Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive7

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 GrahamColm 18:40, 28 May 2012 [1].

S&M (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I've written six of these before, so, seventh time lucky?! Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

FN6 - info or link is wrong, author not Meg Sullivan, not sure if this is a reliable source
The actual URL in the reference is The Music Magazine, but for some reason it re-directs to The Ferret?? I remember reading her review so I don't know what's happened here. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Maybe they want people to think BBC Music Magazine. I searched "meg sullivan rihanna" and only got the WP article. Doubtful about this source, especially with a link. BlueBonnet 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's so strange. I'll remove it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
FN92 - link leads to "requested page could not be found"
Provided an alternate source.
Intro - should Eurodance be capitalized? It is in the article it links to; link first instance of fetish rather than second; "S&M received divided opinions" sounds awkward, I prefer "S&M received mixed responses" like you have later or "Critical response to S&M was mixed."
Capitalised Eurodance, linked first fetish, and changed to "Critical response to S&M was mixed." Aaron • ^{You Da One}
text on music sample needs a period at the end
Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Writing - Did Stargate co-write, produce, and arrange also or just co-arrange? It's confusing with all these names. Sentences in the Writing and theme section don't make sense to me. I think that section could be consolidated into the Composition and lyrical interpretation section.
You mean the Production and recording section? Yes, Vee and Stargate co-produced, co-wrote and co-arranged. Have changed it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Composition - last para - I think you're missing a quotation mark, perhaps in front of "Sticks"
Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Remixes - there are two periods at end of the lyric quote; I don't think you need the "she commented" before the block quote; "and South America" needs to be moved, third para - 'Come On' needs double quotes
Removed the extra full stop, removed "She commented", I don't see why South America needs to be moved? The first citations is for Europe, second are for South America, and 'Come On' doesn't need double quote marks because it's inside a quote already. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Yes, right on 'Come On'. South America - I'm looking at how the sentence reads, not the citations. Now it's : The single was released on iTunes stores throughout Europe on February 11, 2011, and South America. Try reading that out loud and you may see what I mean. I thought it might should be : throughout Europe and South America on... but if the date isn't correct for SA then that wouldn't work either. Needs to be reworded - IMO. BlueBonnet 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't put quotation marks within quotation marks, ever. Have reworded the South America bit. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Critical reception - second para, first sentence quote is awkward, maybe just "lacked the chart friendly moments rated R had"; last sentence - FN6 problem, why the [sic]?
C/e the first sentence. The [sic] is there because the critic specifically capitalised that word for emphasis. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Text with Katy Perry photo - tenth number one single?
Oops lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Chart performance - needs a period after consecutive weeks (or lower case "it"); number 1, number two, number-one inconsistency; are you missing a country to go along with the Netherlands?
Lower case "it", changed to number one, not sure what happened about the country, used to be one there. Removed that bit anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Music video - "such as Illuminati connections she has been accused of" - this is confusing and sounds awkward, can you type the content of the headlines and explain what she was accused of?; explicit acts - what were they?; top - shirt or T-shirt might be better
The text goes by quite quickly on the screen and Rihanna stands in front of some of it, and I don't get the top shirt comment? I haven't written shirt anywhere? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Illuminati - I followed the link for the footnote(75) and didnt see a reference to Illuminati - if there's no source and it's not clear from the video, maybe you should leave it out

Explicit - I always think of this as meaning "clear, specific" then I think well, why not just say what they are if they're so clear. But it also means raunchy, offensive - which I guess is how it's used here. "Suggestive" might be a better word. I haven't seen the video, though.

Shirt - it says "a feather boa and a top with the word 'censored' across it are displayed". I assumed "top" meant a woman's shirt but that "shirt" or "T-shirt" might be more formal and enclyclopedic for the article. What does "top" refer to? BlueBonnet 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the illuminati bit,; a top is a t-shirt, basically a top is what you wear on your top half lol. I changed to t-shirt. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Copyright infringement lawsuits - 3rd para - why wasn't the amount disclosed, I think they usually are in lawsuits (if they are resolved by trial);you mention other people were sued - did they have to pay anything?; the courtroom didn't concur, was it a judge, jury, arbitrator?; "as she simulated whipping sounds were used throughout the song" - do you mean "as she simulated sex. Whipping sounds were used..." - needs to be reworded. I looked at the source cited and it didn't help; the quote beginning "pink room scene" sounds like a quote from the New York court but it's just from an article - confusing and perhaps misleading, also the date on that cite (FN87) is off by one day.
We don't know why it wasn't disclosed, it just wasn't; I don't think the other lawsuits were carried out, the LaChapelle one was the most publicised; "which were", yes; the pink room bit is what the court decided and what newspapers reported on; fixed date. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Usually a judge's orders are public. I suspect this was a settlement but that's not clear and maybe there's not enough info available to make it clear.
My point about courtroom: a courtroom is part of a building and doesn't concur, opine, etc. - people concur and I think a word denoting a person would be better there, such as judge, jury, though there may not be enough info available to get that specific.Blue Bonnet 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to do then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
The Belinda White article makes it clear the case was settled (there was no winner in the case and the judge didn't order payment - the parties reached an agreement) - the article should reflect that. Best of luck during the rest of the nomination period. BlueBonnet 15:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended this. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

