Jump to content

Talk:Hard (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHard (song) 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
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 1, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 9, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Word "released" in the article text

[edit]

Some will protest the use of the word "released" in the article text as the song is NOT shown to be available independently as a 'single' as claimed by the infobox used. It is ONLY available as an ALBUM TRACK, yes? Radio is not sales.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox single just refers to "earliest known date" not to whether it is via sales or airplay. Candyo32 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should be revised as "earliest known date" could be even before sales or airplay! Does anyone really want that? It would truly be the date written (if known). Next in line would be the date recorded, then date of final mix (first known mix that is, prior to all the remixes common today), etc. "Release date" historically (at least) always meant available for purchase. Since this uses infobox single, I think it should mean available for purchase as a single.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Release (music). I do acknowledge that THAT article is not well developed.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the album track case would be used this, then why wouldn't the label/artist give every track on the album a date to go for adds? That is why they are solicited for a reason as the next singles. Candyo32 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Radio is promotion or 'solicited' as you say, so the label at least intends for it to be a 'single'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just always hope that these cases will have a physical release (CD and/or other) somewhere or separate from Album date digital release date somewhere. —Iknow23 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hard (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, Candyo32! I'm beginning my GA review for this article. Reviewer: Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

This article is pretty good, but it has a number of issues that need attention before it becomes a good article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    You had some problems with grammar and punctuation. I went ahead and fixed them.
    B. MoS compliance:
    When you use quotation marks inside of other quotes, you have to alternate single and double quotes. See WP:MOSQUOTE for details. I fixed this as well.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    You shouldn't use references in the lead, since it should be a broad overview of the contents. Save the references for when you get to the detailed explanations in the sections.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Reference #8 is a bare link to an online forum. That's not a WP:RS. Can you find another source for showing how many top ten hits she's had, and comparing that to Beyoncé? EDIT: Fixed, but I noticed that #34 is a bare link, and what it points to has no information about Rihanna charting. It must've changed since you first found it EDIT: Just removed it for now. The article is still fine without it.
    C. No original research:
    Few minor problems here and there. most of which I corrected. You shouldn't put the word "yelling" in quotes in the video description, unless it's actually a quote. If she's yelling, and it's described that way in the source, just say yelling, otherwise use whatever word is in the source. If you're just describing the video, just pull the quotes altogether. EDIT: This still needs to be corrected, and I couldn't find anything in the sources saying she was a lieutenant in particular. Did you read that somewhere? If not, you should change it.EDIT: Fixed.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Is there any way you can expand the background section? It seems a little thin to me. Maybe a quote from Jeezy about how he got involved, or from The Dream or Tricky? In the critical reception section, you should add more reviews. Since this song was pretty popular, two isn't really enough. I've found this: [the metacritic listing], which you can use to expand your reviews. The reviews are for the album, but I'm sure some mention the track "Hard". Just dig around and try to get a few more comments on it. EDIT: Fixed, but I pulled the NYT review, as it didn't have a URL and was really talking about other songs on the album, not "Hard" itself. I don't think you need to worry about fixing it, since you have so many reviews now.
    B. Focused:
    In the lead, the sentence about Jeezy needs to be re-written. I'd just mention that he's in the song, then give the details in the article itself, since the part about his name change isn't really important in relation to the song. Also, give a quick mention somehow that it had a number of notable live performances, and that it was remixed.EDIT: Fixed first part, still need to add a sentence or two to cover the live and remix sections.EDIT: Fixed.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The core of this article is solid, but it mainly needs some polishing up before it's ready to be listed as a good article. The main issues are minor lead clean-up, expanding the two sections I mentioned, and getting a better source for the top ten hits count. Still, I think this can make it to good article. Good luck!
Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: This is coming along nicely! You've fixed most of the major problems, and just have a few minor touch-ups to get it to GA status. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: This is good to go! Congrats. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Infobox

[edit]

Isnt a release date to be kept for the song as the other songs. And is it important to mention the month and place of recording because all the other singles do not have it mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.32.29 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} in the release history section, add that "Hard:The Remixes" was released as a Digital Download on January 19, 2010.Source.

 Done Not sure it really belonged in the release section, however I did add the information to the article. Avicennasis @ 07:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hard (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion has been closed and the article has passed GAR.

