Talk:Behind These Hazel Eyes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behind These Hazel Eyes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Behind These Hazel Eyes has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 16, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Kelly Clarkson Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kelly Clarkson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kelly Clarkson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kelly ClarksonWikipedia:WikiProject Kelly ClarksonTemplate:WikiProject Kelly ClarksonKelly Clarkson articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

"Although the song did not top any charts": Yes it did. It has just topped the Adult 40 chart.

Massive edits to the article. If anything needs to be reverted, provide an explanation and reasons. DrippingInk 13:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Song headers

Ok, I don't want to get into an edit war (not with you DrippinkInk), but Mel, I really think the song section neess to be restored. That is way too long for a lead section, which needs to summarize the main points about the song. The song info is a body onto itself, and needs to be restored. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

As with the comment at Talk:Since U Been Gone, I'm afraid that I don't really follow most of that. The song can't "have its own section", though, because the whole article is about the song. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

The edit summary removing the "copyedit" tag and replacing the unneeded section heading claimed that it had been discussed here; where? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Huh? The dispute over this article is the same we had over "Cool" and "Since U Been Gone" about the lead section. OmegaWikipedia 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

First, there was nothing about removing the "copyedit"; secondly, even if a "the song" section makes sense there (and I still think that it doesn't despite the large amount of material, much of it not strictly relevant to the article), it doesn't make sense here.

Sections aren't an essential part of an article; they're used to break it up, to avoid a long, undifferentiated mass of text, and to divide it into logical (and useful) bits. In this case the article os much too short to need sections. I've pointed you to what the Manual of Style says; did you not look at it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Oh my God. Do you enjoy causing all this drama or do you seriously really think it would be better for the article to be this way? Most of the Stefani and Clarkson articles have the first section labeled as "The Song". Please don't tell me you're serious. Maybe, thats what the manual says, but I would hope you could look at the article and related ones and use some logical thinking and not be so mechnical and stubborn. Why should this article be different? Dude, it's not that much shorter. In any case, I'm going to expand the article later on, then there can be no debate about this trivial matter. OmegaWikipedia 9 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Drama? The shoe is on the other foot. And yes, I look at this article and think that it looks silly with the extra section break, and fine the way it is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

You know I personally don't like having "The song" as a header. If the article is going to talk about the writing credits, its influence, ecetera, then change it to what I did in Gwen Stefani's singles, namely "Theme and influence" or "Writing credits". "The song" makes no sense since the article is, well, about a song. 64.231.66.251 18:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for heaven sake, would someone please add the chart positions of all the nations? The United States is nowhere near the most important country in the world - no country is the most important. Someone add them. DrippingInk 18:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm shutting up. I sort of had an overblow there for a moment. Greatest apologies. But if you wanted to make this article work without headers, you could always just peek at the way I have organized the Spice Girls singles. But then, these are new, fresh singles, with additional information as they have just been or recently released, whereas Wikipedia came online a year after the six-year hiatus the Spice Girls would take.

I'm making myself look awfully silly. Never mind the above. I've taken care of the chart positions. DrippingInk 18:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason in particular why we aren't saying that the ex-boyfriend refered to is David Hodges? 24.5.54.209 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to say so? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. They are both public figures and their relationship was public knowledge. For those with knowledge of the relationship, the little fact would give them greater insight into the song and music video. 24.5.54.209 07:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts can be sourced, then I can see no reason not to include it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to "The Song" issue, these singles articles aren't really about a song per se, they are about singles, including videos, remixes, and chart positions. Thus having a first section called "The Song" isn't as redundant as it might seem. Wasted Time R 14:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like it if someone could figure this out. Just pick a header and go with it. DrippingInk 14:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that the distinction between "single" and "song" is rather hair-splitting, and not one that most people would make. The Wikipedia Manual of style warns against splitting an article unnecessarily into sections, and the use of unnecessary sections is something that more experienced editors often have to correct. In this case, it's difficult to see what advantage the use of a section is supposed to bestow upon the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRL

Did the song get retired from TRL, or did it drop off the countdown? These are quite different, and Mel reverted an edit which had changed it to the former (I will say that since the video was at #1 so long I find it far more likely that it was retired and didn't drop off). Everyking 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The video did retire. OmegaWikipedia 10:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Retire" is clearly jargon, and needs either to be explained or replaced by normal English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being overly strict, Mel, but anyway, see here: TRL retired videos. Everyking 12:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictness, but communication. I miscorrected the text precisely becausse it's unclear to someone who doesn't know the jargon — but we should be writing articles so that they can be readily understood. The link does the job perfectly, though — thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music video image

Please don't put the image of the music video in the correct header in the article—this will make the entire article clash with each other. Unless more information is added to its length, the image should remain where I placed it. Thanks. Winnermario 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number four or number five?