BlueBonnet Ð 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Comment – Given that this is the seventh time you have nominated this article and BlueBonnet has already identified a number of issues, I think reviewers would appreciate a summary of the outstanding concerns from the sixth nomination (and earlier), as you see them, and why you believe they have been satisfied. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself by simply clicking on the previous archives. You don't need me to go through them and write them, that's stupid. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider taking a more diplomatic tone with reviewers--although reviewers should judge an article solely by its merits, some may become biased as a result of their interactions with the nominator. Just a suggestion though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers might consider having a diplomatic tone in the first instance if they want a diplomatic one back. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Comment according to the previous nomination, one reviewer stated that "uploaded online" is a colloquial phrase, it appears in the "Remixes and release" section. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, even though I don't really see what is wrong with "uploaded online". Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Neither do I. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Continues to fall short of the standard for prose ("engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"). From the lead alone:

"...some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." – The construction suggests the second part is going to contrast the first, but that's not what we get. I raised this specific concern in the last nomination.
There's nothing wrong with this. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
I disagree. If you're going to employ a coordinating conjunction, the ideas must coordinate. A reviewer's assessment of the song's lyrics is unrelated to his ranking of the song among the others on the album. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with it. It states a critique and a praise. Have changed from "while" to "however" regardless. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Due to its content..." – Of course.
And? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"~~Due to its content,~~ the video was banned in many countries and was restricted to nighttime television in others." The stricken portion of the sentence is unnecessary here, the readers will infer that the video was banned because of its content. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine but I've removed it anyway. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Critics complimented the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality, but photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit..." – Suggests the critics' opinions carry less weight because of a lawsuit.
No it doesn't. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
See above. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have spilt into two sentences. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Rihanna was thus ordered..." – She was ordered merely because the lawsuit was filed? Or was there a judgment?
There was a judgement, read the article. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
The problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the important parts of the article, and fails to do so by excluding mention of the judgement. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "The case has now been settled by Rihanna out of court", so there was no judgement or order. And the source is dated 19 October 2011, which doesn't seem to fit with "On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money". This piece from The Guardian [2] says "The case was on its way to trial when the two parties reached a settlement." Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the sentence about it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Also from the lead: "hit"; synthesizers and a keyboard?

Changed "hit", but there is no reason as to why you have written "synthesizers and a keyboard?" I can't see an "and" there. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

It wasn't a quote. You mention both synthesizers and keyboards even though keyboards makes the mention of synths redundant. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Article:On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money.
Source: The case has now been settled by Rihanna out of court for an undisclosed sum Failed verification – see above
I have amended the sentence about it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Article: Paulus believes the image was appropriated from his own photographic series, Paperworld.
Source: German photographer Paulus believes that image was appropriated from his own photographic series, "Paperworld." Identical phrasing
Have reworded the sentence. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Article: The video was immediately banned in eleven countries due to its overt sexual content.
Source: The diva is back with her new single S&M – and the video is so steamy, it’s already been banned from 11 countries and counting. No issues
Article: Brad Wete of Entertainment Weekly stated that Rihanna delivered the risque video he was expecting based on the song's lyrical content
Source: With lyrics like those, we expected an equally risque video. And yes, she’s delivered. No issues
Article: Twitter messages between the two artists caused speculation that they had recorded a remix of the song.
Source: Rihanna and Britney Spears have joined forces for a new remix of 'S&M'. Fails verification – no mention of speculation
Where is this? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Here [3] Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Rihanna told Spin magazine that the lyrics are metaphoric. She said that it is mainly about being confident and comfortable enough to do whatever one wants, and about being impervious to rumors and criticism.
Source: "I don't think of it in a sexual way, I'm thinking metaphorically," she says. "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" No issues
Article: In a radio interview, Rihanna said that she had hoped to make an "S&M" music video with Spears.
Source: Rihanna talked to Z100’s "Elvis Duran and the Morning Show" early this morning, telling Elvis Duran that she'd like to make an "S&M" video with Britney Spears. (Music video, we assume). No issues
Article: When it was released as a single, it returned to the singles chart at number 27 on January 30, 2011
Source: 30/01/2011 (Position 27) No issues

Two problems with verification and one of identical phrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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