Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive4

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 03:49, 5 December 2011 [1].

S&M (song)

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... from what I have gathered from the last FAC, the only thing which (in some people's opinion) seems to be a problem is the length of the Background section. I'd like to say that there is no Background information missing, this is everything. And this article should not be Opposed purely on the basis that it might be too short for a few peoples preference. All that should matter is that all of the Background info is there, so I don't really see why it is a problem. I really don't think there is much that could hold this article back now for being Supported, I mean: 2 Peer Reviews, 3 GANs and 3 FACs! lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1a, prose): I don't think the above nom statement shows an understanding as to why this article regularly fails its FACs (this is its fourth). I have just read it through for the first time; there are still basic errors in the prose, such as I have listed below:-

  • "Under her stage Sandy Vee": Missing word
  • "as her albums fourth...": Missing apostrophe
  • A sentence should not begin and end with the same words, thus: "The video ... the video" and later "The music video ... the music video"
    Where is this? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the lyrics should not be construed as too literally..." doesn't make sense. Remove "as"
  • "S&M received garnered mixed responses..." Either "received" or "garnered", not both.
  • "In Poland, the song peaked at number one on the Polish Singles Chart..." The words "In Poland" are unnecessary, as are the words "In Denmark" and "In France" which begin subsequent sentences
  • "eighty-seven" requires a hyphen. If you are going to spell all numbers out, for whatever reason, you need to be consistent about this throughout the article.
    Why "19-year history" when other numbers are written out? Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of this: S&M was Rihanna's 8th No. 1 hit, "making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's 19-year history". Later in the same paragraph: "Rihanna also logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history..." How does that reconcile with te earlier statement?
    Where does it say 8th? I just did a Ctrl+F and it returned nothing. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the general reader, what is the "bridge" of a song?
    Not yet explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone doesn't know, then they can just click on the link? I don't think it's right to explain what a bridge is of a song in the music video section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same general reader, what are "daddy issues"?
    We don't know, it's something that is projected onto the wall in the video. It's never been explained what it means. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the postpositive context "was generally well-received", no hyphen should be used.
  • "Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of New York's Southern District Court denied a motion to dismiss the copyright violation allegations,[62] however, noting many similarities between the works" The word "however" makes no sense in this sentence.
  • "The lawsuit was resolved on October 19, 2011, which resulted in Rihanna..." Wrong construction. What you mean is "The resolution of the lawsuit, on October 19, 2011, resulted in Rihanna..."
  • "an disclosed sum of money"; do you mean "an undisclosed sum of money"?
  • "based on the fact that" is a verbose way of saying "because"
  • Multiple issues with this: "Paris-based photographer Philipp Paulus later sued as well, alleging further copyright violations, with regard to a scene in the music video where Rihanna wears a large dress and is taped to the wall with a plastic sheet covering of her". Do't say "as well", say who he sued; lose the comma after "copyright violations" and sort out "a plastic sheet covering of her".
    Well, the sheet does cover her in the video. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of an overcomplicated and clumsily worded sentence: "This was due to the BRIT Awards corporation trying to avoid receiving similar complaints about Rihanna on the final of the seventh series of The X Factor on December 11, 2010, for wearing a provocative outfit and performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed."[67]
    You've not attempted to reword this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" while she spanked, groped and pretended to smack three semi-nude female dancers, with a cane." Fascinating, I'm sure, but to which part of her activities do the words "with a cane" belong? In my admittedly very limited experience, you don't grope or "pretend to smack" using a cane.
    Lol, you're funny. And yes it was fascinating. I've seen her do it twice live. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think you need to rephrase, however: ""Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" with three semi-nude female dancers whom she spanked, groped, and pretended to smack with a cane."

