this was mainly to do with Rap-Up? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- be consistent in whether you include Viacom in MTV refs
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Where? Trying to find a double space in 125 references is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- Quite a few of the spanishcharts.com, norwegiancharts.com etc. are actually in English, so there is no need to write Spanish or Norwegian etc. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but for something like FN 21, which is not in English, there is a need to identify the language. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but for something like FN 21, which is not in English, there is a need to identify the language. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a few of the spanishcharts.com, norwegiancharts.com etc. are actually in English, so there is no need to write Spanish or Norwegian etc. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized
- Where? I can't see any that aren't. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare FNs 22 and 23. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare FNs 22 and 23. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? I can't see any that aren't. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- don't use bare URLs as sources
- Again, where? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, where? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, citation formatting should be made more consistent
- Have ammended all MTV, Rap Up, Billboard, iTunes and Digital Spy references, as they are a lot of them. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
- The second one has expired and I have removed it, but the first one is perfectly acceptable. It is providing accurate information about the details of the songs sales. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the first a high-quality reliable source? That's beyond simple accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's published by Yahoo! and provides factual and reliable information about the songs sales. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a blog. Does Yahoo fact-check the blogs it hosts? What is its editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a blog. Does Yahoo fact-check the blogs it hosts? What is its editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's published by Yahoo! and provides factual and reliable information about the songs sales. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the first a high-quality reliable source? That's beyond simple accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second one has expired and I have removed it, but the first one is perfectly acceptable. It is providing accurate information about the details of the songs sales. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for typos in references, for example FN 60
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multi-page sources like FN 62 need to include page numbers
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Web citations need publishers and access dates
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over multiple citation issues. Also, while I didn't look extensively at article text, the prose remains awkward and unclear in places. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- God, I really don't understand what else I am supposed to do. It has had 3 GANs, which means 3 different editors have all had an input on how to imrprove, 1 Peer Review and someone from the GOCE has also gone through the entire article, in addition to about 4/5 people's comments on the last FAC, as well as my own extensive input. This article has had so much input from so many different people to improve, I really don't know what else to do. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's difficult I know, but you really do need to try and find a good copyeditor to help with the prose. A few examples:
- "The song was restricted to nighttime television play". Should be "night-time".
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... presents the pop star's wish-fulfillment fantasies about the media, punishing the ones who have written negatively about her". Very awkward conjunction of "media" and "ones".
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... or personally hurt her in sadomasochist-related scenes and fetishes". The way that's written makes it appear as if Rihanna is punishing those with whom she has taken part in SM activities, which I'm sure isn't what's meant.
- I don't think that's how it comes across. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... part of a medley with "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?". It wasn't a medley with, it was a medley that also included.
- Done, well it was was "with" them, it made sense to read, but I've changed it anyway. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... debuting on the UK Singles Chart at number fifty-five on the week dated November 27, 2010". How on Earth can a week be dated, especially by one day?
- Done, quite easily, but I changed it anyway. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The song has since been certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) for shipment of 200,000 copies." Awkward "for shipment of".
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... peaking within the top-three in many countries". Why is "top-three" hyphenated?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Australia, "S&M" debuted on the ARIA Singles Chart at number eighty-seven on the week dated November 29, 2010." Same point as above. And why "on the week"?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It reached number one in its fourth week on the chart and stayed at its peak position for two consecutive weeks." If it stayed there then by definition the weeks must have been consecutive, so the word is redundant.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of July 26, "S&M" has sold 1.05 million copies across Europe." What year?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "... giving Rihanna her the tenth number-one single in the US". I think you should ask for your money back from the GOCE.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A conference is scheduled for August 10, 2011". This is too much detail and needs to be updated now in any case.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Paris-based photographer Philipp Paulus later sued as well, alleging further copyright violations, from a scene in the music video where Rihanna wears a big dress, is taped up against the wall with a plastic sheet covering of her, with X's all around, which Paulus believes was appropriated from his own photographic series, Paperworld." You should definitely ask the GOCE for your money back for not fixing that monster of a sentence.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Moved extended discussion to talk. Nominator has expressed frustration but intends to try to address points raised; reviewer has expressed intention to oppose until copy-editing is complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The magazine is called Rap-Up, not Rap Up. There's a hyphen. The publisher is Devin Lazerine, not Rap-Up. Digital Spy should not be italics for some odd reason that I can't explain. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all of those already. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy should not be in italics because it is not a printed source. It is an online news website.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy should not be in italics because it is not a printed source. It is an online news website.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all of those already. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: "Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine[where?]" Explain the tag there? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what the where? tag means? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The article has improved a lot, a few more tweaks and addressing some of the pointed out stuffs earlier will help to achieve FA.--Freknsay (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per both Nikki and Malleus who have raised excellent points regarding prose and ELs, Calvin would do better listening to them and not crib about it. Reviewer's time and energy should not be exhausted. As someone who helped the article gain its GA status, I can see so many issues existing now that I'm not even sure that this is GA worthy now. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah because someone from GOCE removed a load of info. And I'm hardly surprised you are opposing, it feels more like you are making it personal rather than being professional. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And when have I "cribed" about it? I have done all of the prose issues raised, and addressed all of the source issues. So you should find other things to support your oppose, because you can't oppose what has already been taken care of. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In all honesty, I have to turn this candidate down. Featured articles are not like GAs, where all you need to do is satisfy a simple criteria. For FAs, satisfying criterion 1a is a hell of a job and the article just isn't up to those standards. This just doesn't "exemplify our best work" yet. Some examples below. Sorry, I just skimmed through the page. These may be in random order:
- "is a song by Barbadian recording artist" I thought she was Bajan.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rihanna performed the remixed version of the song with Britney Spears on the Billboard Music Awards on May 22, 2011." Why isn'tBillboard in italics?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine and Thomas Conner" - Online publications are not italicized.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "and added that ['S&M'] is Loud's pulsating opener" If this is not in a quote then why is "S&M" in brackets?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "with all references to "sex", "chains" or "whips" removed." Wrong conjunction. Either change "all" or "or".
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "as apart of the "Summer Concert Series" - You can easily see that there is a major spelling issue there.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ""S&M" remix with Britney Spears on May 22, 2011" It may be wise to describe her (American pop singer) as this is the first reference of Spears.
- No, look at the end of the first paragraph in Lead. It's already been mentioned there. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "An official remix of "S&M" was released featuring rapper J. Cole online on January 17, 2011" → "An official remix, featuring rapper J. Cole, was released..."
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the iTunes Store." Need a better preposition.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ""They watched 'Umbrella' ... I was full nude"" - Unlink "Umbrella" per MOS:QUOTE.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "and a Rolling Stones tongue logo over her mouth." → "and The Rolling Stones' tongue logo over her mouth" Be accurate with band names.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." Again, why no italics?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still problems with the Rap-Up references. Soome don't have hyphens, some are not italicized. Fix them.
- Done, and they all had hyphens. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check ref [45]. A simple Ctrl+F can help solve these issues. ;-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Woah never knew i could do that! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and they all had hyphens. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say the GOCE did a less-than-impressive job. I am not trying to be biased here. There are still issues that have not been dealt with and you just have to look for those inconsistencies. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The annoying thing is, many of the points you have raised were in the article, and the guy from WP:GOCE went through and deleted so much stuff, now I am trying to amend all the mistakes he made. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's that and I have compared previous revisions with that of after the GOCE copyediting and she did address some issues poorly, but such things should not be taken into consideration during a FAC and the final revision is all that is taken into account. I have more comments for you to respond to: —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ""S&M" is an uptempo Eurodance and dance-pop song. Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed. In April 2011, the song was re-released as a remix single to digital outlets, featuring guest vocals by American recording artist Britney Spears." Three consecutive but totally irrelevant statements that have no transition into the next. Really flows badly, like a list.
- Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart" I think "brought" would be a more appropriate and encyclopedic verb.
- No, that doesn't make sense. The song was at #2, so 'pushed' is fine. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Fine, I must stand corrected, then. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that doesn't make sense. The song was at #2, so 'pushed' is fine. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "Internationally, the song reached number one" - Why is that linked?
- Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "personally hurt her in sadomasochistic-related scenes and fetishes" - As Malleus addressed above, that really sounds like the media is sexually torturing her. You have to make sure that readers know that this is metaphorical.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "The song was restricted to night-time television play in multiple countries, due to the explicit content of the video." - I don't get this one. You say the song itself was banned, but then you talk about explicit content of the music video. Are you saying that the video's themes also affected airplay for the song, or was it just the video that was restricted?
- Pasted in a older version of the Lead before the GOCE made a hash of it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "During her tour in Australia" - Who's tour?
- I can't see where this is. And it's pretty obvious it's talking about Rihanna, it is a Rihanna article.. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Chart performance. And you don't refer to her by her name in the whole section until the third paragraph. That's my point. It just reads funny. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chart performance. And you don't refer to her by her name in the whole section until the third paragraph. That's my point. It just reads funny. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see where this is. And it's pretty obvious it's talking about Rihanna, it is a Rihanna article.. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "as a medley with her two previous singles from Loud, "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?" - You mean "two of her previous singles"? Raining Men was released after those two were in the US. This is in the Live performances section, btw.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "only the chorus plus one verse between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?" - Already linked above. No need as it is overlink.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "with the stage decorated as a S&M-inspired set." - Wouldn't it be "an S&M-inspired set"? Otherwise, use "sadomasochistic" instead of "S&M-inspired".
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ""her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." Still not italics.
- Yeahhh it is. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shit, was I looking at an older revision then? You must be kidding. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, well, Billboard couldn't get much more like looking like The Leaning Tower of Pisa in that section even if it wanted to! ha Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- I see what you did there, xD. I feel ashamed for not knowing how to spell Pisa before.... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, well, Billboard couldn't get much more like looking like The Leaning Tower of Pisa in that section even if it wanted to! ha Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Shit, was I looking at an older revision then? You must be kidding. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeahhh it is. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A series of tweets between the two artists" Since Twitter is already linked in the previous sentence, just unlink this.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A new remix featuring Spears was ultimately released on April 11, 2011." Put in some commas.