I've listed this article for GAR because I think the article is a mess. The references are poorly formatted, with countless missing work and publisher parameters, as well as other unformatted references causing cite errors in the references section, there are several cases of WP:OR throughout the article too, with "citation needed" codes. The Lead seems to be lacking in info as well. The article seems to be lacking prose in multiple sections and it quite short, considering there is a lot of info about the song and was relatively successful. The article received GA status in April 2010, and editors are clearly not monitoring the state the the article. If the song is un-listed, I will do everything possible to make the article a GA again. I could easily c/e the article right now, but then my c/e will go unnoticed and I think that a different set of eyes should be enlisted to review the article again, to ensure that it's quality is acceptable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural requirements

Calvin, I have transcluded this review page. I have also notified the nominator and also informed the reviewer. The instruction page is here for future reference. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Status

I don't think this is an appropriate reassessment to tell you the truth. There are hardly that many issues with the article, and they wouldn't be that hard to fix. Why is everything seem to be about getting credit? What about just improving the quality of an article for its purpose? Who is really looking to see what articles you took to GA? Seems pointless to me. I'm gonna go ahead and do what I can do on the article, and look more into this... — Status {talkcontribs  00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the article. It is indeed a mess. It will take some work, yes. But I still don't like your reasons Calvin. — Status {talkcontribs  00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what other reasons can you find for it being a mess then? Because all of mine are valid. And it's not about getting credit, I just want it to be re-assessed when I have finished c/e it to ensure it is to GA standard. Surely that is the more preferably option? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, if you intend to fix this after it gets the gray icon (delisted), why not just fix them while its still green. Besides, you're a Rihanna fan. That rationale actually (aside from the objective ones) are sort of disruptive if practised. That suggestion is circuitous. --Efe (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How am I mean't to ensure that it is still of GA status though? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll know when all of the issues that are brought up in this reassessment are fixed. Wikipedia is not about credit. I Help, When I Can.[12] 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, you said yourself: "I could easily c/e the article right now, but then my c/e will go unnoticed..." How does that infer anything else? As you are planning on doing the work anyway, you should be doing it now. I'll be sure to come back here again and review it over, and I'm sure other users will as well. Don't think of it as not getting credit for making it a GA, think of it as getting credit for keeping it a GA. — Status {talkcontribs  20:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but just keep this review open! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit this article to how it should be for GA, so can this review stay open until I have finished it? I've started it so please excuse the cite error templates, the references are a complete mess and all of the place, it is late now so I will do the entire article tomorrow. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know as a GAN reviewer the standards of a GA article. Its up to you if still want the reassessment up and open for other editors' comment. But if you intend to fix it yourself, better close this, we suggest. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I am being put in a corner for this. Personally, I would have thought that you would like to keep it open so it can be reviewed once I have made the changes to ensure that it is acceptable. I would have thought this would have been preferable? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done

[edit]

I have completely copy-edited the article, this was what the article looked like before, and obviously the current article is the one I have improved. Please tell me of anything you can see what needs to be corrected. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Wikipedian Penguin

I promised myself that I wouldn't review another Rihanna article,due to the way WYT turned out, so I'll make this quick and brief.

  • "Rude Boy"!? Lol.
    Oops! lol Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Bajan or Barbadian? I am too confused over this; the Rihanna articles are extremely iniconsistent.
    Well always change back to Barbadian now, even thought Rihanna self-identifies as Bajan. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    I think Barbadian is more appropriate. Besides, Rihanna article has been using that long before. --Efe (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musically, "Hard" is a Hip hop." Okay?
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "The song debuted on the US Billboard Hot 100 at number eighty, and peaked at number eight seven weeks later for one week, becoming her thirteenth top-ten single and sixteenth top-twenty hit this decade, re-tying her with Beyoncé Knowles as the female artist with the most top ten hits on the Hot 100 in the 2000–2009 decade" A bit long. Maybe use some semicolons to split it up?
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "the song managed to chart in several countries" → "It..."
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "upon the release of the music video" Replace"upon" with "following".
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "peaking within the top ten in Canada and the top twenty in New Zealand and on the UK R&B Chart." Too many "and"s.
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Rihanna assuming" I have pointed this issue out a few times in WYT.
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "as well as at the 2009 American Music Awards"
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Avoid the use of "whilst" on Wikipedia, as it is considered too formal.
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "and peaked at number eight for one week on January 30, 2010" → Did you mean: "and peaked at number eight for one [the] week o[f] January 30, 2010"
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • You don't have to write every number in words. Use numerals for double-digits.
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • In the Release history, what's the format for the UK release?
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!


