Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/What'd I Say/archive1

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 promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 20 October 2009 [1].

---

What'd I Say

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/What'd I Say/archive1

A curious thing about music articles: I write others to work out the stuff that I wish to understand. With that, I'd think that I would not want to hear the song anymore. I was late to work this morning because I couldn't move off my sofa when this song played. It's just fascinating, and the more I know about it, the more I hear stuff I've never heard before.

So, for you, finally, the sweet sounds of love: a really short article from me about a very famous song. If you don't know it, go download it right now and do not delay any further. And a note to someone who may be able to assist. I would like to add two sound files to this article. I downloaded Audacity but it does not seem to function on my Mac. I asked at WP:SONGS, User:Filll, and User:Scartol, but everyone is apparently really busy. Bummer. If you know how to insert sound files, I would very much appreciate assistance with inserting two for this article. I do not think the article is complete without them. It'll make you feel all right now... Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick Comment - sorry but the prose seems rushed. I don't like the Lead. A song is not released, but a recording of it is. Why do we have have "multiple" instead of a simple and gracious "many"? With regard to the (ugly)"divided into two parts", do we need this in the Lead? I suspect the division was made so it could fit on two sides of a vinyl recording. I don't know. How about something along these lines:

"Recorded in 1959, "What'd I Say" or "What I Say" is a song performed by rhythm and blues (R&B) musician Ray Charles. The song was originally improvised live one evening late in 1958 when Charles, his orchestra, and backup singers had played their entire set but still had time left; the response to the song from the audience, and those at future shows, was so enthusiastic that Charles told his producer that he was going to record it." Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the song on albums is listed as What'd I Say Part I and Part II. It's still listed this way in iTunes and some versions on Limewire. Readers will come to the article looking for this connection. I think it should be included in the lead.

Your statement, A song is not released, but a recording of it is. has me blinking in confusion. How is a song not released?

A song is written; a record is released. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But isn't a song also released, particularly now in the era of digital media? The term "record" is no longer used since vinyl is virtually obsolete. Could the same be said for a book? A book is written, but the binding and paper is released? Might this be a British/American thing? I'm not trying to be difficult; I simply have never heard of such a severe delineation for "song" and "release".

Moni, it might be a British/American thing; it might even be an age thing (for me! shock!) But we, at least us in the UK, don't say "song releaser", we say "song writer". This is no big deal by the way. I have only read the Lead. It was, just a quick comment. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem changing multiple to many, but in the same vein, they are synonymous and...oh, I'll just change it. Done. Some general tweaking to the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support with a few comments:

• The single cover needs alt text to describe what it shows. This can be added using the parameter in {{Infobox Single}}.
• One dablink (Money Honey) needs fixed
• I remember being told that Rock on the Net is an unreliable source. Instead, you could use this (from The San Diego Union-Tribune) for the No. 43 VH1 ranking, and this (from USA Today) for the No. 96 VH1 ranking. The latter link also mentions the song being the oldest in the 100 Greatest Dance Songs list, so you won't have to remove that.

Everything else looks good to me. Pyrrhus16 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation done.

alt text added.

Vh1 references hidden until I can find better sources. Did not know about rockonthenet. First music article. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: Sole fair use image seems appropriate. NW (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Source comments Refs, links, dabs all fine. RB88 (T) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a great song and the article meets the FAC criteria. I have a few quibbles:

• Would this read better with a "the" added? Ray Charles was 27 years old in 1958, with ten years of experience recording primarily rhythm and blues (R&B) music for [the] Downbeat and Swingtime record labels, ...
• A bit unclear here which song "the song" is referring to (at least for me when I read it the first time): A previous recording called "Money Honey" by Clyde McPhatter had been banned in Georgia and Ahmet Ertegun and Wexler released the song despite the ban, risking arrest.[13]
• With whom did Mick Jagger perform the duet?
  • If the person is not notablke, there is no need to include them, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• The song is featured in the biopic Ray (film) in a lightly fictionalized version of the way it was really composed - I think that is worth a sentence or two.
• I would mention in the lead that Charles always played this as the last song in his concerts

