Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive2

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].

S&M (song)[edit]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]
"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]
"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]
"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]

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]

Because normally you don't mix production with release. That would probably get sentence if you connect "Stargate" with "Eurodance". --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 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]

Because normally reviewers don't check the history of the reviews. Appreciate if you could provide us links to that. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 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]

Not done. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 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]

It's not about the length, at least as regards to my comment. But its the content that's making the length unnecessary, especially if those details are trivial for the lead. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 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.

Again, have been through all of this before, and consensus was that it stays where it is. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide link. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So you want it removed? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying I want it removed. Justify the inclusion. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Both pictures are almost the same. --Efe (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you not understanding? It's to show the resemblance between them, hence why they are similar. That's the whole point of why they are both there. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:13, 14 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.