This is not necessarily a full list, but these are the issues that jumped out. This is by no means a poor article: "poorly-finished", perhaps, but in terms of its coverage of the topic it certainly seems adequate. If the source and image reviews are in order (I've not looked at these aspects) I can see this crossing the line. Please do not respond to my points with bolded statements, and keep calm. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to three points which I would like you to clarify further. Other than that, I've done all of your points. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is only two short paragraphs that is actually about the song (in the "Background and composition" section). This cannot be one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. And even then, the information in this section is made up entirely of quotations. Don't say that this is all there is about the song; the truth is that it is either poorly researched, or the sources aren't being used to their fullest potential. I did a google search, and within 3 minutes found "Ester Dean Talks Solo Career, Writing 'S&M' and 'Firework'", from Billboard, in which the main songwriter spoke about composing the song; I found "'RUDE BOY' WRITER ESTER DEAN ON PENNING HITS FOR RIHANNA, USHER", which does not necessarily mention the song, but goes into great detail about the mental processes of the songwriter when she composes songs for Rihanna; and I found "Rihanna, "S&M"", again from Billboard. Obviously something can be salvaged from these sources. And you can obviously do more in depth research. At least mention in sentence form that the song was written by xxx, and produced by xxx, and mixed and recorded by xxx, and mastered by xxx!! That's what the Background and composition" section is for. Stop bringing rushed, half-finished articles to FAC.
    On an entirely different note, a sentence reads "Jake Conway of Yale LGBT magazine Q wrote that the song's lyrics showed that...", yet the Q magazine linked to is a rock/indie magazine from the UK, and not a "Yale LGBT magazine".
    And lastly, your references are unformatted, and have the garish red text that reads "Cite error: Invalid ref tag..." Orane (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'd like some civility please. I have added the DeanBillboard interview. Also, The Boom Box site which talks about the writing process behind Dean's work is what I had used in "Rude Boy", so I have re-adjusted it to make it fit in with S&M. And the third site you provided isn't really Background info, it's just someones opinion that they have fabricated; Dean does not just specialise in writing "provocative pop". I have added who wrote and produced the song as well. I have removed "Yale LGBT magazine". And lastly, the reference which you said was coded red was actually formatted near on perfectly; all I had forgotten to do was ad ".." to the ref name. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

First off, you're welcome for the sources. I know you didn't ask me to find them, but a simple thank you would be appropriate here. My oppose remains because the background section is now 90% quotations, and 10% actual prose; also oppose because of prose concerns that have been raised: A few examples

  • "It reached number one in its fourth week on the chart and stayed at its peak position for weeks." How many weeks exactly? Sentence feels like it's missing something.
  • "Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history, a stretch of four years, eleven months and two weeks." Maybe a colon of emdash between the record she broke, and the time she took to do it (i.e. between history and eleven).
  • ""S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one hit on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's nineteen-year history." Doesn't make sense. Also echo Moisejp's comments below. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orane (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I can't help but think you have done here with some pre-conceived ideas, which should be left behind. I know what's been going on. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Calvin the prose is not FA quality. Here are a few observations and tips that I think will make your good writing sparkle and reach the professional level of accuracy and style required.