- Done. Sentence was a bit short so I made it longer Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ""S&M" (Remix feat. Britney Spears) – 4:17" → ""S&M" (Remix) (featuring Britney Spears) – 4:17"
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs [92], [121] and [122] don't use the yyyy-mm-dd date format like the others.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have addressed all of your points, but you need to reply to a few. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, was the GOCE really responsable for all those issues? This group really needs a guarantee policy. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all now. Yeah, see what I mean by it was better before? I'm clearly not as bad as certain people make me out to be. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naw, it's not you, it's the article. They just bashed you because you have made the most edits on it. But, please copyedit the articles by yourself or a peer reviewer next time. Too many issues were neglected before nomination. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did have PR before I nominated FAC the first time! I said that at the top of this article and it is on the talk page for S&M! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my point. What I mean is that don't heavily rely on the Guild of So-called Copy Editors, and make sure they did things right before nominating right away. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the first and last time I use the GOCE. And I trusted what he or she had written, that's why I nominated for FAC. I thought that considering he or she is on the GOCE, that one would actually be good at it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing this is your first time with GOCE, that's understandable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good you have addressed all issues. But I'll wait until the other reviewers give a response before putting a vote in. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing this is your first time with GOCE, that's understandable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the first and last time I use the GOCE. And I trusted what he or she had written, that's why I nominated for FAC. I thought that considering he or she is on the GOCE, that one would actually be good at it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my point. What I mean is that don't heavily rely on the Guild of So-called Copy Editors, and make sure they did things right before nominating right away. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did have PR before I nominated FAC the first time! I said that at the top of this article and it is on the talk page for S&M! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naw, it's not you, it's the article. They just bashed you because you have made the most edits on it. But, please copyedit the articles by yourself or a peer reviewer next time. Too many issues were neglected before nomination. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all now. Yeah, see what I mean by it was better before? I'm clearly not as bad as certain people make me out to be. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, was the GOCE really responsable for all those issues? This group really needs a guarantee policy. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have addressed all of your points, but you need to reply to a few. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I am sorry Calvin, but again, this article doesn't satisfy the FAC, enumerated in part as follows:
- 1. Well written: From the first para in the lead alone, there are errors in the prose.
- It was produced by Stargate and Sandy Vee and was released on January 21, 2011 as the album's fourth United States single and third international single. This is quite a long sentence, and sort of doesn't cohere. Usually you don't combine details about production and release. Also, the usage of United States as a modifier (adjective) to single is not good. You may say "...album's fourth single in the United States..."
- C'mon, it's not a long sentence, and it's not as long as what you consider it to be. And I don't think it doesn't cohere. A sentence is long if you are struggling for breath at the end of it, meaning there aren't enough breaks in the sentence to breath, and that is not the case here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "S&M" is a Eurodance song. That sentence is quite sort. You could somehow connect that to the production info.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Critical reception of "S&M" was mixed, with some reviewers criticizing the song's overt use of sexual lyrics, The use of noun+ing verb is frowned upon by FAC reviewers and the general Wikipedians / readers. You may want to be guided by this exercise: User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.
- Done. Re-worded Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the song's overt use of sexual lyrics I feel this awkward. It's not the song that's using the lyrics.
- It's not the awkward to read, and the lyrics make up the song. What else is it??? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Comprehensive: This criterion is usually left by music writers.
- The article doesn't give much info about the song's writing, production, etc.
- That's because there isn't much info about the songwriting, production, etc. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was raised during the first FAC which was addressed. If there's no information about it, then there's no way this article is getting comprehensive in coverage. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- & And this article, this article and this article do have extensive Background sections? No they don't. It's not fair to fail FAC just because the Background section is quite small. If that is all the info there is, then to me, that is broad in it's coverage, as it lists everything about the Background of the song. Not all songs have as much detail as an article like this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The song's lyrics are "sexual" therefore a good analysis of the lyrics must be presented, which would be better if its in a separate section.
- Yes, if there are reliable sources to back it up, and there isn't. I've heard this all before in 3 GANs, 2 FACs and 1 PR. Don't people check those? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. Well researched:
- That line "basic chord progression of E♭3–A♭2–C♭3–D♭3" might be a wrong interpretation of the sheet music. It could be a series or progression of notes, but not chords. Chords refer any set of notes that is heard as if sounding simultaneously. Those notations there might (just might) be referring to guitar chords. I am not sure. Not my specialty.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how basic is basic chord progression. There are lots of articles using that phrase which might not be true at all in some.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. Concise lead: The lead is not concise. There's too much details, others seem trivial for the lead. For example: "S&M" debuted at number fifty-three What make's it significant? Unless it broke a record, or the single debuted at 99 and the following week it rocketed to number 1. The song also peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs and Pop Songs charts. These should have been saved for the succeeding related section.
- I've seen FAs with longer leads than this, so to me this is not a problem. If anything, the lead of S&M holds back on info, because there is so much more which is discussed throughout the article. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. Appropriate structure: I think the "remixes" section should go first before "live performance". That section should prepare the readers apropos of the Spears remix prior to the latter section which mentions the remix.
- 6. Media
- The audio sample doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The caption talks about the lyrics which can be detailed / explained / elaborated in the prose. The provision of audio here is not significant.
- Either of the two screenshots in the music video section should be removed. There's not much difference of the two, therefore a provision of details in the prose alone could suffice understanding.
- It's to show the resemblance between Rihanna's video and what she has allegedly plagiarised, you'd know that if you would read the music video sections. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go over the article and submit it back once you and others feel its up for another FAC. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have addressed your points. Some you need to clarify. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Sandy. I might not be able to update my comments here until next week, as usual. My Oppose will remain strong. Unless there's improvement in the article in question, I might try to log in. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [6].
Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR), Novice7, Adabow 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a very interesting song article. I also have very helpful co-authors who remain intersted in the subject. After a productive GA run, I thought I would give it a shot here. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an interesting article, but needs work to reach FA standards. Here are some specific concerns: — Nikkimaria 21:41, August 1, 2011 — continues after insertion below
- See also link should instead be a hatnote
- I am often corrected for having hatnotes to the main link from a dabbed link. Are you sure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sound sample pages are missing song length. Also, the article says "According to Allmusic, the original track has a 3:09 length, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it had a length of 3:11", but the sample page gives a source of Nancy and a length of 3:11- Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-lead infoboxes aren't "main infoboxes"; FURs for non-lead cover art should be amended
- Something is wrong with the template and the override fields are only adding text to the default. I put in a request for technical assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox parameter usage has been clarified and I have now corrected the template for these files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Somewhat echoing the point raised by Sven below, but there's an awful lot of non-free media here, both sounds and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the amount of text related to each FURed file. IMO, the charted versions should be kept. I also think there is meaningful text for the other versions, but like I said before, these are somewhat negotiable. They certainly help the reader better understand the variety of renditions that have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Somewhat echoing the point raised by Sven below, but there's an awful lot of non-free media here, both sounds and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox parameter usage has been clarified and I have now corrected the template for these files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something is wrong with the template and the override fields are only adding text to the default. I put in a request for technical assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of quotes within quotes- Are you talking about "I got a call from Ray asking if I'd be interested in singing on this duets record"? That does not really seem to me to be a quote within a quote and I don't see anything else that you could be talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some prose/grammar problems
for example "For the week ended June 7"- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That specific example was fixed, but this is a general point. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"For the week ending June 14, 1969, the song spent its fifth week" -repetitive and redundant phrasing, check for others- I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "week...week" - repetitive and somewhat redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific example fixed. There are other areas where the prose could be tightened. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "week...week" - repetitive and somewhat redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"countrified ache" - is this a direct quote from the source? If not, should be reworded; if so, should be notated as such.Look for other examples of unquoted phrases with unencyclopedic tone- Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"when Charles' was understated" - Charles' what?- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some WP:MOS issues, including capitalization and overlinking
- I have addressed some capitalization and overlinking problems. Do you have any further advice about possible lingering concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to link all instruments every time in credits lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed many redundant instrument links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "PopMatters" be italicized or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, but I deitalicized, like its page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to link all instruments every time in credits lists? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure all citations are complete - websites must have publishers, books should have ISBNs, etc
- I found 3 offending citations. I have fixed one. One of my co-authors found all the ISSNs for the Billboard stuff. I will note that refs 30 and 44 need may need them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Novice7 fixed the remaining ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still issues here. For example, FN 4 is missing a retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That ref got added late and it has been dominated by better refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still issues here. For example, FN 4 is missing a retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Novice7 fixed the remaining ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found 3 offending citations. I have fixed one. One of my co-authors found all the ISSNs for the Billboard stuff. I will note that refs 30 and 44 need may need them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral
Comments – this article has been largely improved since I first saw it at GAN. It would be nice if this article about a great song gets featured. Good job to bring it to GA status, by the way!I can not support until this issue with the non-free files is resolved.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link "beats per minute"- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link Hammond organ instead Hammond and organ- done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking, for example "Allmusic"- I was going to delink a second use of its Grammy links, but since they occur so late in the article and are so important an issue in the article I reverted myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a few other redundant links and removed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales, that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album, make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. " reads better- I am confused at the suggestion. "that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album" is neither an appositive of sales nor a parenthetical. I am not so good with grammar, but do not understand why it should be set off with commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will strike this, after re-reading it sounds ok. You are right.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused at the suggestion. "that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album" is neither an appositive of sales nor a parenthetical. I am not so good with grammar, but do not understand why it should be set off with commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that the song won Record of the Year, but not Song of the Year." "Note" fails WP:YOU; instead write in passive voice. What about "It should be noted that..." or simply "Note that ...- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Technicians" under "Credits": sometimes you write the first letter in capitals, then in lowercase.- Fixed for consistency. Only brands start with caps now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 33: ""The Billboard Book of Top 40 R&B And Hip-Hopp Hits"- double p fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: "[[]Tribune Company]]"- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 91: delink Billboard- done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the reliability of Songfacts.- I found a replacement reference, but I will need help polishing it up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and it was listed as the sixth of ten tracks on the Invites You to Listen album (catalog number ABCS-595).[4][5][6]" would be better to remove "it", as unnecessary- done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"When Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) was reissued in 1988, it was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on the album.[2][3] " remove the last album, and replace it with "it".- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Another excellent example of how Ray Charles was able to fuse blues and country, "Here We Go Again" is a soulful ballad in the Southern blues tradition. Lyrically, it has a resignation and pain that makes the blues, simply, what it is. The recording has a simple and sterling gospel arrangement and, in retrospect, is one of Charles' finer attempts in the studio from the 1960s."[13]" 'Here We Go Again', and not "Here We Go Again", as quote in quote, per MOS:PUNCT- done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The original version debuted in the Billboard Hot 100 in the May 20, 1967 issue at number 79.[14] " on the- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The duet was released for digital download on January 31, 2005.[87]" what does that mean? The duet version?- The 2004 cover was the first prominent duet vocal arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the Norah Jones/Ray Charles section, so it is not necessary to include the phrase. Change "The duet" to "it". "it was released digitally...".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed it in that instance. "The duet" appears four other times in that section, btw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the Norah Jones/Ray Charles section, so it is not necessary to include the phrase. Change "The duet" to "it". "it was released digitally...".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2004 cover was the first prominent duet vocal arrangement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Steagall's version with McEntire (who he is credited with discovering at a 1974 county fair)[104][105] is 3:10.[106]" do you mean "who is credited to discover McEntire at a 1974 county fair"?- Changed to who Steagall discovered at a 1974 county fair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last section, last paragraph, link Alto flute, instead of just flute- done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reviewed.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this has way too many non-free audio samples, however I am recusing from formally doing the media review (and giving the Oppose vote that would come from the NFCC issues) because of prior interactions with the nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that there is value in having a wide variety of samples. Certainly the three charted versions serve a purpose. I also think having a pure country music version and a jazzy version are beneficial. Obviously, if limited we would cut the other versions that did not chart, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below
- Generally not comprehensive. The info on the original version gives little to the reader.