This includes lead nitpicks and general comments for the while article. Consider another thorough copyedit for the whole article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done them, thanks :). Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, the reference columns are too narrow. On my screen, five of them are showing up, which is too much. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done How is it for you now? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good; keep it that way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jivesh

[edit]

 Doing... Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
My dear, i told you to link rapper to Rapping. Do you get it now? Like this [[Rapping|rapper]]. Is it clear? There is no page for rapper on Wikipedia. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overal >>> correct spelling
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • as well as the Rihanna's vocal performance >>> re-write
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • US Billboard Hot 100 >>> add the word chart after 100
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • in the 2000–2009 decade >>> Normally, it should be the 2000s decade
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • And you changed what is in the source completely. The source reads as since 2000 and you say the 2000-2009 decade while "Hard" was released only in 2010. Make the necessary corrections here and in the chart performance section
     Doing... Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • it managed to chart in several countries >>> it appeared on numerous charts in other countries
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • as well as the 2009 American Music Awards >>> was it performed at the same time? I guess she cannot be in two places at once. So change to and later at the 2009 American Music Awards
    Done. I think it's kinda obvious that it isn't at the same time, but I changed it anyway. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Not everyone would have interpret that correctly. Everyone who visits Wikipedia need not be a native speaker of English. I know what i am talking about especially because i am not a native speaker of English. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rest is coming after 2 hours. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done the Lead. I am going out now, will continue tomorrow. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Background and composition
  • In an interview with MTV News, producer Mikkel S. Eriksen of Stargate confirmed "Wait Your Turn" as the second single from Rated R, however, it was later announced that "Hard" was chosen instead, with the reason for doing so being undisclosed >>> Cut into two separate sentences as they are backed by two different sources.
  • "I can’t talk about what happened, but it’s really good for me [laughs]. We delivered a very, very big record, but I can’t say what the name of it is or anything, just for the simple fact that it’s actually top secret. It’s definitely going to be a single. It’s either going to be the first or the second single. I do know that." >>> Is this really needed? I find it somehow repetitive and kind of misplaced.
  • During the interview, Stewart described the song >>> Remove During the interview,'
  • ""Hard" (The Remixes) were made available for digital download on January 19, 2010 in the United States." should go just after the introductory sentence of this section so that everything flows better because what comes up next belongs to composition.
  • musical element >>> musical elements
  • Musically, "Hard" incorporates the musical element of hip hop and lasts for a duration of four minutes and ten seconds and features militant horns, hissing synths, pin-sharp beats, and piano notes >>> Wow at the number of and. Make two or more sentences. This is way too long judging from the amount of information it is laying emphasis upon.

Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • of Billboard >>> of Billboard magazine
  • Herrerra continued to conclude >>> Does this mean she began the review directly with a conclusion? If no, re-word
  • Rude Boy >>> 'Rude Boy'
  • commented on the collaboration >>> is getting quite repetitive here.
  • Excessive use of the word commented. There are several replacements.
  • on the vocal style and persona that Rihanna incorporates >>> should be adopts
  • Instead of using saying, use writing. Just like last time you tel me, X from MTV News was not interviewing Rihanna but only wrote the article, this is kind of same here. We weren't there to know that the reviewing was saying.
  • Do not get me wrong but the prose on this section is below satisfactory level.
The rest will be done tomorrow hopefully. I am tired. Quite a lot of work to be done here. Best of luck. Regards. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
Chart performance
  • US Billboard Hot 100 >>> add the word chart after 100
  • You are using acharts as a source and you are placing Billboard in the work parameter. This should never be repeated. And acharts is not allowed.
  • The song became her thirteenth top-ten single and sixteenth top-twenty hit this decade, re-tying her with Beyoncé Knowles as the female artist with the most top ten hits on the Hot 100 in the 2000–2009 decade >>> I hope you still remember what i told you for the lead about this. The corrections need to be applied here as well.
  • The correct source for the number one position on the US dance club songs chart is this.
  • on March 6, 2010, >>> issue dated March 6, 2010 and remove the comma
  • as well as peaking at numbers >>> numbers??? Why use this when you can add the word number before each position. Please change.
  • "Hard" has since been >>> "Hard" was
  • units >>> downloads
  • due to the release >>> after the release
  • the Top 10 >>> why is the "T" capitalized?
  • on February 6, 2010 >>> again use issue dated for all Billboard charts
  • In Canada, the song peaked inside the Top 10 at number nine for one week on February 6, 2010,[20] while in New Zealand, "Hard" debuted at number 40 on January 11, 2010 and peaked at number fifteen in it's fifth week, where it stayed in the top twenty for a further two weeks.[21] >>> Break the sentence into two or more.
  • the week after, charting at number 55 >>> simply the week after at number 55
  • made it's first >>> it's???
  • until it exited on March 3, 2010 at number 100. >>> How can you say it exited at number 100? Replace until it exited on March 3, 2010 after having charted at number 100 the previous week. Check the date if needed

Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Music video

This will be done later. I am quite busy today. Anyway, you already have so many things to fix. Novice also left some comments. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC) >Background[reply]

  • Link music video here or somewhere else if it appears somewhere else first.
  • however needs a comma just after
  • music video's???
  • Prior to the video being released, >>> Prior to the premiere of the video,
  • about the ideas and concepts >>> change it to concept simply. Ideas make the concept IMO

>Synopsis'

  • Read the whole section again and find the errors yourself, i will just mention some of them like 'wearing wearing
  • rap sequence >>> rap verse is better
Done, but I disagree about the ideas and concept comment. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>Reception

  • One review does not come to acclaim. Replace the word
  • In his review of the song, James Dinh on MTV News decided to take the video on a small player into Times Square in New York City to ask fans on the street what they thought of the video, with most concurring that it was different to any of her previous video's, that it shows where she came from and where she is going, with regard to what had happened in her personal life, as well as saying that she looked "sexy" in the video. This is incredibly long.
  • As far as i know, Idolator (website) is not a magazine.
  • However, the video not meet Bill Lamb's of About.com expectations,
  • saying??? Replace with writing
  • the videos insensitivity
  • and using army and weapons >>> and use of army and weapons
    Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Live performances

 Not done yet.

Yeah I know I haven't. This wasn't even here last night. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, i meant i have not looked at this section yet. Lol. Sorry for any misunderstandings caused. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jay-Z's concert at >>> Jay-Z's concert held at
  • Rihanna performed the song for the at the launch of the Nokia X6 smartphone
  • the latter of which, Rihanna was joined on stage by Jay-Z to perform the song. >>> Try to re-word
  • Rihanna also performed the song at the 2009 American Music Awards, which was televised on November 22, 2009 at the Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles, California, This does not flow well
  • Rihanna made her Saturday Night Live performance debut >>> Rihanna made her Saturday Night Live debut performance
  • Did Jeezy also join Rihanna on on BET's 106 & Park?
    Yes. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Don't Stop the Music" linked twice in the same section
  • The following day, Rihanna taped and performed a number of songs for "AOL Music Sessions" on February 2, 2010,
    ? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
The following day........on February 2, 2010??? Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get what you're asking me to do or change? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You began the sentence with The following day and then you add the date at the end of the sentence. This does not look good nor does it read well. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formats and track listing
Title should be Format and track listing Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charts, certifications and precession
Radio and release history
  • No issues

Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Doing... Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sverigetopplistan,

MTV News,

Idolator (Correct the spelling),

About.com

and NBCshould not be italicized

  • Prefix Magazine should be italicized
    I didn't think we italicised publisher parameters?
Magazines are italicized. Should be in the work parameter for automatic italicization. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who the publisher is though if this is mean't to be in the work parameter. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Daily Mail Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prometheus Global Media has been linked far too many times
    I can't help that the ones in the Charts, certifications and precession section are linked, it's how they have been pre-formatted. Like I said before, click edit on that section and you will see why. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jivesh, i have done everything now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome Calvin and well done!!! Keep it up. And i hope you keep improving as this article really needed a lot of work. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comments from Novice7

