Wikipedia:Peer review/S&M (song)/archive4

S&M (song)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has had a somewhat troubled recent history at FAC and has possibly broken records with the number of attempts to get the gold star. It's had something of a polish recently and the aim is to take it once more to FAC once PR closes. A thorough and rigorous PR is the best way to get this over the line, and all comments that help to ensure this article is in the peak of excellence are very welcome. Many thanks, SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you invited those who've raised concerns at FAC to comment here? Perhaps their input would be beneficial. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. I've asked a couple of others to step in first who will help: I'll turn to the previous reviewers to see their comments after these fresh eyes have had a look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Lead

*"S&M is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). It was released on January 21, 2011..." — Why is "2010" in parenthesis? Somewhat confusing when the very next sentence goes onto say that it was released in the following year.

I've clarified by adding that it was S&M that came out in 2011, from the 2010 album - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"American songwriter Ester Dean..." —Definite article required here I think.

Yep - added - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"The single charted at number two on the United States' Billboard Hot 100, but with combined sales from a remix that features Britney Spears, it became Rihanna's tenth and Spears' fifth number-one single on the chart." — was Spears remix the one to be released? If not, why would she be counted in this statistic? My understanding is that a remix comes out after the main song has been released. Did the remix also reach #1?

I've tweaked this around a bit, but I need to check with Aaron that I haven't introduced something completely wrong in doing so! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album version, the solo version, peaked at number two. Digital download sales of the remix ft. Britney pushed the song to number one, as the US combines all versions. So sales of the solo version combined with the sales of remix made it rise 2-1. But it is counted as the same song, as that is what Billboard does. They are not treated as two separate songs with two separate chartings, but yes the sales of remix helped it become number one. Both were released as singles, but the remix was released a while after. (A clever way of ensuring it hit number one). — AARON • ^TALK 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok cheers. -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are still inaccuracies which weren't present before. — AARON • ^TALK 22:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to state the obvious, they will need to be fixed then. Could you oblige? -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it may need to be tweaked after to make sure it's of standard. — AARON • ^TALK 00:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can go ahead and do it and we will work the rest out. That's what the peer review is for. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and development

Looks OK

Composition and lyrical interpretation

*Link synthesizer on it's first mention.

Good spot: moved - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Chris Ryan of MTV..." — We don't need to be reminded of his MTV association here.

Removed - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release and remixes

*""S&M" was the fourth single from Loud..." — As far as I can see, this is the first mention of Loud within the body so a brief introduction would be helpful: ""S&M" was the fourth single from the album Loud..."

Added (and linked too) - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"...to be released in the US and the third elsewhere." — Elsewhere sounds a bit vague, suggest "other countries" or something.

Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"... It was sent to contemporary hit and rhythmic radio playlists in the US on January 23, 2011." — I doubt it was sent to playlists, more so the radio stations that operate them.

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

*"Digital Spy's Nick Levine gave the song a rating of four stars out of a possible five..." — Redundancy of "a possible".

Yep: removed - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Any chance of a link in "ear-frotting"? ...don't ask me how I knew that.

lol - linked - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

*" "S&M" had sold 643,000 copies in the UK

Added - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*..."many countries." — Vague, where for example?

They're all covered in the note. It used to be part of the main text, but was too clunky to read easily, so was dropped elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

doh! yes of course my mistake. -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*There seems to be a lot of repetition with years here. I think if you mention 2011, you don't need to repeat it on the next date so long as that date is in the same year.

I've trimmed back as much as I can, leaving only the year dates for charts in new countries - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"In the US, the song debuted at number 53 on the Billboard Hot 100 on December 4, 2010." — Could this be given chronologically?

At the moment it is chronological by first chart entry, ie:

Para 1: United Kingdom on November 15, 2010 (and then subsequent success)

Para 2: Australia on November 29, 2010 (and subsequent success)

Para 3: US on December 4, 2010 (and subsequent success)

I think if we put the progress of the song in strict chronological order then it'll be a bit messy with where it was in which territory. I think I'm answering your point, but let me know if I've missed what you were saying entirely! - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I see. No problem. – Cassianto ^Talk 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is for now, more to come. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC) All covered (I think!) Thanks so much for doing this: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

Background and synopsis

"Director Melina Matsoukas..." – Definite article would be better and less tabloidy.

Yep: now added - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...during the weekend of January 15, 2011." – How long exactly is January 15, a week?

Dates added, weekend removed - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rihanna is dragged, resisting..." – as opposed to what dragged willingly?

Removed - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really require a link to CCTV?

Borderline overlinking: I've taken it out - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of continuity, it would be best to say that she became untapped to the wall at some point. I have never seen the video, does this happen? How does she become untaped from the wall?

We don't ever actually see it. It's one of the motifs that runs through the video, and it re-appears from time to time, but she is never freed from her plastic wrap. Poor love - it must be hot under all that cling film! - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is "bejeweled"?

tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and ban

"The director of the video, Melina Matsoukas..." -- Second mention of the fact Matsoukas is the director.

Yep: removed - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement lawsuits

"The lawsuit included claims of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under New York state law and unjust enrichment, which were later dismissed." – What one, some or all?

All: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check for inverts – "August 2011, a judge agreed that the "'pink room scene', which shows Rihanna dominating a man in front of pink and white striped walls, was very similar to LaChapelle's "Striped Face" photograph, and pinpointed a scene where Rihanna is seen against a blue background, wearing pink latex and placing a sweet on her tongue."

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances and covers

Unnecessary "fuming" quote offers nothing I'm afraid.

removed and re-worded - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"disgusting," – Should the comma come after the inverts?

Done - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a link to remind us of Las Vegas?

No, removed overlinking - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...chained handcuffs" – Is there any other kind?

Straightened to Handcuffs - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OVERLINK to Ester Dean.

Yep, sorted, along with a few others - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The ensemble's performance of the song appears on the film's soundtrack as part of a medley of songs..." Song →songs. Repetitive?

Yep: now just "a medley" - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done...phew, I need a cold bath after reading that! I must suggest some of this to Mrs Cassianto! -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cass: much appreciated as always! - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]