Well done (as always), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the, no the...either way. McPhatter's song is clarified, Ray mentioned, a couple facts added to the lead. I don't recognize the name of Jagger's co-singer, but if you think it's important enough to add, I'll add it. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I struck my comments, am fine with article as it now is (and replied on the duet above). I agree that this would benefit from a sound clip or two, but am not able to help make the needed files. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Offer to help I can make sound files. Leave a note on my talk page with what exactly you want and I'll make the clips over the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please alter the alt text for that wonderful lead image so that it conveys to the visually impaired reader the gist of the image. The alt text should mention the sunglasses, the smile, the downward-pointing face, the sharp contrast between the white shirt and the dark everything else, and anything else that jumps out at you. This info is obvious to the sighted reader but the visually impaired reader is currently given no clue about it. Please see WP:ALT#Essence and WP:ALT#Portraits for more guidance. Also, please don't put "Ray Charles" in the alt text, as per WP:ALT#Repetition and WP:ALT#Verifiability. Eubulides (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote my reply five times and waited four hours before posting it, just to see if my reaction was a fleeting thing that would be inconsequential or if I really meant this, but here it is: I don't know what about this irritates me, but it really does. I think it's the fact that not only is alt text a requirement, but your version of alt text is required. Maybe this is representative of how Wikipedia culture twists to avoid unpleasantness when someone expresses the need to change, which points to its weakness: one person on a mission can change one thing in millions of articles and as a group we are slow to study the impact of such actions. It's a nebulous sense of rebellion in my mind, but to reply to your comment: I changed the alt text, but not the way you wanted it. What is most striking is the use of shadow, light, and reflection in that image. It's quite artful. I don't see him smiling. I think he's singing, but it would be inaccurate to portray that in a visual image, because that can't be proven, can it? What can be proven is that it is Ray Charles, an iconic figure in U.S. culture and international music. So much that I am uncomfortable describing Ray Charles in alt text as a black man with short, kinky hair, and perpetually rough skin. In fact, I won't do that. What Ray Charles looks like does not need to be expressed to readers; it makes him less than he is. I should add "fucking" between Ray and Charles in the alt text. I'm going to stick with Danish modern alt text in this case. It expresses what it needs to express. If you think, personally, that it should be changed, I invite you to change it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The alt text you wrote is fine. We can agree to disagree about whether the phrase "Ray Charles" should be in it, but since the image says "Ray Charles" there's a good argument for including it. I suspect that part of your irritation comes from a disagreeement over whether Ray Charles is an iconic and self-identifying figure in the sense that Gandhi, Napoleon, and Jesus are iconic (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). But this disagreement isn't important here, so let's drop it. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments—

• Are you sure that infobox image is the cover for the single? I ask because the album article What'd_I_Say_(album) uses the same image. I believe that it is indeed the album cover, because I don't singles were released in their own covers (as opposed to just a paper bag or whatever). Also, the Allmusic album review of What I'd Say seems to agree with me.
• "What I Say" is used exactly once in the body of the article; does it need to be highlighted in the lead sentence of the article?
• Throughout the article you use "it" and "the song" too many times (particularly in the Reception section). I suggest mixing it up more by referring to the song directly by its name as well.
• You haven't discussed the album What I'd Say anywhere in the article; do you have any information about whether the song helped sell more copies of the album, whether reviews of the album called the song as the highlight etc? Was the single actually taken "from the album What'd I Say" as the infobox says? It seems to be released many months before the album, without the express purpose of promoting the album.
• Found a reliable source you can use; if you feel it does not have anything new, add it as an external link.
• Not liking the difficult-to-read black-text-on-grey boxes. How about these blue things here?
• "along with Ray and the Raelets"—isn't a [sic] in order there?—indopug (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Am I 100% sure? No. None of the sources I used to my recollection used the image to illustrate the song, but that's not surprising. I cannot, however, find another single sleeve that represents the American release. It makes sense to me that the single was so popular that the album was spawned from it. The album contains 2 versions of the song, and it's logical that the same cover art was used to entice buyers who associated their desire to own the song to own the album. I remember that I was required during the GA review back in May to replace the image with a higher resolution one (at least 300 px) and I went to raycharles.com to get it. I have a vague recollection that the site had the image listed next to the single. Now the site has been rearranged and I cannot find the page I copied it from.
• Let me see if there is anything to add about the album. At the most, I remember the sources I used simply intone that an album was hastily arranged. The music business was dominated by singles sales. Charles announced he was leaving Atlantic, and I recall that Wexler and Ertegun threw together his Atlantic singles, as you said, in an afterthought. His Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music was his first at ABC and a full concept album.
• I think the black on grey is smokey. Why don't you like it?
• The barely legitimate nature of rock and roll and R&B in the late 50s ensured that serious writing was done in very few sources. Atlantic was one of several small startup record companies who had shoestring budgets and an unsophisticated PR department (which usually consisted of the owner, who also acted as producer, among the many hats they wore). For this reason, the spelling of the Raelettes was presented in three formats that I've seen. Charles names the song "What I Say" in his autobiography, and it was printed both ways in the press at the time, though clearly printed as "What'd I Say" by Atlantic. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Media update - Here are the media clips: File:CharlesKnow1.ogg and File:CharlesKnow2.ogg. They both need the following information: source, name of copyright owner, explanation of why the clip is necessary to the article. I am a little worried that it will be difficult to justify using two clips. Note that the standard music sample template says "No other samples from the same track are used in Wikipedia." The reasoning will have to be very good, I think, to overcome this usual rule. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I did my best. I can't hear them on the computer I'm using now, but I will listen to them when I get home to make sure I'm actually describing what I think I'm describing. I hope the rationales are strong enough because I am not sure how to make them stronger. Let me know if you have suggestions, and I appreciate your assistance in this very much. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could the argument be made that these files are from two tracks / songs (since the song was split into parts 1 and II for the single release)? This is technically true, even if we all know it is one song. Just a thought, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the song is separated into three distinct sections: the opening with the disconnected verses, Charles and the orchestra going back and forth, ending with the false finale, then the call and response between Charles and the Raelettes. Each has its own distinct sound, but the opening riffs and the call and responses in the third part are what is so memorable, and what comprises the bulk of the writing about the song. Technically, the samples are taken from What'd I Say Part I and What'd I Say Part II (I think--I haven't listened to them yet), but I did what I could to justify their inclusion as a single composition.--Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are stunningly good rationales! I think we can justify both clips. Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, my tenure on Wikipedia was well-spent learning how to write comprehensive fair use rationales. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose what'd I say??? sorry, Support. Nice work. Reduced to nitty nitpicks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.