I changed the peak position of the Hot 100 Airplay to number four in the article, although it previously said number five in the comprehensive charts. Which one is correct? Winnermario 20:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for changes

The USA Charts should be listed in one table because they all have something in common namely, they all come from the same region ie. USA.

The International Charts also have a common element, namely they all come from regions outside the USA.

Listing the two tables as one does not make sense because there are many USA charts and only one chart from the other regions.

-South African User

Is this format better? Boa

Not really — the problem is the splitting of the table rather than the order in which the parts are placed. (By the way, if you sign with four tildes (~~~~) your name and the date and time of your message are automatically added). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centred tables

Please don't centre on the tables on the music singles pages as it distracts the eyes. In addition, it is left-sided everywhere else on the site. Thank you. Winnermario 20:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BTHE.jpg

Image:BTHE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Song Is Post-Grunge???

Genre

The Song Is Post-Grunge??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarlospunk (talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be almost a year old, but, I think the song has a pretty heavy grunge/punk influence. But it still classes as pop rock, in my opinion. 121.220.104.154 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who played the drums on this track? 125.238.14.73 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Behind These Hazel Eyes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I am guessing you are not a native speaker of English, so I'll try to go easy on the grammar mistakes. However, I will point them out and expect them to be fixed, but I'll give ample time to do so. If I don't retain a wikilink in my rephrasing suggestions, do not delink it - I'm just not going to bother relinking it in my suggestion. Any phrases I want to draw attention to will be marked by an two apostrophes - one before the phrase and one after it. :)

You're right. Thank you so much. :) — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The English in the article is not up to GA standard. I'll try to list any errors below, arranged by subsection:

Lede

Several problems with 'It was officially sent to radio stations on April 12, 2005, as the third single of Clarkson's sophomore album, Breakaway. Clarkson considered "Behind These Hazel Eyes" as one of her favourite songs and she once intended to name her album after the song.' First off, per WP:ENGVAR 'favourite' should be changed to 'favorite', as Clarkson is an American singer. Second, no commas are needed after the date or before Breakaway. Also, specify Breakaway as the album she intended to name after the song. Rewrite the paragraph to to 'It was officially sent to radio stations on April 12, 2005 as the third single off of Clarkson's sophomore album Breakaway. Clarkson considered "Behind These Hazel Eyes" as one of her favorite songs and she once intended to name Breakaway after the song.' Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'"Behind These Hazel Eyes" is an uptempo pop rock song that incorporates crunchy guitars which are pulsated with driving beats and anthemic choruses. It narrates Clarkson's broken relationship with her ex-boyfriend. Although the pain is unbearable, she is determined that he will not get the satisfaction of seeing her cry. Upon released as a single, critics speculated that the song reflected Clarkson's broken relationship with her former boyfriend, David Hodges.' has a few issues. Merge the first two sentences with a semicolon. I would remove the third sentence entirely. Also, no comma is needed before the name of her ex-boyfriend. Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'"Behind These Hazel Eyes" received generally positive reviews from critics who considered the song as a decent follow-up to Clarkson's previous single, "Since U Been Gone. Critics also lauded Clarkson's vocal ability which simmers alongside the steroid-charged musical backdrop that is fun, fast and furious. Commercially, "Behind These Hazel" was success in the United States; it peaked at number six on the Billboard Hot 100. It also became Clarkson's first song to top Adult Contemporary chart. It was certified platinum from Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for selling over one million digital downloads. Elsewhere, the song charted inside the top ten in Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.' has a number of issues. Change '"Behind These Hazel Eyes" received generally positive reviews from critics who considered the song as a decent follow-up to Clarkson's previous single, "Since U Been Gone.' to '"Behind These Hazel Eyes" received generally positive reviews from critics, who considered the song as a decent follow-up to Clarkson's previous single "Since U Been Gone".' The previous wording mistakenly implies it only received positive reviews from critics who praised the song as a follow-up, while the quotation mark at the end of "Since U Been Gone" is missed. :) Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Commercially, "Behind These Hazel" was success in the United States; it peaked at number six on the Billboard Hot 100. It also became Clarkson's first song to top Adult Contemporary chart. It was certified platinum from Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for selling over one million digital downloads. Elsewhere, the song charted inside the top ten in Austria, Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.' is factually incorrect. Note that it topped the Adult Pop chart, not the Adult Contemporary chart. Also, be sure to use the word "the" before giving the name of the chart, so use "the Adult Pop" chart. Additionally, you forgot to put 'Eyes' after 'Hazel'. Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'The concept of the video was conceived by Clarkson which depicts her as a bride who experiences some dream-like hints that her husband-to-be is having an affair with a brunette ceremony attendee.' has the same issue as above; change to 'The concept of the video was conceived by Clarkson and depicts her as a bride who experiences some dream-like hints that her husband-to-be is having an affair with a brunette ceremony attendee.' Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'The music video had a successful run at Total Request Live; it spent 33 days at number one on the chart which is the longest stay by a female artist. The song was performed live by Clarkson at numerous venues, including the Breakaway World Tour (2006) and the All I Ever Wanted Tour (2009).' First off, change the sentence about total request live; request shows are invalid as charts per WP:BADCHARTS. Perhaps note that it received heavy play at that station. Done — My December ^(talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background and writing

