Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive8

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 11:23, 29 July 2012 [1].

S&M (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Dear god I hope archive number 8 is the last! I think I'm mad for doing this again but here it goes! I've gone through everything from the last nomination. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 20:05, 8 July 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, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that this is up to scratch. On the basis of reading up to the end of the 'Conception and theme' section, my comments are:

"It was released in the United States on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth single. It was released elsewhere on February 11, 2011, as the third single" - both sentences start with 'it was released', and the commas after the years seems unusual (and has the effect of breaking up these simple and short sentences)
Made into one sentence. You always put a comma after the year. It's grammatically correct. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Stargate, Sandy Vee and Ester Dean wrote the song; Stargate and Vee produced it." - this is a bit awkward - how about "The song was written by Stargate, Sandy Vee and Ester Dean; Stargate and Vee produced it."? (though this still isn't great). Given that about a dozen people seem to have been involved in the song's production, should Stargate and Vee receive the primary credit?
I was told in a previous nomination to write it like this. And no, Stargate and Vee produced the song, as they are producers. Other people merely contributed to the production and creation of the song, such as instruments etc. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Response to "S&M" was mixed. Some critics called it one of the best tracks from Loud; others criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics. " - these two responses from critics don't seem to be mutually exclusive: it would have been possible to judge that it was a good song, but its lyrics were too sexual (as an example; I think that Neko Case's album Middle Cyclone is a brilliant must-buy album, but the final track, which is a 31-minute long recording of insects in her back yard, is rubbish).
This was how it was suggested in a previous nomination/GOCE. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Critics complimented the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality. Photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit alleging that the video incorporates ideas from his photographs. Rihanna and LaChapelle settled the case for an undisclosed sum of money." - these short sentences are rather choppy
GOCE Aaron • ^{You Da One}
The article has several single-paragraph sections - these should be combined
That doesn't really matter. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
""S&M" was co-written, co-produced and co-arranged by Sandy Vee (credited as Sandy Wilhelm) and the Norwegian production duo Stargate, composed of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen.[1] Ester Dean also co-wrote the song." - splitting the 'co-writers' between two sentences is rather confusing. I'd suggest naming the co-writers in one sentence, and then explain what 'Stargate' is in the next sentence.
Again, this was how it was suggested to me to write it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Can I just say I'm with Aaron and whoever suggested this format? I think it is best in its current form. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It was recorded in 2010 during Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour at Roc the Mic Studios in New York City, Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles and The Bunker Studios in Paris.[1] The music for the song was recorded by Eriksen and Miles Walker at Roc the Mic Studios and Westlake Recording Studios and by Vee at The Bunker Studios." - this is a bit confusing
What's confusing? Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I don't know what the other reviewer found confusing, but I was certainly confused by the idea that a song was recorded, only to be told in the next sentence that "the music for the song was recorded", as though this is a separate thing. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal recording and music recording are two different things. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

"Additional vocal production was helmed by Veronika Bozeman" - how does someone 'helm' production?
Helmed means to manage something. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Not anywhere I've heard English spoken! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Well again this was how it was suggested in previous nominations. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
What involvement did Rihanna actually have in the song's conception and writing process? The 'Conception and theme' section implies that it was based on her ideas, but she's not identified as having contributed anything to the development of the song (and, importantly, she's not credited as being one of the writers)
She didn't, hence why there is no info about her involvement. Just because a singer sings a song, doesn't mean they have involvement in it apart from singing it. She didn't co-write the song either. It's not in the album credits. Hence why he is not listed. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Aaron, your answer makes sense in terms of the credits for the track, but it doesn't fit with the (slightly confusing) section of the article "conception and theme". If Rihanna did not have anything to do with the writing of the song, she should not be the focus of the lead sentence of the section on conception and theme. My second point is that Dean, to be blunt, osn't making a lot of sense in her interview with Billboard. That isn't your fault, but if readers are going to understand the conception of the article, they are going to need something better than Dean's gabble. Specifically the sentence "When people have a great track that speaks to me, it feels like it already has a story in it" bears no relationship to the sentence that precedes it. I've done some tweaking also, to try and bring the article closer to the idea expressed by Rihanna in one of the cited sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence is about her "love", I suppose, for kinky sexual things lol. That interview was done after the release of the album. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"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." - the second sentence here is rather awkward, and these sentences also appear to contradict the start of the paragraph, which states that the song directly reflects Rihanna's "interest in bondage and other sadomasochism activities". Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a further comment, from looking at some of the previous nominations, it appears that prose issues have been the main problem. While I think that there are also some serious limitations to the article's content (for instance, in regards to how the song actually came about), I'd suggest that you withdraw this nomination and not renominate it until someone from the Guild of Copy Editors has worked on the prose and the article has been put through a peer review. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been through the GOCE and it has been through a peer review. To be honest, after 7 nominations, different people are telling me to remove/change things which other people have said to add. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