  • First delete every occurrence of "also" and then critically ask yourself is the word needed in the sentence. The reason why this will help to improve the flow of the prose are given here under "Additive terms".
    Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • I have mentioned the problem of fused participles to you elsewhere, Tony explains why they should be avoided here; this is one, "The video opens with Rihanna being dragged kicking and resisting into a press conference". Often, the use of this construction is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the sentence, which is a problem here.
    Doing. As I don't know what you mean by fused particle. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    The link I gave explains, with examples, what they are. Tony calls these constructions "noun plus -ing". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know, that's why I said "doing". Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some word choices need to be improved. Here, "lost some of the appeal which" should be "lacked some of the appeal that" and colloquial phrases such as "a bit of", "biker chick" and "motorcycle prop" are not found in FAs.
    Have removed "a bit of" and "prop". But Biker chic is a style of clothing, which describes what the feel of Britney's performance is, so I don't know what you expect me to change to. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "with Spears as a biker chick". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have put it into quotations, as that is how she was described as by the writer of the article. I don't know how else you want me to write it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many phrases that are untidy and confusing. This is one example, "with the performance beginning with the stage decorated as an S&M-inspired set". There is another fused participle here, which doesn't help, but there are other problems such as the two occurrences of "with" and is "inspired" the best word here?
    Removed with and inspired, reworded sentence. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • This sentence needs to have a connector to link it to the previous sentence, "The singer had been criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed." You could use a simple "Then," (but don't forget the all-important comma).
    I was told to do that above, but I don't think it reads right? It's ambiguous as to which tense it is talking about. But as you are the second person to say, I'll add it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    I suspect you haven't recognised the power of that humble comma in it's ability to refer readers to the immediate past rather than than the immediate future. 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    Lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is generic advice that needs to be applied throughout the article – addressing the examples given alone will not bring the quality of the prose up to FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, when I've addressed those 5 points you will Oppose anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, the simple edits that you have made this afternoon have improved the article greatly. Please don't presume and try to work with the reviewers and, as Brian says above, above all keep calm. Graham Colm (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping calm, can't you tell? Lol. But what I'm saying is, you've said that more needs to be done, but haven't said what those things are, which means your vote will stay as an Oppose. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, I think what Graham Colm is saying is that if you really want this FA bad enough, you should take the initiative yourself to go through line by line and ask yourself critically "Is this the clearest, most concise, most professional way to express this idea?" You always come into these reviews with the attitude that the Wikipedia community owes you FAs and GAs and Keeps, and that if they don't give them to you, it's because they're out to get you. They're not out to get you. They're trying to give you constructive criticism to help you bring your articles to certain standards agreed by the Wikipedia community. I think Graham Colm is saying that he, as a volunteer like all of us, may not have time to highlight every single instance that could be improved, but that if you take the time to look for other similar instances, you might find them. Calvin, all of the people above have opposed based on prose issues. Instead of thinking, "They're all out to get me," what if you took a more humble, positive approach and thought, "Oh, this is great. All these people have generously given up their time to point out some weaknesses of my writing. Great, I can use this to become a better writer, and all of my future articles will be better for it." Moisejp (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually being serious? I can't believe you just said that. When have I said "They're all out to get me,". I have addressed all of the points. I've had a really shit couple of days and I don't need someone saying things like that to me. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, that was good advice; please do not let your penchant for gut reactions and appeals for sympathy drive away much needed reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that I've had 3 people review on this FAC, last time it got closed after a few days. But I don't like how people think that of me. Of course I want people to comment. When I see people have commented, I do the points straight away, no one can deny that, and I don't look for or expect sympathy. I say things how they are. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Calvin. I can see there's no getting through to you, and I won't try again. Peace, Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Graham Colm (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Have replied to some. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many basic errors can you spot in this recently added sentence, "Rihanna explained in an interview for Spin magazine that the lyrics should not be construed too literally, explaining that she does not think of the song in a sexual way, but rather metaphorically, because of how it implies that people can talk about someone but it cannot be prevented, as well as saying that you have to be a strong person and not let peoples opinions get the better of you"?
  • And in this one "S&M" peaked inside the top-ten for ten consecutive weeks and spent a total of twenty-four weeks on the chart in total"?
  • And here,"It peaked number one two weeks later stayed at its peak position for five non-consecutive weeks"?

Graham Colm (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin, I have to point out before one of the FAC delegates comes down on us like a ton of bricks, that FAC is not the place to come to get articles fixed. They should be highly polished before nomination. Yes, some FACs last for weeks, but not because of the need to fix elementary grammatical and stylistic errors. You are not learning from your mistakes and reviewers are not going to follow you around to point them out. You are too used to the GA process (and I notice you are trying to deal with one concurrent with this nomination), but FAC is in an entirely different league. What do we have to say to convince you find some collaborators? You desperately need them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I know that FAC is not where one should come to get articles fixed, but as you know, S&M is my first attempt at getting an article to FA. I never thought it would have been this difficult to get it to that status, and there have been no two points the same in the 4 FACs, so I clearly am learning from them. This article has had an unbelievable amount of input from other editors, it really has. Look back over the last 6 months, so many editors have been involved. And I can't help that I am "used to the GA process", there's nothing that can be done about that. I'm sorry I'm not someone who is only concerned with FA and racks them up all the time and is used to the process article after article. I have learned a lot from these FACs, but as I've never (successfully) promoted one to FA, I don't know the full extent as to what an FA looks like which I have written. And saying to look at other FAs hasn't helped me, as all FAs are different. As noted above, a lot of things come down to personal opinion, like the Background section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lengthy commentary above, I popped down to a random section and found:

  • It was remixed by several notable DJs, including Dave Audé, Joe Bermudez and Sidney Samson; these remixes were released as a digital remix package and made available to download via iTunes.

Do you see the problem? I've let this FAC run longer than usual, but the prose still needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 5 December 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)/archive4&oldid=1142499794"