The wording on 'On 2004, Clarkson flew to Sweden to collaborate with Max Martin and Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald for her album, Breakaway. Clarkson and Martin were interested in turning in a more rock direction away from the pop music with which they were identified. The songs "Since U Been Gone" as well as "Behind These Hazel Eyes" were the products of their collaboration.' is a bit incorrect on some parts. Change 'on' to 'in', first off - if you were referring to a specific date (ie. March 4, 2004), 'on' would be appropriate - otherwise, 'in' is the proper term. Also, the last few sentences are a bit awkward - I would change this overall to In 2004, Clarkson flew to Sweden to collaborate with Max Martin and Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald for her album Breakaway. Clarkson and Martin were interested in turning in a more rock direction, as opposed to the "slick pop" with which they were identified. The songs "Since U Been Gone" and "Behind These Hazel Eyes" were the products of their collaboration." Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is wrong with 'In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Clarkson explains that "Behind These Hazel Eyes" is "about the dipstick who completely screwed up and now is unhappy and you're happy." She also considered the song as one of her favourites that she once intended to name her album after the song.'; the only issue is to change 'favourite' to the American spelling and to specify Breakaway as the album she intended to name it after. Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'The song was officially sent to radio stations on April 12, 2005, as the third single of Clarkson's sophomore album, Breakaway.' should have 'off of' rather than just' of. Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Only one real error here - the bit about the chorus lyrics should say 'the chorus' instead of just 'chorus'. Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

'Pam Avoledo of Blogcritics believed that "Behind These Hazel Eyes" was superior than "Since U Been Gone" writing, "It's punchier, well-written and gives Clarkson a chance to show off her vocal skills without the trendy haughtiness."' Change to 'Pam Avoledo of Blogcritics believed that "Behind These Hazel Eyes" was superior to the writing of "Since U Been Gone", commenting that "It's punchier, well-written and gives Clarkson a chance to show off her vocal skills without the trendy haughtiness."' Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the various lists you give, place the comma outside the quotation mark - placing it inside is only done for direct quotes. Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

The Pop Songs chart is airplay-only, so change it to say "16th ranked". Done — My December ^(talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Good work; prose is now up to standard! Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The synopsis section is uncited, but that is fine - good job here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Overall I am going to pass, but I am going to do a slight reworking of the "Charts and "Certifications" section, to add decade-end peaks and specify the year-end rankings. Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I don't think this overstates the song's success - it is fair and balanced. Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues whatsoever. Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No issues here. Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to go ahead and pass this - I want to note that, for year end charts, it is important to specify which year it ranks on. Also, be sure to check the decade-end charts and see if it peaked there. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Behind These Hazel Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104035528/http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2007/performed.html to http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2007/performed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Behind These Hazel Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Behind These Hazel Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]