- We are talking about a song that was not a Top 10 single. There is not much information out there on it. It is not written about in Ray Charles books. I have basically exhausted the Chicago Public Library for information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria are not compromised just because there's not much information published. If there's not enough sources, then by all means this must not be passed as FA. I cannot recall where it is written here in Wikipedia, but it states that absolutely not all articles are FA-worthy (perhaps due to little information) and this one might be one of them. Unless more information are published and can be used here in Wikipedia. --Efe (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not really sure what kind of content you feel is missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep in mind that when compared to other FA songs, this will not have performance details for the most notable version since its success was posthumous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I find enough of added content for you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria are not compromised just because there's not much information published. If there's not enough sources, then by all means this must not be passed as FA. I cannot recall where it is written here in Wikipedia, but it states that absolutely not all articles are FA-worthy (perhaps due to little information) and this one might be one of them. Unless more information are published and can be used here in Wikipedia. --Efe (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are talking about a song that was not a Top 10 single. There is not much information out there on it. It is not written about in Ray Charles books. I have basically exhausted the Chicago Public Library for information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose. Choppy prose. One paragraph for each sub-section. Paragraphs are like segments of sentences of different topics.
- Prose.
- Vague and might be redundant: the song was included as a bonus track on that album, but was not one of the original 12 tracks on it a bonus track therefore not part of the original and standard tracklist
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The song was also included on Ray Charles Anthology (1988) I just thought the use of parenthesis is sloppy and breaks the "reading"
- That seems to be the standard preferred format for an album to put its year in parenthesis afterward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please lead me to that "preferred format". Though not a big deal, but it really is sloppy or unreadable-breaks the reading. IMO, those years can be rewritten as part of the sentence instead of having them enclosed in the parenthesis. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I am mixing up films and albums. I will convert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want the same change in the opening paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I made these changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine. Though there are still issues in the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions welcome. Do you think removing those remaining parentheticals would help the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions like there are a lot of trivia (chart info), the enumeration of names (cover versions), etc.. --Efe (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is much performance history since it was a posthumous success and he was not in good health in his latter days. I aware of an official video. Thus, much of the other type of text you would see in an FA is not going to be in this one leaving it with a lot of chart performance. In terms of amount of chart performance, I opened up three songs and found Hey Baby (No Doubt song) 1653 characters, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) 2972 chars, and Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) 2006 chars. This article has 1967 version 1172 chars, 1969 version 1301 chars and 2004 version 2548 chars. Total chars is high, but per charted version the amount of text is pretty normal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course its not practical to compare this with contemporary singles. What I meant by trivia is this, for instance: By August 12, it was no longer among the Hot 100,[21] although it remained number 8 on the Hot Rhythm & Blues Singles. What is the significance of that?
- And also this one which fails to meet FAC #4. The entire paragraph could be best placed in the album's article: The song was the best-selling track on a record-setting album on many levels. For the week ending September 18, 2004, Genius Loves Company sold 202,000 copies, ranking second on the Billboard 200. This was Charles' highest charting album in over 40 years and represented an opening week record for a duets album (since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking such statistics in 1991). Frank Sinatra's 1993 Duets sold 339,000 during the Christmas week, eight weeks after its 173,500-unit opening. The initial shipment of 733,000 units was an all-time record for the 31-year history of Concord Records and the sales represented a Soundscan record for the company.[83] In addition, the album placed at number five on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums for Charles' highest placement since A Portrait of Ray peaked at fifth in 1968.[84] These albums sales occurred despite digital singles sales that saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. The previous record for most tracks from the same album was 9 by Neil Young & Crazy Horse with their 2003 Greendale album. — Efe 14:03, August 5, 2011 — continues after insertion below
- This is an attempt to show that the song was the most successful song on a successful album. Not sure how much of this to move to the album article. However, the GA reviewer mentioned the same thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Record_charts#Chart_trajectories for guidance. The articled is littered with such. --Efe (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of that policy. Didn't realize how different our content is from other chart performances. Will clean up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of that policy. Didn't realize how different our content is from other chart performances. Will clean up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is much performance history since it was a posthumous success and he was not in good health in his latter days. I aware of an official video. Thus, much of the other type of text you would see in an FA is not going to be in this one leaving it with a lot of chart performance. In terms of amount of chart performance, I opened up three songs and found Hey Baby (No Doubt song) 1653 characters, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) 2972 chars, and Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) 2006 chars. This article has 1967 version 1172 chars, 1969 version 1301 chars and 2004 version 2548 chars. Total chars is high, but per charted version the amount of text is pretty normal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also influenced by the genres of country music[11] and gospel music. The use of "also" is not useful at all because the preceding sentence does not talk about genres and influences; unless you will transfer that after the first sentence of the paragraph.
- Allmusic described the original as "Another excellent.. Please add the name of the reviewer, and long quotations must be introduced by a colon instead of letting it stand like a sentence in a sentence.
- Trivia-like info. Those chart "trajectories" are really unnecessary. Some of it are contained in the lead, which should summarize the article and therefore those must be removed / rephrased.
- Media. That audio sample(s) is not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. It adds no significance to the readers, and the description is not descriptive at all.--Efe (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear to me where the line is, so I am not sure what needs to be removed. I await a content review. IMO, since this is a country music song, we should have a country music sample and all other music samples have significant amounts of content in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like images, audio samples should not be used simply for "sampling" purposes for each cover of a song, otherwise that is decorative. Even just a single sample from a notable song is not an immediate allowance for its use. That said, for this article, I see only two of the samples having any type of commentary on the quality of the song's performance: the original song, and the duet one. The other three are excessive, not discussed at all in the article, and ergo, fail NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the version where the text and comments have been added since, I would have to argue that there is still too much use of sound files here. Again, the original song and the Norah Jones duet piece - those seem fine, so I'm not going to comment on them. But the other samples seem poorly justified, the next strongest would be the one by Nelson and Jones but even then, if the point of the sound file is to show Nelson's lackluster vocals against the overall song, that can be described in text without a problem. Or to put it another way: I believe the other three sound files could be removed, and the reader's understanding of the article would not be affected the slightest, generally a sign that the files are extraneous even if there is commentary that leads towards them. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the three files that you question, I can concede that the Nelson/Jones version is not important to the overall history of the song. It would be unnatural for us to have an article just on that version if the other versions did not exist because it never charted and has been barely mentioned in reliable sources. I continue to be at a total loss in understanding WP:NFCC. I spent some time looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song. Only "Hey Jude" makes sense to me. I remain unable to understand why "The Long and Winding Road" has no audio samples while "What'd I Say" has two from the same song. "Like a Rolling Stone" includes a sample of a Jimi Hendrix with little explanation while "Layla" does not include the Grammy Awarded Eric Clapton Cover. As a result, I am not quite sure how to present my case/clarification request. But here goes. The Sinatra version charted at Billboard for five weeks. If we were to create a separate article for it (in the absence of other versions) with an audio sample that would be considered entirely natural for the encyclopedia. Any song that charts for five weeks by a notable artist could have a song with an audio sample. In this case, we have a song that charted in one musical style and was described as another, which happens to be the original. Thus, we have a song for which the interpretation of the musical style was at controversy. This should leave the reader to wonder why is it Easy Listening according to some and Country according to others. Hmm. Let me listen and see. Not to mention the fact that it charted on Billboard for five weeks. O.K. so when I listen to it, it remains unclear to me exactly why it isn't true country. What could help the reader understand? Obviously a straigtforward hard core country version. Thus, the Strait version. The Strait version not only helps the reader understand the controversy surrounding a charted version, but it also presents the song in the style it was written. At WP:FS the Strait version might be considered the most important because versions that present the song as written are regarded as the most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think starting from the assumption that any notable song is entitled to a non-free sample is the mistake here. That simply isn't a clearly allowable use as, say, cover art for published works. Many notable singles can be discussed in broad terms without the reader having to hear a sample to understand the encyclopedic nature of the song. We do allow samples where the audio style has been explicitly discussed in a manner that the audio would significantly improve the reader's understanding. Hence why the original song and the duet are reasonable samples to include here, since there is commentary that works alongside the audio.
