Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 14:00, 27 July 2011 [1].

S&M (song)[edit]

S&M (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Calvin • 999 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have worked really hard on this article, and have been working on it a lot to bring it up to being an FAC. When I started editing it, it was a C status with a clean up banner in May, and I consistently worked on it to promote to GA status, which I did, with the help of a mentor. It has also been through a Peer Review within the past week, making sure everything (to my knowledge) has been sufficiently address in order to pass FAC, which I am now nominating for. Multiple people have looked over this article for me, all giving suggestions and opinions on how to improve, so it has had a lot of attention in terms of people giving an input and constructively criticising it. I love this song and really want to see it as an FA, showing how much I have worked on it, which is now leaps and bounds ahead of what it used to be from when I first started editing it. Am I allowed to write this much? lol. Thanks. Calvin • 999 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check WP:MOS issues like quotes within quotes
  • Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This?
    • Done. Idolator and Allaccess are reliable. They are used in loads of articles. Calvin • 999
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Can you provide WP:RSN or previous FACs that indicate their reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay I'll look for other sources. And I only striked out three of those "this?" so I knew which ones I had deleted, that's all. Calvin • 999
          • Okay. You haven't replaced all of these sources yet, do you plan to? As a general note, blogs are usually not considered high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I removed a few entirely as the info wasn't actually worth including. I think one or two are still there, which I am trying to find sources for. Calvin • 999
  • Be consistent in what is italicized
    • Done Calvin • 999
      • Not done. For example, Billboard is italicized in ref 69 but not 74. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC), 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers/magazines
  • Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
  • Use a consistent formatting for web citations
  • In general, check for consistency in formatting - for example, compare FNs 46 and 47
  • This link returns a 404 Not Found error - see here for a list of potentially problematic links
    • Ref 50? Hmm, this link works fine for me on the article. There is something wrong with your ref checker because ref 50 is fine, however ref 51 is the dead link, which has been removed. Calvin • 999
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • "Up for Discussion Jump to Forums" is not an author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
    • Done Calvin • 999
      • Not done, for example ref 77 vs 78
  • Check formatting on FN 85
  • All web citations need retrieval dates

Oppose until some of these issues have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, mostly on prose quality (1a)

  • "According "S&M" is written" - err, missing words?
  • "What on earth are "tonal nodes"? Reword or explain.
  • "the song's underlying message is about Rihanna's relationship with the media" - not mentioned in body of article and violates WP:LEAD
    • "Rihanna explained in an interview with Spin that people should not take the lyrics too literally. "I don't think of it in a sexual way, I'm thinking metaphorically ... it's more of a thing to say that people can talk ... people are going to talk about you, you can't stop that. You just have to be that strong person and know who you are so that stuff just bounces off. And I thought it was super bad ass."[10]" (Background section). Calvin • 999
      • That is WP:OR; "people can talk ... people are going to talk about you, you can't stop that. You just have to be that strong person and know who you are so that stuff just bounces off" doesn't translate to "the media". —Andrewstalk 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QUOTE - quote breaks (...) should have non-breaking spaces before and afterwards. Also try to avoid linking inside quotes.
    • This is for the quote from the background section yeah? I think I have done it right, please check. Calvin • 999
      • Huh? At the moment you have —, —, what you want is  ... . —Andrewstalk 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song also met with negative reviews." - not needed, as you have already stated that it received a mix of positive/negative reviews
  • "felt that the song lost some of the appeal that some of Rated R's" - 'some of the ... some of the' - repetitive
  • Why is 'sadomasochistic' in quote marks?
  • "[sic – the actual line is 'chains and whips']" - awkward. Try to rephrase so that you don't actually need the quote of Koski quoting the song's lyrics Andrewstalk 09:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is still quite rough. "Genevieve Koski of The A.V. Club also noted that Rihanna's "sassy growl" on 'S&M' barely makes up for the sexually provocative lyrics "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me"" - why is 'S&M' in inverted commas instead of quote marks? Why are the lyric italicised? "Barely makes up for" is a tad too close to the source. See WP:PARAPHRASE. —Andrewstalk 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose quality is very poor. I copyedited some sections[2] (which was reverted) as an example of the level of rewriting that is needed. The reception part of the article is particularly bad, in the form of Critic X commented, "A." Critic Y noted, "B." Critic Z stated, "C." That will basically need a rewrite from scratch. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I have not read the article "in full" but anyways I go over the article quickly and here are my comments, bases for my opposing:
  • It is not comprehensive. The article provides little information about the writing of the song, its musical structure, interpretation of its lyrics.
    • 1) There is no info about the conceptualisation or writing of the song. 2) There is sufficient info about the musical structure in the section: Sample, composition key, vocal range and chord progression. 3) There was info about the interpretation of lyrics, but the source was deemed unreliable. Calvin • 999
  • The first section is a mixture of too many topics, doesn't flow well. Try splitting them according to topic.
    • The Lead, you mean? How does it not flow? The first paragraph is about the song, the second about it's chart performance, and the third about the music video and live performances, which is also the order in which the proceeding sections are ordered in.
  • Too much trivia in some sections, like in the chart performance: "That same week, "S&M" logged a third week at number-one on the Hot 100 Airplay with 124 million audience impression" What makes this info important?
  • MOS issues. For instance, the use of decorative cquote templates in block quotations. Quotation marks are not used in block quotes. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Block_quotations.
    • There is nothing wrong with using those decorative quotes. It's not as if there are "" present in the actual quote itself. Calvin • 999
  • Missing quotation marks: "Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine gave a mixed review, noting, Admittedly it is a catchy tune" There supposed to be a quotation mark before Admittedly.
  • And misplaced quotation marks: Yet in all honesty, these days I'd be more shocked if her next single WASN'T about her sexual desires". I supposed that one should be written after the period. You may want to see the conventions here: Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside.
  • And misused quotation marks: "as bracingly huge and catchy as it is, "S&M" doesn’t deviate much from its blunt title: lyrics like 'Sticks and stones may break my bones / But chains and whips excite me' feel forced, not daring". That quotation mark for "S&M" should be single, not double. Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations_within_quotations
  • WP:NFCC#8 issues. The description in the audio sample states: "A 25-second sample of the song featuring Rihanna singing the lyrics, which have been noted by some critics as being "R-rated"." The addition perhaps of that specific line in the lyrics to the main prose would suffice somehow.
    • Done. All of your points Efe have been addressed. Calvin • 999 14:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Efe (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have addressed all points by all four reviewers. I think I have done all of your points now Nikki, please check, I could have missed something. Calvin • 999 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged unfixed points in my review with today's date. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So that's it? It hasn't met FAC criteria? Calvin • 999 22:37, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/S%26M_(song)/archive1&oldid=1140113962"