[edit]
  • The sample needs a better caption than "A sample of "Hard" featuring the chorus by Rihanna and Jeezy."
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Rihanna spoke about when she first heard the song, saying "When I first heard the song..." – keep any one of the italicized part. Either the quote or the paraphrased one.
  • "I can’t talk about what happened, but it’s really good for me [laughs]. – necessary?
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Can you add more information about the song's musical structure, lyrics etc.?
    I added a reviewers comment about the lyrics. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • with many commenting on the collaboration between the two artists as well as Rihanna's vocal stylization. Monica Herrerra of Billboard praised the collaboration between Rihanna and Jeezy – check for redundant information.
    What do you mean? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
"Praised the collab...", "commented on the collab" etc., they are the same thing repeated over. Novice7 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herrerra continued to conclude that although Rihanna – How can she continue to conclude? Conclusion means the end.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Greg Kot of The Chicago Tribune commented on the collaboration between the two artists and observed that Rihanna "lashes out" on the song, with "help from an even harder-edged MC, Young Jeezy." – check the italicized part.
    ? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Why is Pitchfork italicised?
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • The song became her thirteenth top-ten single and sixteenth top-twenty hit this decade – her → Rihanna.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Hard" also peaked at number one on the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart on March 6, 2010,[17] as well as peaking at numbers nine and 14 on the US Pop Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs charts, respectively.[18] – In my opinion, "as well as peaking" breaks the flow here. You should stick to past tense as the sentence begins that way.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Hard" has since been certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), denoting sales of over one million units.[19] – I think it's for Digital sales?
    It's still units sold though? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
If it's digital, you need to note that. Novice7 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • around the world on the strength of downloads alone due to the release of the music video. – I can't find a connection here. I assume you're trying to say that the release of the music video increased the amount of digital downloads which, in turn, helped it chart?
    Yes Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Chartstats is usually not preferred. Can you find a better source? Like Music Week or OCC website?
    No, because the UK Singles archive charts only displayed positions 1-40. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Okay. Novice7 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article later. Novice7 (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second look
  • Ailbhe Malone of NME stated that although Rihanna's mentor, Jay-Z, was not involved in the production of Rated R, she noted that "his influence is tangible," as well as commenting that Rihanna adopts his vocal style in the lyric "Brilliant, resilient, fan mail from 27 million."[9] – rewrite. Tense issues are noted.
  • What does "pin-sharp beats" mean? I know what pin-sharp is, but pin-sharp beats?
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!

Novice7 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please just do a final assessment against the criteria please. It's come to a standstill. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Status, Jivesh and Novice7 have to approve the keeping, as they are also reviewers. We don't typically have delegates in Individual GARs. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhhhh, but someone needs to close it. I can't do it, I nominated it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have to ask for approval by the reviewers. Then we can close it per WP:SNOW. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support being kept as a GA. Sorry I wasn't able to give my own feedback; tbh, I totally forgot about this. :L — Status {talkcontribs  00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as kept as there is unlikely to be more feedback and per WP:SNOW. All reviewers have approved this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Musicnotes URL

[edit]

Calvin, why can't this URL be included [1]. It is not obvious in the link you gave at the FAC. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –
  • the link to the paysite/software download page should go, and the sheet music should be cited like treeware, without a link
  • whenever we use the sheet music as a source for a song's tempo, expressed as x beats per minute, or for descriptions of any other musical details, we need to indicate in the text that we are citing Alfred Music Publishing's sheet music published by whoever the publisher of the sheet music is in the specific case, and not a source describing the actual song as recorded and released." Says "without a link". Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Calvin, a bad decision IMHO – but this is a discussion for elsewhere. There are loads of medical reliable sources that need subscriptions. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC) PS. what is treeware ;-)[reply]
What? I don't understand what you mean by medical reliable sources that need subscriptions? Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for this article! I was referring to WP:MEDRS, where it says "A Wikipedia article should cite the best and most reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription." That's all. Graham Colm (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what it means lol. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 00:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hard (Rihanna song). 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) 03:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hard_(song)&oldid=1206277444"