- One thing on past FA's: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any FA passed before, say, 2008, is likely not a good example to draw from as NFC checking was not as rigorous as it is today. Of the examples, "What'd I Say"'s two sample rationale is discussed in the FAC, in that both parts were critically commented on, but take from effectively two different songs (part I and part II), thus allowing for both; for "Like a Rolling Stone", there actually is dicussion in depth of the Hendrix version within the article body (it doesn't have to be in the caption). The others that lack samples are completely fine - again, it is not a requirement that a notable song need an audio sample. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, thanks again for giving me feedback. I don't understand how NFCC is applied, so I am just going to ask directly about my specific samples at issue. Ignoring the argument that it charted making it notable and just focusing on the fact that it charted in one musical style, but is classified by some in another why doesn't that make a presentation of the Sinatra audio file encyclopedic? This song is peculiar as a Country song that hasn't charted as a country song.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Strait version, why doesn't it matter how the song was written. It seems encyclopedic to me to say, this song has charted on all kinds of other charts, but not the Country song despite the fact that it is truly a country song and then show the reader what the song really was written to sound like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the three files that you question, I can concede that the Nelson/Jones version is not important to the overall history of the song. It would be unnatural for us to have an article just on that version if the other versions did not exist because it never charted and has been barely mentioned in reliable sources. I continue to be at a total loss in understanding WP:NFCC. I spent some time looking at WP:FA and the 5 songs within 10 years in either direction from this song. Only "Hey Jude" makes sense to me. I remain unable to understand why "The Long and Winding Road" has no audio samples while "What'd I Say" has two from the same song. "Like a Rolling Stone" includes a sample of a Jimi Hendrix with little explanation while "Layla" does not include the Grammy Awarded Eric Clapton Cover. As a result, I am not quite sure how to present my case/clarification request. But here goes. The Sinatra version charted at Billboard for five weeks. If we were to create a separate article for it (in the absence of other versions) with an audio sample that would be considered entirely natural for the encyclopedia. Any song that charts for five weeks by a notable artist could have a song with an audio sample. In this case, we have a song that charted in one musical style and was described as another, which happens to be the original. Thus, we have a song for which the interpretation of the musical style was at controversy. This should leave the reader to wonder why is it Easy Listening according to some and Country according to others. Hmm. Let me listen and see. Not to mention the fact that it charted on Billboard for five weeks. O.K. so when I listen to it, it remains unclear to me exactly why it isn't true country. What could help the reader understand? Obviously a straigtforward hard core country version. Thus, the Strait version. The Strait version not only helps the reader understand the controversy surrounding a charted version, but it also presents the song in the style it was written. At WP:FS the Strait version might be considered the most important because versions that present the song as written are regarded as the most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting on the version where the text and comments have been added since, I would have to argue that there is still too much use of sound files here. Again, the original song and the Norah Jones duet piece - those seem fine, so I'm not going to comment on them. But the other samples seem poorly justified, the next strongest would be the one by Nelson and Jones but even then, if the point of the sound file is to show Nelson's lackluster vocals against the overall song, that can be described in text without a problem. Or to put it another way: I believe the other three sound files could be removed, and the reader's understanding of the article would not be affected the slightest, generally a sign that the files are extraneous even if there is commentary that leads towards them. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like images, audio samples should not be used simply for "sampling" purposes for each cover of a song, otherwise that is decorative. Even just a single sample from a notable song is not an immediate allowance for its use. That said, for this article, I see only two of the samples having any type of commentary on the quality of the song's performance: the original song, and the duet one. The other three are excessive, not discussed at all in the article, and ergo, fail NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear to me where the line is, so I am not sure what needs to be removed. I await a content review. IMO, since this is a country music song, we should have a country music sample and all other music samples have significant amounts of content in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See responses to J Milburn and Hammersoft below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The audio samples are poorly captioned therefore we cannot identify its significance. --Efe (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recaptioned them now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That free image in the infobox seems impractical. That was previously embedded in the prose. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will move it back to the prose and leave the infobox empty.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping for more substantive thought on whether as captioned the various files can remain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Efe's Oppose
Hi Tony. The page is lengthy that it's becoming hard to navigate. Please pardon me for introducing another "sub section" of my review. Going back to the above, let's summarize the details:
- Criterion 1a Prose
- Still there are areas there prose is not quite good. For instance, Charles' 1967 tour for the album began with a benefit on the USS Constellation. I just can't understand what do you mean by "began with a benefit".
- Linked instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS issues. "sing-a-long pop style." as opposed to "sing-a-long pop style". Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside
- Fixed instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 2a Lead
- There's just lots of information in the lead. Perhaps you could trim or better summarize the chart performance details, as well as the cover versions.
- I just trimmed the chart stuff. Working on covers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Covers trimmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 3 Media
- Still an outstanding issue apropos of the issues raised by other reviewers. Despite of that, some were already taken from the article. Only two (audio samples) are left.
- Waiting for a review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although its free, the provision of two images of Nora are not, well, don't know how to explain. Perhaps one could do?
- That version was contemporary in both 2004/05 and 2010. She had different looks in those time periods. Although the 2010 picture is easier to see, the 2005 picture is from the slightly more important time period. It would be hard to go with one since the 2010 picture is so much better. Since both are free, I have included both. I don't understand what the issue is since both are free. Which would you like me to remove, if I remove one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 4 Length
- This song was made during a phase in Charles' career when he was performing a lot of country music. I think this sentence summarizes that section. So perhaps you could do another round of re-organization.
- How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same section. There are unnecessary details like "However, Tangerine did not appear on the label of his works until 1968." Although you did a good job in providing readers insight to the time when Charles was doing a lot of country music, still those details should be somewhere else but here.
- This is an attempt to explain the main image that does not include the name Tangerine or its logo. I am not sure what you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Performance history. How does the song relates to that section?
- For 21st century song FAs it is very common to have a performance history section outlining specific important dates that a song was played and concert performance. The section might say something like the song was played on Saturday Night Live, Late Night with David Letterman and Good Morning America on such and such dates. It's debut was on the night of the American Music Awards on X date. The song was also part of the Big Name Tour playlist which began on date x and ended on date y. The song was used in the following television episodes and on the soundtrack to Movie X. Of the original versions FA contemporaries (songs within 10 years in either direction: "Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Layla"), only Like_a_Rolling_Stone#Live_performances exists. I think it is pretty safe to say that the best charting song from the album was part of the album tour playlist although we have no specific evidence. That is the best I can do with this. I know of one date when he appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, but I don't expect any responses to my talk page query about what songs were performed on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the following sentence "The album tour playlist is not readily available, but "Here We Go Again" was the best-charting song on the album (and likely on the playlist)." I am not sure if the part in parenthesis can be included as a logical deduction from/synthesis of the sources or should be considered WP:OR. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. if anyone knows how to find American Bandstand playlists and performance lists that would be helpful although according to List of acts who appeared on American Bandstand Charles never appeared on the show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Composition. According to the sheet music published by Dirk Music, "Here We Go Again" is a rhythm and blues and soul song Yes it first became notable as an R&B/soul song, but the article introduces it to the readers as a country song.
- I am a little bit confused by this edit by a recently retired editor. The freely-accessible part of the ref doesn't mention R&B.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add soon as I can get back to this. Thanks Tony for the patience. --Efe (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a real problem with NFC here. Concerning the covers, I'm not seeing why any but the original should be there. Yes, it is generally held that a single identifying cover image is acceptable in an article about a single; that does not automatically extend. None of the other two covers which you use are significant, and we are perfectly able to understand the article without them. Maybe if the covers themselves were in some way significant, but I'm seeing no reason to believe that they are. As for the samples... I'm very dubious. Some samples may be useful, but this seems excessive. Further, it's difficult to assess the use of the samples because of the utterly useless copy-paste rationales. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely oppose The extreme overuse of non-free content is completely unnecessary to the purposes of this encyclopedic content. This mass overuse of non-free content places this article in the top .008% of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usages. Extreme usage requires extreme justification. Yet here, on every...every...sound sample the rationale for usage is a cloned copy of what we find at {{Music sample info}}. I.e., no actual thought went into the idea of how these non-free sounds samples are used in the article and how that works within our WP:NFCC policy. They've been included because they can be included. That's it. I also concur with J Milburn's assessment of the covers. The 2nd and 3rd are totally superfluous. Strip all non-free content except the first image in the top infobox, and then very, very judiciously consider adding non-free content and paying very special attention to a real justification for the usage of each item. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are using terms very loosely. Covers in my mind usually means redone songs, but I think you are using the term to refer to cover artwork. I can remove 2 & 3 pretty quickly. I will remove those and work on the rationales for the sound files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The album covers are covers. I'm not interested in the pedantics. As to the rationales, it isn't a question of fixing them. It's a question of stripping the article of the sound samples, and figuring out what passages in the article really need the reader to hear the sound sample to gain understanding. Since these sound samples were added so loosely, it's unlikely any of them are closely tied to the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not being pedantic. I was truly confused on what was meant by the only cover that should remain was the first. cover (music) has a meaning that is different from what you were using. I have removed two cover arts and two sample files. I have changed the FUR on the Sinatra version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I was not referring to you as pedantic, but referring to the difference between covers, as in album covers, and covers, as in later performances of a musical work, as pedantics. There is a difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have actually reconsidered the two sample files that I removed and readded them with better descriptions that clarify the relevance of their inclusion. I have also modified the FURs. Do you still absolutely oppose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do. There's still not a comprehensive understanding of the role of NFCC that needs to be present for this article to be understandable by the reader. For example, You modified [7] the rationale, which echoes unreferenced text in caption of the image, with the only connection to the prose of the article being that it mentions (without citation) the instrumentation used in the Strait version. So what? I don't need to hear the sample to understand that. You gotta go from basics; don't look at trying to figure out how to retain non-free content. That's backwards. Go from the other direction; start with nothing and work forward, finding stretches of referenced text in the article that isn't understandable without non-free content. This doesn't come close to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you saying is unreferenced? The text provides a reference for the instrumentation, the fact that it is a country song and the fact that it has not charted on the country charts. Do you want citations in both the article description and file description page in general? In this case, the article starts with a sentence that says "'Here We Go Again' is a country music standard . . . that first became notable as a rhythm and blues/soul music single". Isn't it encyclopedic to demonstrate to the reader what it sounds like as a country music song. Is your point that it does not help the reader to understand how the song was written?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is excellent. Right here you've highlighted the problem with using the non-free content in this way. Just because a song is mentioned doesn't mean we should include a non-free sound clip of it. There is no entitlement to using non-free sound clips. You can't use them just because the song is mentioned. See the last couple of sentences of WP:NFCC #1. Then go back, strip out all the sound clips, and start over. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I thank you for your patience and your promptness in reply. I always end up getting lost in NFCC issues, which is where I need a co-author. For a long time this article had no country music sample. I really wondered what the song sounded like in the country style. I think your point is that although the article has several facts about country music (This is a country music standard, this song has never charted on a country music chart, this song has instumentation consistent with country music style, etc.), but the article has no stylistic facts about a country music version requiring the reader to listen to the song to understand said fact. I am going to check a few reviews before conceding this point. However, confirm that this is the point please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of. The global issue is whether a particular sample from a particular song is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Alternatively, if something significant about the style is referenced by secondary sources is referenced by secondary sources in a way that text alone can not convey. Only then should a given sample really be considered for inclusion. From there, it's whether the reader can understand the article just fine without the sample. If no, then there's a better reason for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to dig a bit, since the song is not really reviewed. Based on reviews of the album, I have cobled together a summary that this is the most straightforward and hard-core form of the song in the style it was written. I think that makes it something that the reader benefits from hearing a sample of. How do you feel now with the latest references and reformatted FUR and CAPTION.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strip the content? not really sure how that would help. Basically, we have samples of both a commercial success and critical success version and two samples that are included as it relates to the style of the song as it has been promoted versus the style it was written in. I have removed what you might regard as a shoehorned version by Nelson that I had to dig a bit for. Could you consider my comment dated 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) above and help me understand the relevant issue here. Whether I remove the sample and put it back in or not, I still have the same issue with the reader not understanding the stylistic controversy and the issue of what other parts of the project (FS) would consider the most encyclopedic version meeting with objection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe we're at an impasse. I've made every attempt to explain the seriousness of the issue. I'm lacking in the necessary skills to convey this issue to you. Regardless of my shortcomings, I remain opposed. This article clearly does not pass. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Sandy: I have given up on including several fair use samples today and await an NFCC review. It is my belief that the current objections are largely based on NFCC concerns. Not sure that any will convert to supports, but I expect some opposes to be withdrawn and possibly to have an NFCC endorsement in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the best place to ask for an image review if WT:NFCC fails?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to get an FU file review so that I don't have to set up a whole separate PR just to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I have non-media concerns from a couple of reviewers, I am wondering if there is a way to get the NFCC review before this closes or during a PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to get an FU file review so that I don't have to set up a whole separate PR just to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the best place to ask for an image review if WT:NFCC fails?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [8].
Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)
- Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At an FAC last year, the main issue with the article seems to be prose. After a peer review, along with this article being submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors, I feel the prose is a lot better than it was a year before. Some new information was added to the article, mostly about legal ramifications since the passage of this law and what legal challenges it had. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review Yay, I can justify using the word "media" instead of "image" this time. Everything is good from a copyright perspective. I'll do some touch up on the captions and the file description pages, but this is good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 7: page(s)? Generally speaking, multi-page documents need page numbers
- Don't mix different types of citation templates, as this creates formatting inconsistencies
- Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors/editors
- Be consistent in whether or not you include locations for book publishers
- Use a consistent formatting for notes and bibliography entries
- Be consistent in how you format newspaper citations, and whether or not you include publishers
- Use a consistent date format
- FN 30: hyphen should be dash
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on the citations right now. I added the page numbers for FN 7, but the template seems to use p., even though it is multiple pages (which I been told have to use pp.). Trying to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php for the formatting, but having 500 errors with it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The prose still seems substandard:
"After Japan's defeat in World War II, there were suggestions to legislate the Hinomaru and Kimgayo as the official symbols of Japan. However, a law to make both symbols official in 1974 failed to gain a majority in the Diet, due to the symbols' connection with the militaristic history of Japan. It was suggested that both symbols be made official in 1999, after a school principal in Hiroshima committed suicide over a dispute regarding the symbols."—overuse of the word "symbols"; "in 1999" is in the wrong place"collation partners"—coalition partners, surely?"Other nations felt"—nations have feelings?"in wake of this law"—in the wake- "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality of forcing teachers and students to honor both the flag and anthem against their wishes"—convoluted and wordy sentence; "against their wishes" is unnecessary, but even without that the sentence does not read well.
- This sentence still doesn't make much sense.
In the first paragraph of "Text of the Act", it is said twice that rules about use of the flags weren't included. "Respect of" sounds odd."The 1870 proportions had a ratio of seven to ten units (7:10), with the red disc off-center by one-hundredth of the flag's length toward the side of the hoist, which were set in the Prime Minister's Proclamation No. 57"—rather too much space between "which" and its antecedent"Japanese law did not designate a national flag from 1885 to 1999, although the Hinomaru was legally the national flag from 1870 to 1885."—odd chronology. Why was the law changed in 1885?
I haven't read further. This article needs a good copyedit. Ucucha 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests take a look at this article; any order passed before 1885 was declared null and void due to a change of government systems in Japan. This is mentioned in the citations at the bottom. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A copyedit is going to be provided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyedit in progress. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A copyedit is going to be provided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above comments haven't been fixed yet. Some other comments:
- Act on National Flag and Anthem is a red link. Why is the disambiguator in the title?
- "The debate surrounding the law also revealed a split in the leadership of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) and the party discipline of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partners."—the part about party discipline doesn't make sense. Did it reveal that party discipline was weak in the LDP?
Incidentally, the copyedit introduced some further errors into the prose (e.g., "Nineties"). Ucucha (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the "have been challenged in the court systems due to the constitutionality" I changed it to where it says "Regulations and government orders issued in the wake of this law, especially those issued by the Tokyo Board of Education, have been challenged in court due to conflicts with the Japanese constitution." so it removed a lot of text.
- As for the disambiguator in the title, there are similar laws about the national symbols, such as Law_on_the_National_Arms,_Flag,_and_Anthem_(Mexico). I was suggested to add Japan in the title.
- The DPJ was shown as split and fractured, unlike the LDP. I changed "party discipline" to just "unity." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [9].
Asif Ali Zardari
- Nominator(s): Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zardari's page highlights the enormous progress in Pakistan-related articles. He was President of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim nation with ambivalent ties to the United States. This guy has interacted with George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Not only that, his current popularity rating is 11%, down from 20%. His wife is Benazir Bhutto, the Islamic world's first female leader. He has been involved in corruption, kidnapping, scandals, and murder. Its amazing how much this guy is hated! If this article becomes featured it will be a huge accomplishment for Wikipedians. Reformation32 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question - has Mni9791 (talk · contribs) been consulted about this nomination. According to edit count tool, he/she has nine times the edits to this article that the nominator does, and has been working on it for several months. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. He/She approves the nomination. Reformation32 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note that Mni9791 (the primary contributor) is currently indef blocked, as of July 5, 2011. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. He/She approves the nomination. Reformation32 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: File:CleggZardari.jpg has a broken source. A few of the others have direct links to the images, which should generally be avoided, but they all look legitimately PD. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture was removed. Reformation32 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Nikkimaria
Oppose - I appreciate the work that has gone into this article but don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
- Prose needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example: "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead"
- WP:MOS issues - spell out "%" in article text, don't space emdashes, etc
- Tone and word choice is problematic in places - tone should be neutral and encyclopedic
- There are a number of very short paragraphs and sentences, which make the text seem choppy
- Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence of "reduced his vast presidential powers to only a ceremonial figurehead" has been corrected to "his vast presidential powers to that of a ceremonial figurehead."The % was spelled out and the emdashes were unspaced. Any other MOS issues?Where can I find copy-editing help?I tried very hard to make citations consistent. I re-did all 265 citations to make sure every single one was consistent. You can verify that by looking at edit history. How are the citations inconsistent? I think I deserve a better explanation than a vague statement such as "needs to be much more consistent". Reformation32 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can solicit copy-editing help from WP:GOCE. Other examples of MOS issues include hyphen/dash use, overlinking, inconsistent naming (for example, both "US" and "U.S."), etc. The neutrality concern is not because of any widespread bias, but simply an issue of tone and word choice - see WP:W2W for some guidance on this. For citation formatting: all web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, retrieval dates should all be in the same format, be consistent in what is and is not italicized, use consistent naming (for example, New York Times vs The New York Times), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested copy-editing. But besides that one ignominious error that you already mentioned, can you find anything else? I don't think there is a need for copy-editing unless you provide more examples.hyphen/dash use? I ctrl-F the whole Zardari page and couldn't understand or find any discrepancies.- All citations have retrieval dates now. If you disagree, out of the 265 references, could you find any more examples? If you agree, please cross out.
- Retrieval dates are now in the correct format. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out.
italicized? Whats inconsistently italicized?- Naming has been corrected. If you disagree, please elaborate. If you agree, please cross out. Reformation32 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been copy-edited by Clarityfiend. MOS issues, tone and word choice, paragraph lengths have been significantly revamped. Reformation32 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can solicit copy-editing help from WP:GOCE. Other examples of MOS issues include hyphen/dash use, overlinking, inconsistent naming (for example, both "US" and "U.S."), etc. The neutrality concern is not because of any widespread bias, but simply an issue of tone and word choice - see WP:W2W for some guidance on this. For citation formatting: all web citations need publishers and retrieval dates, retrieval dates should all be in the same format, be consistent in what is and is not italicized, use consistent naming (for example, New York Times vs The New York Times), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetoo comments
Reformation32 asked me to comment [10]. This article was rewritten starting about 6 months ago. At the time, in terms of edit count Huon and I were the primary editors of the page. Although the rewrite added a lot of sources and content, we both had concerns about bias in the rewrite. The subject of the article has received a lot of criticism, and it takes care - and multiple eyes - to state the criticism as criticism and not as fact. The page is better now (probably due to Reformation32's editing) but I still see instances of bias, such as where ideas appear in succession in a way that suggests something more. But that's my opinion. If others think the article is close, then I'm willing to work on the article and fix the biases I see. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do so. I encourage Nikkimaria, Huon, and Gimmetoo to provide examples of bias so I can correct them too. Reformation32 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:29, 15 August 2011 [11].
Mark Sanchez
- Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... As one of the up and coming members of the National Football League, Mark Sanchez is an intriguing personality caught in the midst of a world of constant physical body blows—all the while still trying to perfect his craft. Promoted to GA status, with significant input from Bobak, in February 2009, I have undertaken the task of taking the article to the next level so to speak and have put forth quite some time into improving the stature of the article which gradually deteriorated, prior to my arrival, due to persistent vandalism. The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mix different kinds of citation templates, as it causes inconsistent formatting - standardize on either citation or the cite family
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Check formatting of quotes within quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Not sure if I'm supposed/allowed to respond here) NFLDraftScout.com is owned by CBSSports.com (see [12]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I appreciate the clarification Eagles. That said, I did replace the ref with one from the NFL's website. I also made the citations uniform using the cite family and I corrected the formatting of one quote. Thank you for your review! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review There was only one thing that needed doing, and I did it already, so this is all good. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for the assistance! May I ask what is was specifically, just for my future reference. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When one of the images was uploaded from Flickr, its original description text from Flickr was placed in the description field of the Template:Information template of the file on Commons. The Flickr description was an absurdly long biographical monologue that had no real reliance to its use here. I took the whole thing out and replaced it with a more useful description. For laughs, the edit I made is here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-checking – Checked a handful or so of sources and am very unimpressed with what I found:
Reference 4 doesn't say anything about Sanchez's mother moving "to be closer to the family"; it just says that she stayed in contact through bus trips.Source (ref 4): "had been one of the few Mexican-Americans in a mostly Jewish part of East LA." Article: "one of the few Mexican-Americans in a Jewish part of East Los Angeles...". Pretty close if you ask me.More closeness from that source: "So now Sanchez talks to high school kids from predominantly Mexican East LA." This is in the article: "He began speaking to high school kids from predominantly Hispanic Santa Ana and East Los Angeles." Again, the structure is very similar in both.From reference 6: "was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." Article: "and was considered the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2005." The structure is almost exactly the same, with the exception of being about two different people. Still way too close for my comfort.Later in the article: "Mustain, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." The full version of the source piece I quoted above: "of touted transfer Mustain, who, like Sanchez a year earlier, was the top quarterback in the nation coming out of high school in 2006." This is plagaristic by any standard.From reference 84, "so he could do interviews with the Spanish-language media without a translator" is seen in both the source and article.Still on ref 84, this is in the source: "He also participated in a fundraiser for Operation Teddy Bear, which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Latino areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and recently joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families in East L.A." Article: "He participated in programs which provides school supplies to first-graders in heavily Hispanic areas of Long Beach and the South Bay, and joined L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in distributing holiday gifts to needy families." Again almost identical.
