Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive3

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 Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].

S&M (song)[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I really want this article to be an FA. It is one of Rihanna's most well known songs for a variety of reasons, such as it's controversial lyrics and music video, the remix with Britney Spears and the backlash the music video and live performances have created. I think this makes for a very good FAC as it isn't just a standard article listing the same normal facts. It has content which not very many other articles have. Also, could reviewers please look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive2 before they comment, so that they do not write any points to address which may conflict with what has already been raised in the previous two FACs. Thank you. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded at this timestamp: Ucucha (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least two Opposes are found in the talk page. Moved by Ucucha prior trasclusion. --Efe (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. I'm deliberately ignoring everything on the talk page and in prior reviews, and am focusing only on what is currently present in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not purely a sourcing point, but make sure quotes flow as well as possible when embedded in sentences and are clear. For example, "A 25-second sample of the song featuring Rihanna singing the provocative and suggestive lyrics, which was noted by Chris Ryan of MTV as being "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities"." - did Ryan note this about the sample, the song, or the lyrics? Also, should insert "about" immediately before the quote
    It's just what a reviewer said about the song, not the audio file in particular, though all of the song is sexually suggestive. And I don't get what you mean about putting "about" before the quote, because: ...as being about "dirty..." doesn't make sense to read. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    But saying the song is "bedroom activities" also doesn't make sense - the song is about "dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Cool. Check for other examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotation issues still occurring, for example in the caption of the first song sample (and for some reason the quote is duplicated in article text?), and in the second paragraph of Critical reception. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
    Where? That's like looking for a needle in a hay stack! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Ctrl+F .. if you have a PC, there's probably a similar function on Macs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that, but simply double spacing in the search box doesn't return anything. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Which would make sense, because you're looking for doubled periods. If that search turns up nothing, you're doing something wrong, because you should be getting false positives on ellipses. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't be doing it wrong. I am putting a double space into the Ctrl+F search bar and nothing is being matched. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You need periods, not spaces. There is a double period in ref. 61. Ucucha (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought a period in American English was the same as what a space is in British English? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry for the confusion in that case. A period is called a full stop in British English, I believe. Ucucha (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhh that's what you mean't. Done. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quotes (and song titles) within quotes
    Where have I done that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Multiple places. When you have quotation marks inside quotation marks, the ones inside should be single - ie. "The song 'S&M' is..." instead of "The song "S&M" is..." Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any instances of this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching "" will get the worst examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether newspaper/magazine publishers appear in parentheses or not
    Only the printed sources use the cite news template, causing the publisher to be in brackets. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    No, Daily news for example is a printed source and its publisher is not in parentheses. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is and is not italicized. Do not italicize publishers, do italicize publications (generally speaking)
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Not done. Check for consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I saw I had linked Rolling Stone and Werner Media twice in the references. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Except we're looking at italicization for this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't italicised any publishers, i've looked through every one. I can't see anything outstanding. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further examples: News Corporation is italicized and shouldn't be, The Music Magazine is not italicized and probably should be if Digital Spy is, some networks are italicized and others aren't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 9: typo?
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Be consistent in whether website citations use base URL, website name or publisher name, and if the first how these are formatted, and if the second whether these are italicized (rechecked 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC), not done)
    I don't understand what you mean by being consistent with "base URL, website name or publisher name." Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music Week or MusicWeek? Check for naming consistency
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Not done, please recheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (still not done 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC). Example: refs 88 and 89)[reply]
    They are two different articles for two different charts, hence both are linked. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
    I removed the first and third, but the second is merely commenting on what happens on the Billboard charts. And it's published by Yahoo! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Doesn't make it reliable - it's a blog. Does Yahoo! have an editorial policy on blogs? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just removed it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Can we use the original source for this?
    What do you mean? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    That's an online convenience copy of an actual court document. Can we cite the court document directly instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, no. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 88: are these notes paginated? Is an album/catalog number available? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get the Amazon Standard Identification Number? I don't have a physical copy of Loud, or any album actually, I download from iTunes. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably work. Does iTunes not use any kind of ID number, or include it in product listings? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (comment) The ASIN should not be confused for a catalogue number; it is a simple serial code the site uses for each product, and is not placed by the album publishers. Do you know anyone who has access to the LP who can give you the catalog number? Ask for the page numbers too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Calvin, any response to my and Penguin's questions? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about an album/catalogue number because I don't own a hard copy nor do I know anyone that does. Who buys physical CDs still? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose. --Efe (talk) 04
47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Prose.
  • The lead is not well unorganized. The idea doesn't flow well; its seems like the sentences are arranged based on the sequence of the sections, making the paragraphs choppy. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different to any other lead. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Are you referring to FA-quality song articles that have the same lead structure? --Efe (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not well written. Examples include but not limited to: "The song is a Eurodance song..."; "digital sales pushed the song to the top of the chart for one week" you mean the digital sales was intended to push the song to top the chart for one week? --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded the genre sentence. And no, digital sales did push the song to #1. It's a fact. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Rihanna spoke about how she is interested in bondage and other BDSM activities" This is something that most artists don't express publicly. Maybe you mean about her "view" of such sexual activities. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because most wouldn't say that publically, doesn't mean that none do. It's well known that Rihanna is into that sort of thing, she has been photographed buying things of that nature in sex shops, plus the video for song kinda gives it away too. And it clearly is her "view" for her to say it in a magazine. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
That constitutes Original research. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is an unsupported and personal interpretation of the video: "presents Rihanna's opinions of the media, by punishing the ones who have written negatively about her or personally hurt her". --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, it's explained in the synopsis. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Synopsis? Most of them are even original research. Please provide portions of the article which directly say that "unsupported" interpretation. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the song follows a chord progression of E♭3–A♭2–C♭3–D♭3" While the other info about the song's structure are as well as unreadable (choppy), this chord progression stuff is an original research. Aside from that a sheet music sheet is a primarily source, a chord progression is not how it is written. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "while others called it a stand-out track from Loud" I can't see it explicitly said by the reviewers. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis of video. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Are you referring to the subsection called synopsis? Can't find it. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink common terms such as music critics. Even that should have been critics only because this is about a song and by context, those who reviewed it are music critics. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told to link them before. People need to make their minds up. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
You necessarily don't have to believe in them. Music critics need not linking. Its a very understandable common term. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "healing process," commas go outside the quotation marks especially on this case. See guide for reference. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "if her next single WASN'T about her sexual desires" a [sic] must be put after that all caps
Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Media. Fair use especially on the compliance to WP:NFCC#8.
  • File:Rihanna - S&M.ogg the caption reads about the song's lyrics. Why use an audio file which is supposed to support discussions about the music? --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
The captions did not cut it. You use audio files to help your illustrating / explaining the aural characteristics of a song, not of its lyrical content. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Paulus.jpg This one is redundant. The screenshot of Rihanna's video would suffice the discussion about the alleged copyright infringement. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's needed to show the extreme similarity between them. Readers shouldn't have to look to see why Rihanna was sued, but I removed it anyway. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the article has a lot of issues other than that. Yet this is the third nomination. Previous comments / critique might help. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, your excessive use of bolding is making this FAC harder to read; it's not necessary to bold your responses. Bolding is typically reserved at FAC for Supports and Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 19 September 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)/archive3&oldid=1140156690"