To be entirely honest, that's probably because you've repeatedly nominated the article before it met the FA criteria. In one of the previous reviews Graham Colm stated that he wouldn't be comfortable with seeing this article on the main page as it's not an example of our best work, and I'm afraid that I think that this is still the case. As explained above, I think that the article falls short of the FA criteria on prose and content grounds. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it falls short on either. I really don't. So many people have been involved with this. The content is fine. I've seen FAs with less content that S&M and yet they have passed. You're asking me add information that simply does not exist. I've been working on this article for over 12 months, I know what information there is, and it's all in the article. The article shouldn't be judged on what you think it should have but doesn't exist. It should be judged on what is in front of you. Just because Rihanna sings the song, doesn't mean she had anything to do with its creation at all. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Comments:

Are the entire Britney Spears lyrics really necessary in the Remixes section?

Yeah, because they are different to the original. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

In critical reception: Cinquemani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that compares to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope". Quotation mark after The Velvet Rope

Till 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.
Live performances and covers. "She gave an interview about the album and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears." I don't know why this sentence is included, since we are told nothing about what was said in that interview - as a result, it just doesn't seem notable to me.
It's background info about her GMA performance. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
I don't know what GMA is, but anyway, it still appears irrelevant. Can you explain why it is relevant that she did an interview with Spears, given that we are told nothing of what happened in the interview? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GMA is Good Morning America. Rihanna and Spears BMA performance was deemed as controversial because of the sexual outfits they wore, how they sexually interacted with each other and the general theme of the performance, and how it was broadcasted earlier than content of that should be. So, at GMA, Rihanna was asked about the performance and she gave her opinion on it, after she had performed S&M on GMA. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Then either tell us some of that information or delete it. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that works now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This passage has one citation: "Although she had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety, she only sang the chorus and one verse, in between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?". She changed the arrangement because the BRIT Awards corporation wanted to avoid complaints similar to those received following the finale of the seventh series of The X Factor, on December 11, 2010. Rihanna was criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed". However, the citation was published prior to the BRIT awards and as such, cannot be the source for what she actually did on the night. The source does appear to cover the other facts.
Added another source saying that she was angry that she was asked to not perform S&M in full and that she was planning to scrap it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
That's OK. But my other point still stands - the source is from before the event, so it can't be the source for what actually happened at the event. It tells us what she's thinking of doing / planning doing, but not what she actually did. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BRITs asked her not to perform S&M in full, so she didn't, and performed a medley instead. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Calvin, I don't know how I can be clearer than I am. I'm not asking you personally what happened, I'm asking for a reliable source that tells us what happened. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done now. Hopefully it is more clear now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
On the same passage: I've never heard of the expression "watershed" before, so I found the reference to "before the watershed" to be very confusing. The link certainly cleared that up for me, but i wonder if it can be expressed less technically. Also, I kinda don't get why she was the one being criticised: she isn't the broadcaster. Oh well. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In England we know what the watershed is. I've linked it now. I believe Americans call it a "safe harbour". Aaron • ^{You Da One}
Query (you may have answered this somewhere else): in the infobox, why are Stargate credited as producers, but the two individual members of Stargate cited as co-writers, when the article text says that Stargate were co-writers and producers (ie. why give their names in one part of the infobox and not the other)? Why not just use "Stargate" both times, and let the explanation of who Stargare are stand, as it currently does: in the body text?
Stargate consist of two people and is their production name, and is who everyone knows them by. In the prose itself, I've explained who Stargate is by writing both their names. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
I think you've missed my point. You are right to have explained who they are in the body text; that's fine. But in the infobox, I don't get why they are named individually as co-writers, but by their production name under producers. Shouldn't one do either one or the other for both categories? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's just how it is done, and how it is written in the album booklet.
"that's just how it is done" is not going to get you far at FA. If that is how it is written on the album booklet, why didn't you say so?hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is how it's done. FAs are like it too. Writers are not teams, so they are listed with their own names. Production teams are teams, so production teams are listed as their team name. This isn't really something to focus a debate on though. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
I have never heard of something being "serviced to" something. Even if this is some sort of industry jargon, it shouldn't be in the article. Can you clarify what it means? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use this, I'd simply use released, but it was used as part of previous nomination comments/GOCE. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a copyedit to try and fix it without repeating the word "released" (which I suspect is what the copyeditor didn't like). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: [2] is dead. Till 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:06, 28 July 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.