Sorry, but I have to oppose over all the closeness present in just the sources I looked at, which are a small percentage of the total. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First and foremost I would just like to say that I had not even noticed these similarties as the sentences were a product of older revisions of the article however, that is no excuse and for that I apologize. Had I known, I would have immediately rid of them because this certainly does not reflect myself as a writer and my previous works can certainly attest to that. That said, I hope you would reconsider your oppose as I have managed to rewrite the sections in question (Early life, College career and Personal life) however, I would understand if you did not. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll strike the oppose, but would still like to see another reviewing spot-check during the course of this FAC. There's plenty of game-related sources that I didn't look at to choose from, among others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the game-related material, I had to re-write that entire section and find the links to it and so far I haven't spotted any issues. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 10:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be reviewing this over the next couple of days. The fact that I am a fellow Jets fan does not mean I intend to go easy, it just means I know the material.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now at least. I think this still needs a careful reading of the prose. A few examples:
- "Sanchez has been highly touted for his elusive nature, awareness and pocket presence when throwing the football." What on Earth does "pocket presence" mean? He knows where his pockets are?
- "Sanchez has also been praised for his strong, athletic arm, immediately drawing comparisons to Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath, both of whom also drew a wealth of star power during their respective eras."
- "Sanchez has displayed sincere dedication to the sport ...". In whose opinion? The whole Player profile section has a feel that it was written by an adoring fan.
- "He is best friends with childhood friend Scotty McKnight ...". More fancruft. How do we know who his best friend is, and even if we do, why should we care?
- "Sanchez has been involved in multiple charities including the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to help raise awareness regarding Type 1 diabetes and Sam's Club's Giving Made Simple to help raise awareness about childhood obesity and ways to prevent it." You need to consider adding some punctuation to that, so that it makes sense.
- From the Mexican-American identity section: "Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican ...". We were already told that in the Personal life section .
- "It became a prominent issue after his nationally-televised game against Notre Dame." No hyphens after adverbs.
- "... unlike most of his predecessors, Sanchez was a third-generation, full Mexican and none had been embraced to the extent the Sanchez was." Why "the Sanchez"?
Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The main issue seemed to be the player profile which I have re-written with a more neutral tone. Additionally, I removed the mention of Scotty McKnight and the hypen after the adverb. Per your sixth point, I removed the mention from the personal section but I felt you should know that the reason it appeared again was because it was necessary in the context of the sentence. As for "the Sanchez", that was just a grammatical error that went unnoticed until you found it! I appreciate your comments and look forward to any additional feedback you have. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll wait to see what Wehwalt has to say about the content, and then I'll comment again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get to it today. I've been lazy this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it. I think the prose is borderline and could probably pass with some hand holding. Content. I did not read anything I found surprising , which is a good thing since I'm a Jets fan. My major concern is POV, a bio tends to be pro-the person, but I think this pushes the limits there. Why say he played for the Jets after playing "only" x games in college? I think the pro-Sanchez bits could be toned down so it doesn't sound a bit like one of those sports bios aimed a the younger set. I can either start with comments now or wait until Malleus is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please carry on Wehwalt, I'm probably not going to be around much until next week anyway. I completely agree with your POV comment, and I too see that as one of the article's greatest weaknesses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gearing up to leave on a trip early Saturday morning, so may not complete it by then as I want to squeeze the last ounce of having my references (for other articles) around me. TW2.0, you might want to get ahead of the curve.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some free time this weekend and I'll make sure to pick through the article. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gearing up to leave on a trip early Saturday morning, so may not complete it by then as I want to squeeze the last ounce of having my references (for other articles) around me. TW2.0, you might want to get ahead of the curve.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please carry on Wehwalt, I'm probably not going to be around much until next week anyway. I completely agree with your POV comment, and I too see that as one of the article's greatest weaknesses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it. I think the prose is borderline and could probably pass with some hand holding. Content. I did not read anything I found surprising , which is a good thing since I'm a Jets fan. My major concern is POV, a bio tends to be pro-the person, but I think this pushes the limits there. Why say he played for the Jets after playing "only" x games in college? I think the pro-Sanchez bits could be toned down so it doesn't sound a bit like one of those sports bios aimed a the younger set. I can either start with comments now or wait until Malleus is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get to it today. I've been lazy this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll wait to see what Wehwalt has to say about the content, and then I'll comment again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is very jargony, so much so that I am having difficulty understanding parts of it. Could it be rewritten for an international audience, with less jargon? Also, what are "Spring practice" and "Fall practice"? Per WP:SEASON we do not use seasons of the year to designate times. If these are jargon terms is there a way to gloss them? --John (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When this came up in an earlier FAC on American football, I argued that football is allowed terminology just like music and if you don't have to stop to explain arpeggio, you shouldn't have to for linebacker either.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if it is just writing with this in mind; it could be as simple as linking arpeggio the first time it is mentioned for those who don't know. --John (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with something like "Spring practice", for example, is that, that is how college football operates. There are practices in both the Spring and Fall, it is not like an NFL Training Camp where it only happens once over a period of a few weeks or so. Unfortunately, I have not found any articles that make any mention of this so far. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that "spring football" or "spring practice" are terms of art, even though we have no articles on them. They are not gratuitous references to seasons which are reversed in Oz, they are a way of keeping players fit and engaged in the offseason, and they are called spring practices because that is when they happen, the NFL lacks franchises in Sydney and Buenos Aires. I would take care to link any football position or any obvious bit of jargon.
- The problem with something like "Spring practice", for example, is that, that is how college football operates. There are practices in both the Spring and Fall, it is not like an NFL Training Camp where it only happens once over a period of a few weeks or so. Unfortunately, I have not found any articles that make any mention of this so far. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if it is just writing with this in mind; it could be as simple as linking arpeggio the first time it is mentioned for those who don't know. --John (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When this came up in an earlier FAC on American football, I argued that football is allowed terminology just like music and if you don't have to stop to explain arpeggio, you shouldn't have to for linebacker either.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some comments to start:
- Lede
- Perhaps call him an American football player who plays the quarterback position.
- "amidst" Too fancy. Perhaps "in"?
- "well-disciplined". I think this is unnecessary.
- " At USC, Sanchez was relegated as the backup quarterback though he rose to prominence in the community due to his Mexican-American heritage and brief appearances on the field due to injuries suffered by starting quarterback John David Booty" This sentence should be separated out, Sanchez's on-field stuff and off-field, into two sentences. Additionally, you should say what year and say that it was Sanchez's first, second, etc. season at USC.
- "prestigious" I would omit.
- " was awarded the Offensive MVP." I know this is difficult phrasing, but this is not the best, in my view. How offensive was he?
- "After only starting sixteen games for the Trojans," Perhaps "Although many considered him too inexperienced"
- "and became" becoming
- Can something be said in the lede about media attention towards Sanchez in New York?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the "well-disciplined" adds to the fact that he is a leader however, we can debate this further upon your return. As far as the media attention is concerned, we could possibly do this unfortunately, most of the article I have found so far only make mention, or rather, obsess over his love life. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more.
- Early life
- Given modern day lifestyles, I would add his parents' last name.
- Hey, I got an FAC going about a guy from Whittier too! Something about the water there. That being said, if he departed those happy climes as it seems before the age of six, I would not use the term "grew up".
- There is no objection to referring to a child by his first name, up to the age of 18. However, you should be consistent in whether you are calling him "Mark" or "Sanchez"
- Link Orange County, California.
- "raised them under firm discipline that called on them to be leaders and communicators." Perhaps "raised them strictly, seeking to influence them to become leaders and communicators". But I warn you, the term "communicators" may not lead to full understanding of what you mean. You might want to cut it off with "leaders", that has a good vibe, given we're discussing a QB here. Also, I would move this sentence to be the lead sentence of the next paragraph."
- "Throughout his childhood " This sentence does too much. Split it into at least two.
- "coaches Bill Cunerty and Bob Johnson" as these guys are not linked, I imagine they are not notable. Accordingly, you may want to describe who they are, briefly. As in "West Beverly Hills High School football coach ..."
- "informed the family" He didn't die in Iraq! Perhaps "opined" or "stated".
- " could potentially" I would strike the word potentially, but I don't feel strongly about it.
- "skills and drills". Unrhyme.
- "to further his football career" I hesitate to use the word career referring to high schoolers. Perhaps "would become a better football player" or some such.
- "Sanchez, who was attending Santa Margarita High School, joined the football team and during his first pass attempt as a sophomore, Sanchez threw a 55-yard touchdown" The second part of this is significant enough that it should be its own sentence. As for Johnson, the reader does not need to be so heavily reminded of his role in having him play QB. You should be able to fold it into the first sentence, perhaps wrapping it up "where Johnson, recognized as a 'quarterback guru', was head coach."
Piecemeal, I fear, but I'll get this done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Going back to high school
- "high school career in 2005" Graduation or last game? Needs clarification.
- College
- "Sanchez was well regarded upon his arrival at USC." The meaning of this may be unclear.
- I would spell out that the other two QBs were upperclassmen. You do imply it by "returning". Also throw a 2005 in there and a pipe to the article on USC's football season that year, for sure there is one!
- " instead took a redshirt season" Needless jargon, perhaps say that as he did not play, he was allowed to preserve the year of eligibility, and then use redshirt as an alternative term.
- "remaining subject to team-related discipline" better, "though he was disciplined by the football team for ..."
- "fake identification" "false identification"
- "once junior Booty" "once Booty, a junior"
- after the first day of Spring practice, This reads very oddly, after the first day? I would tie it to Booty's injury, or perhaps "once it was clear that Booty would require surgery following an injury sustained on ..." You get the idea.
- No matter how you slice it, seasons of the year, in isolation, are lower case. Even with spring practice. And the international readers' case becomes stronger as it is clear that none of the use of Spring or Fall are properly capped, like "Spring Practice" would be if it were to be capitalized. You might want to research the propriety of using that term.
- How can there by a Fall training camp when colleges play from late August to mid January these days, if they are good? And USC was.
- When did Sanchez get in games in 2007? Mop up situations? It is unclear why you are mentioning first games in which he did not throw a pass, then games in which he did. Surely the latter are the more notable and should be listed first?
- "subsequently " delete, adds nothing.
- I think the mention of Sanchez's being made starting quarterback. You might want to mention Carroll appointed him. You might want to mention, in the Jets part of the article that Carroll once, in a manner of speaking, and at least officially, "coached" the Jets, so to speak, allegedly. (I do not remember the 1994 season fondly).
- Arkansas-transfer and former Razorback starter Mitch Mustain" Why the "Arkansas transfer" The whole phrasing seems forced, I would reverse the two QBs and introduce Mustain more easily "Mitch Mustain, a transfer from Arkansas, where he had been the starting quarterback."
- "Mustain, similarly to Sanchez, was " "Mustain, like Sanchez, had been"
- "the coaches". Another good place to mention that incompetent pretender at "coaching".
- " thumb on his right hand" "right thumb"? Simplify, simplify, this is a good thing to notice when you read the article out loud to yourself.
- "the senior Booty" I just don't think class years work well this way, and also, you've already told the reader Booty's year in school, and they are capable of figuring out that he will be a senior a year after he's a junior.
- " at an away game against Oregon" in an away game ...
- "course of the season". It's unclear whether you mean the whole season or just the part after Booty returned. Please clarify.
- "were able to immediately put the kneecap back into place" A braver man than I, Sanchez, but I would strike "were able to".
- " opener against Virginia during the final scrimmage of Fall camp." This seems contradictory, was it a game or a scrimmage? Prose is murky here!
- "early Heisman consideration." The word "consideration" seems a bit much; the voting did not take place for months afterwards. At most "mentions", and you may want to look for a more specific word.
- There is more description of USC's season in that image caption than in the article! Surely that should not be. You need to establish how they got to the Rose Bowl (Who said "The Pasadena Freeway"?)
- You list three quarterbacks, and two years in school. "Respectively" will not work here.
- Since the draft occurred before graduation, I'd guess he finished work on his degree, rather than the degree itself. before the draft.
- Having the Marinovich mention where it is makes it sound like trivia. Why not move it to before the mention of Carroll being against Sanchez's leaving, then it sounds like a stand taken by USC coaches.
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:19, 4 August 2011 [13].
Pretty on the Inside
- Nominator(s): Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is well-written, provides adequate information on the subject, has a neutral POV, and is comprehensive and informative enough to be considered FA status. It is well-sourced with reliable web citations as well as magazine and other sources. I am very well-informed on the topic and the music featured on the album, and I think the article lives up to FA status as far as music history and significance go. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a malformed nomination page that was never transcluded to WP:FAC. I'll begin fixing the mess now. Please read and follow FAC instructions in the future. Transcluded 3 August 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unfortunately I don't feel this article currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
- Uncited statements, for example "She also cited her work as a dancer as being one of many inspirations for the songs on Pretty on the Inside: "I was blonde, wore makeup, had to support my band by dancing, and had to play this ridiculous archetype at work... so I took, you know, high heels and white pumps, and I had a wiglet— I just took that and messed with it.""
- Wikilinking issues, mostly overlinking
- Incomplete and inconsistent citations, a few non-high-quality sources
- Some unclear, awkward or ungrammatical prose, for example "she picked Erlandson because he had a "Thurston Moore quality about him", and that he played guitar"
- File:Pretty_on_the_Inside_clip.ogg: based on the length given for the original track, a proper sample should be no longer than 8 seconds. Also, needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have to agree with Nikki that the article is not ready for FAC. Apart from the points that she raises, there are the following relating to sources, just from the first 20 or so I looked at:-
- Refs 2, 3 and others use "pp." for single page numbers
- Source medium is not clear in refs 5 and 15
- Ref 7 lacks a publisher
- No source details given for ref 14, also "pg." instead of "p."
- Ref 17 lacks a page reference
- Ref 19: non-standard format - title should be before publisher. Also page number missing
- Ref 21: retrieval date missing
I haven't looked at the remaining 40 or so refs, but there are sure to be other issues. On a different point entirely, I think there is a misunderstanding about the function of the lead section. This is supposed to be a broad summary of the main article; at present it contains too much detail and too many quotations that would be better placed in te main article. I note that the article has not received a peer review, and strongly recommend that it be reviewed at WP:PR before being brought back here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:19, 3 August 2011 [14].
Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)
You all probably know this song for its catchy hook and/or its viral dance video. As for the article, it has been through another PR since the last FAC, and the prose has been tightened up. Now, comment away! —Andrewstalk 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again - the article has been improved since its previous nomination, but in my opinion it still does not meet the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
- WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times
- Unlinked some terms. At present items are linked once in lead, once in prose body and linked in refs (first time), tables etc. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More work needed. On a quick look I see alter ego, Black Entertainment Television, Eye Weekly, and Saturday Night Live linked at least twice each in article body. Also, wikilinking is not consistently done first-time-only in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlinked some terms. At present items are linked once in lead, once in prose body and linked in refs (first time), tables etc. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"hand clap" or "handclaps"? "J-Setting" or "J-setting"?Check for internal consistencyFile:Singleladies.ogg: "purpose of use" needs improvement, particularly given the sample's placement in the Composition sectionFile:Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)_screenshot.jpg: who holds copyright to this screenshot?"Both singles were sent to rhythmic contemporary radio on October 12, 2008,[13] and "Single Ladies" was also sent to Urban contemporary radio the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead sent to contemporary hit radio" - what does this mean?- Attempted to clarify. I think readers will need to read the linked article to understand the concept fully. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, and unfortunately I'm still confused. Can you explain what you want to convey with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the radio industry, record labels pay to add songs to a playlist—a pool of songs from which radio stations play. In the US there are distinct radio formats (urban/rhythmic/contemporary/adult etc), and each format has a different playlist. What this text means is that SL was added to the playlists of urban rhythmic radio formats, while "If I Were a Boy" was added to contemporary hit radio. If this is still unclear I will try to find another editor who understands the concept more clearly and have them explain it. —Andrewstalk 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, what if you phrased it like "Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008;[13] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day,[14] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio." or similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the radio industry, record labels pay to add songs to a playlist—a pool of songs from which radio stations play. In the US there are distinct radio formats (urban/rhythmic/contemporary/adult etc), and each format has a different playlist. What this text means is that SL was added to the playlists of urban rhythmic radio formats, while "If I Were a Boy" was added to contemporary hit radio. If this is still unclear I will try to find another editor who understands the concept more clearly and have them explain it. —Andrewstalk 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, and unfortunately I'm still confused. Can you explain what you want to convey with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rephrased it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attempted to clarify. I think readers will need to read the linked article to understand the concept fully. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is in need of further copy-editing for clarity, tone and flow. Some examples: "recently put a stop to a bad relationship" - not encyclopedic in tone; "thus Knowles became the seventh female in the US to have two songs in the top five positions of the Hot 100.[68] The following week, "Single Ladies" ascended to number one on the Hot 100 chart, selling 228,000 downloads, and thus became Knowles' fifth solo" - repetitive; etc
- Cleaned up. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those specific examples are done, but this is a general point. I would suggest you find a non-music editor to read it over if possible; if not, you might try reading it out loud to see if you can hear places where the prose is lacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: "As at November 2009...")[reply]
- Cleaned up. —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in what is italicized when.Check for other WP:MOS issues- Can you be more specific, or give an example? —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, why is "audio" italicized in ref 91? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the way {{cite interview}} formats it, however the source is not actually an interview so I changed to {{cite audio}}. —Andrewstalk 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, another example: should Fuse TV be italicized or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the way {{cite interview}} formats it, however the source is not actually an interview so I changed to {{cite audio}}. —Andrewstalk 00:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, why is "audio" italicized in ref 91? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific, or give an example? —Andrewstalk 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
- Paul Grein (Yahoo!) was an editor for Billboard for a long time, and his data is taken directly from Nielsen SoundScan numbers. Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. The other two have been replaced. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation formatting needs editing for consistency. For example: compare refs 9 and 10, italicization should be reversed on ref 108, compare refs 3 and 112, compare refs 33 and 128, etc
- Done a few, will finish soon. Billboard has two different publishers because it changed hands in Dec 09. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Billboard inconsistency I knew about. There are still quite a few others, though, so don't give up yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Rechecked 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC), not done. Further example: be consistent in whether or not you include a retrieval date when you include an archive date)[reply]
- Done a few, will finish soon. Billboard has two different publishers because it changed hands in Dec 09. —Andrewstalk 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 162: page(s)?- Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
This link says "the requested page is currently unavailable or not found".
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. In that case, can you clarify what makes it a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. —Andrewstalk 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. In that case, can you clarify what makes it a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck some, more work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - UK situation poorly researched and unverified. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read the source: "In the US she trailed the album with two separate singles - one from each side - but things were played more cautiously over here. We got the classic balladry of 'If I Were A Boy', but not the club-pop throb of 'Single Ladies'. Until now. 'Single Ladies' has proved so popular, cracking the top ten on downloads from the album, that it's been granted an official release - as a download-only single." I have reverted your addition of {{OR}} and {{fv}}. Thank you —Andrewstalk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Hi Jivesh and Andrew and habitues here at FAC. Am I allowed to support or oppose? I am member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Anyways, here are my comments
-
No citations please in the lead. WP:LEAD.
- Per WP:LEADCITE some claims need refs in lead. Quotes should always have cites directly afterwards. The sales numbers in the lead have been contested in the past, so I added the cites to maintain stability and verifiability. —Andrewstalk 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Some critics noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied". I can see onlyonetwo, and why the mention in the lead? "Single" is compared to a lot of Beyonce's songs. Thought this might have been compared with "Independent" (other female empowerment-themed songs) in lyrical interpretation- The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. Are we gonna enumerate all those countries?
*I though the term certified should have been linked to Music recording sales certification instead of RIAA certification?- The RIAA one is linked because it specifically refers to the US cert. Later on it links to Music recording sales certification
*The video achieved great success How do we qualify the term great? Might be POVish.- Tense issues: "Single Ladies" won numerous awards" it might still earn Knowles awards. "Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States the single I believe is still selling.
*Inconsistencies: United States and US.*"Single Ladies" was a commercial success in the United States, and peaked at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Perhaps the use of and here is incorrect.*The-Dream's main inspiration for the song was Knowles' engagement to Jay-Z. The source says this was recorded after their marriage.- First sections doesn't flow very well. Writing -> Mixing -> Inclusion in the CD -> Inspiration -> Wedding -> Recording -> Inspiration -> etc...
-
- Still not smooth. Production (mixing) was relegated to the second para, which is an unlikely place where this info should be. Perhaps you could create another para for the production, so 1 for production, 1 for inspiration, 1 for release. Also, you could merge that block quote. --Efe (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS issues:
- Placement of quotation marks: That's where Dream got that concept from". Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.
*Italics: People Magazine to People magazine
- The live performance section is trivia-like. Perhaps needs re-org and expound those with importance.
That's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional
-
- No mention of J-setting in the lead
*There's a review included in the lead, its not supposed to represent the view of other reviewers/ people in general.
--Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional
-
- Why is it that Stewart's photo is in the article? What is the basis? How about the other contributor's to the song?
- Further informs readers and helps to identify person(s) key to the song. I have added an image of The-Dream, as he and Stewart produced the song. I have asked the copyright holder of this image to release it under a free license; if he does, I will add it and a pic of Knowles as the four writers of the song. —Andrewstalk 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be interesting if you could provide a free photo of the ring and/or glove.
--Efe (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot support/oppose but here are some comments: Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
"Single Ladies" was a commercial success -> "was" does not seem appropiate."digital downloads in the US" -> "US" is redundant as "in the United States" and "by the RIAA" has been mentioned.Per WP:LEAD, cites are unneeded here, excepting those listed at WP:LEADCITE.- The sales numbers in leads often have {{cn}} tags added when without refs, so it is better for stability reasons. Also, it's better to undercite than overcite, and it helps readers locate the reference source more easily. The third ref verifies an opinionative quote. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Composition
- "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Alfred Music Publishing," According to this, it was published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, not AMP
- Recognition and accolades
""Single Ladies" contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; -> this needs a source, if it is somebody's commentary, then rephrase it to "it was/is/has been noted by whom that SL ..."and in the "Record of the Year" category at the 2009 Premios Oye! Awards." -> There are two "Record of the Year" categories.
- Response and accolades
"and it was ranked at number 4 on BET's Notarized: Top 100 Videos of 2008 countdown,[109] and at number 3 on VH1's Top 40" -> WP:NUMBERS written below 10 are written out.
- Cultural impact
"included in her live album, I Am... World Tour (2010)" -> (2010) was mentioned when the album was linked
- Usage in media
Link mash-up, as far as I know it is not a common word.
- Cover versions
- References
Refs 13 and 14 -> According to Radio & Records VNU Media published them.
Refs 18, 19, 22, 23, 95, 119, 157 and 159 are publisher by Amazon.com Inc.
- Refs 29, 75, 118, 152, 155 are published by Rovi Corporation
- These refs use {{Allmusic}}, so I cannot add the publisher. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can. See Halo_(Beyoncé_Knowles_song)#cite_ref-65. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These refs use {{Allmusic}}, so I cannot add the publisher. —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 is published by Contactmusic.com Ltd.- Self-published source, we don't need to add the names of publications that are published by their own companies
Ref 55 is published by ViacomRef 61 is published by the Consejo de la Comunicación- New Sabah Times says it's published by Inna Kinabalu Sdn Bhd; where did you find Consejo de la Comunicación? —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- lol, wrong number, I meant the Premios Oye!. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My error, again, Los Premios Oye! are presented by the Academia Nacional de la Música en México and transmited by the Consejo de la Comunicación. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New Sabah Times says it's published by Inna Kinabalu Sdn Bhd; where did you find Consejo de la Comunicación? —Andrewstalk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 99, NPR was linked at ref 91; NPR is published by National Public Radio, Inc.
Media Review
I put one of the images into a Template:Information page. The only other issue is that the quality of File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg is abysmal. Please consider doing it over (the video must be online). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Andrewstalk 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [15].
Białystok
I am nominating the Białystok article for FAC. Białystok is the largest city in northeastern Poland and is the capital of the Podlaskie Voivodeship, and has seen a significant number of political boundary changes over the last 500 years. The article is currently a good article which has gone through a rather extensive review during the GA process and with WikiProject Poland at B-Class review. I think this article is at or near the featured article standard. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
- Manual of Style issues, including hyphens/dashes and overlinking
- Some instances of unclear and awkward prose. The article may benefit from being read by an experienced copy-editor
- Given the length of the article, the lead should be at least 3 paragraphs long
- Don't sandwich text between images and don't stack images
- File:Bialystok_seal.png: don't use Wikipedia as a source, especially since that particular page has been deleted
- File:POL_Białystok_COA.svg: source?
- Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
- There are a number of bulleted lists that should be written as prose
- Citations should be complete: all web citations need publishers, all book sources need page numbers, etc
- Citation formatting needs to be much more consistent
Suggest withdrawal to allow time for the article's issues to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments/question in regard to lede length. The lede IS 3 paragraphs long. I'm also wondering what you're basing this criteria on. I have looked through a number of FAs (granted, they were Military Hist FAs) and the relationship between article length and article lede is very weak [16]. The "average" relationship is given by: length of lede = 1560+.016*length of article net of lede. Since the article length, net of lede, is 25721 characters, this would mean that this article's lede, were it to fit the "average" exactly, would have a lede of 1971 characters. It's lede is 2547 characters, so if anything, the lede is longer than average for an FA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third paragraph was just added by the nominator. In response to your questions at my talk: the first image originally listed a Wikipedia page as a source, and the second image listed no source. Both issues have since been addressed by the nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments/question in regard to lede length. The lede IS 3 paragraphs long. I'm also wondering what you're basing this criteria on. I have looked through a number of FAs (granted, they were Military Hist FAs) and the relationship between article length and article lede is very weak [16]. The "average" relationship is given by: length of lede = 1560+.016*length of article net of lede. Since the article length, net of lede, is 25721 characters, this would mean that this article's lede, were it to fit the "average" exactly, would have a lede of 1971 characters. It's lede is 2547 characters, so if anything, the lede is longer than average for an FA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just like my voting predecessor, I also suggest quick withdrawal, and a slower, more meticulous pace of some very basic but badly needed improvements. The article is nowhere near the standard city FA in English. I already told the nominator once, get the "osiedla" and twin cities out of the infobox (check out the Help:Infobox and read some FAs for guidance, like Cleveland and Washington, D.C.). Anyhow, the History and the Economy are the worst. The barrage of bullets, stubby paras, one-lines, gaps and substandard prose are totally unacceptable at this level. — Raczko (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So where is the definition of Standard City FA in the MOS? The twin cities inclusion in the infobox is a valid field entry in the settlement template. I see no appreciable difference between the article and say, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you trying to say Ajh1492? The infobox of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania doesn't show its smallest neighborhoods comparable with "osiedla", and the superfluous twin cities. The History section is well written and properly subdivided. The article doesn't have gaps, stubby sentences, one-line paras, tons of bullets in place of comprehensive prose, entire blocks of refs without publisher, etc. No need for an FA definition to see some of the most glaring inadequacies here. — Raczko (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) There is no definition of "Standard City FA" in the MoS. However, looking at other city FAs can give an idea of the standard required, and there are significant appreciable differences between this article and the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article needs a lot of work on the prose alone, in fact I don't even think it meets the GA criteria. A few examples:
- "Białystok has traditionally been one of the leading center of academic, cultural and artistic life ..."
- "Białystok has been a destination for internal and foreign immigration".
- "Archaeological discoveries show that the first people settled on the territory of present-day Białystok already in the Stone Age".
- "... built Branicki Palace on the foundations of former defensive castle of the Wiesiołowski family".
- "After the war the city became part of newly independent Second Polish Republic".
- "In the nineteenth century Białystok was an important center for light industry and was the reason for the substantial growth of the city's population."
Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest withdrawal - I concede I was too lenient/sloppy with the GA review and there is a lot of work needs doing. It will take at least a few days to sort this out. To the nominator, treat this as a mini-peer review as there is a lot of work listed in a few posts, and come back to FAC with a clean slate in two weeks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:43, 3 August 2011 [17].
Wishology
I hope Wishology is ready for its first FAC. The article went through a successful GA nomination and two peer reviews. I have checked this article against the FA criteria, and I personally think it satisfies (i.e. refs, images tagged, etc.), though I could have missed a few things here and there (as with everyone, I'm not perfect ;D). The article prose may be an issue, as pointed out by H1nkles in the article's second peer review, but hopefully a few copy-editing suggestions will help remedy that issue as much as possible.
With all that said, I wish this article good luck. 89119 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You indicated at the above-referenced peer review
and there have been no edits since then. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; if the article is not FAC-ready, this is not the place for peer review or improvements, and articles that don't meet criteria shouldn't be nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for your very detailed and thorough comments! I fixed them to the best of my ability and will plan to find a copy-editor as you suggested. 89119 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did submit a request to GOCE here, but no one did any copy-edits yet, and I doubt that would happen any time soon. I know, I'm being a little impatient on that. Sure, FAC isn't peer review, but if people feel an FAC currently does not meet FA-criteria, they would leave specific critical remarks, and I think that criticism here would help improve the article closer to success in its next FAC nomination. 89119 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but Sandy's right: FAC isn't peer review, and this article isn't currently FAC-ready. Here are some specific concerns:
- Awkward and unclear prose, grammatical errors, for example "parts 1 and 3 of Wishology was viewed". You might consider having someone from WP:GOCE copy-edit the article
- Fixed the grammatical error. As for the GOCE, that's what I'm trying to do so far. Again, if I'm being impatient because I'm requesting a copy-edit from the GOCE and nominating the article here at FAC simultaneously, I apologize. 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange shifts in tense, for example "The trilogy is written by...and was directed by..."
- WP:MOS issues, for example inconsistent italicization and capitalization
- Over-emphasis on cultural references
- I personally think every cultural reference made in the episode is equally important, like how in Family Guy FA "Road to the Multiverse each of its own cultural references is equally important. Thus, every cultural reference that can be reliably sourced is listed in the article's "Cultrural references" section. For the Wishology article, the only reason why the article seems to overemphasize the "Cultrual references" section is because the Wishology episode just happens to have a lot of them, given that the episode is reliant on them and is three hours long (with commerical breaks). Anyways, do you feel the section still need to be be condensed, given the reasoning above? If so, which cultural references should be removed? 89119 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heavy reliance on primary sources
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
- Inconsistencies in reference formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review Everything is good from copyright and caption standpoints, however I'm not sure I like the George Lucas image being in the article, (actually I quite dislike its usage). It strikes me as having an image there for the sake of having an image there. He wasn't involved in the movie at all, his only relation to it is an akward tie in, that he created something that was referenced in the film. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.