Jump to content

Talk:Overprotected

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOverprotected 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
September 10, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
January 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Genre

[edit]

If you ask me, the album version has an R&B feel to it. The Darkchild Remix is very urban. I think the page should note that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.161.191 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the genre for the original version still is kind of Teen-pop.

[edit]

I think Overprotected is very similar to her songs in previous 2 albums like Oops I did it again, Baby One More time, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.184.120 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Overprotected/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomica1111 • Question Existing?• contribs • count) 17:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon ...

Review comments

[edit]
Article wide
 Fixed - Sauloviegas (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • No issues

Lead

[edit]
  • unlink studio album per Wikipedia:OVERLINK
  • The dance-pop song, speaks about a girl ... ---> Lyrically, the dance-pop song, is about a girl ...
  • A remix created by producer Rodney Jerkins was released in the United States and Canada instead of the original version of the song in April 1, 2002. ---> Not real need for instead of the original version of the song, the song was already released, and later it was re-released, like the "S&M (Remix)". You can put the name of the remix.
  • with several noticing the song as way for Spears to "break free" ---> Remove it.
  • It was commercially successful ... ---> The song was commercial success ...
  • By me, the whole paragraph is a little too messy. Peaking inside should be exchanged with only peaked. About the remix of the song, did the song charted in the original version at the first time in US and CAN? By me, yes, so there is no need about where "The Darkchild Remix" was released... Also the certifications should be removed from the lead and implement in the Chart Performance. I suggest total re-writing.
  • while singing about being overprotected ---> No need for that, remove it.
  • The music video the remix version, directed by Chris Applebaum, shows the singer dancing and having fun with friends. ---> The music video for the remix version of the song was directed by American directed Chris Applebaum and portrays Britney dancing and having fun with her friends.
  • During the performance, Spears was dancing to the song surrounded by laser lights, while a video backdrop showed images of a bald Spears, with her hair growing as the song went along. ---> The performance featured Spears dancing surrounded by laser lights while images of Spears bald were shown on the screens. No need for the hair thing.
  • on 2001's Dream Within a Dream Tour ---> on her 2001's Dream Within a Dream Tour
  • on 2004's The Onyx Hotel Tour ---> on her 2004's The Onyx Hotel Tour
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job ;) !

Background and composition

[edit]
  • Since the Background section is small, link the The Darkchild Remix in it.
 Not done I've merged the composition to the background and expanded the remixes section. Take a look. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] , while additional recording was done on June 2001 at Battery Studios in New York City, New York. ---> Start new sentence: Additional recording was done on June 2001 at Battery Studios in New York City, New York.
  • The song was later mixed by Martin and Rami at Maratne Studios, while background vocals were provided by Spears and Bosslady. ---> Background vocals were provided by Spears and Bosslady, with the song being mixed by Martin and Rami at Maratne Studios.
  • revealed that she can relate to the song ---> concluded (and the same sentence)
  • In 2003, the song received a Grammy nomination for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance ---> It should be placed in the critical reception, not in Background.
  • musicnotes.com ---> Capital M
  • The song's lyrics speaks about a girl ---> Lyrically, the song is about a girl (the same as in the lead)
  • Music critics also noticed europop influences on the song. ---> Europop should be put in songs genres.
Remixes
  • however, the song was only released on April 1, 2002 ---> Why only? Remove it ....
  • Now, about those two audio files. First, The Darkchild remix audio should be removed cause it fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and about the second, change the caption in "A 19-second sample of the song which lyrics reference to an overprotection and manipulation imposed to the main persona, that actually referring to Spears' career"

Critical Reception

[edit]
  • Jocelyn Vena of MTV said that, in 2001, ---> remove "in 2001"
  • While reviewing Britney (2001) ---> Why reviewing singers third studio album Britney (2001) ...
  • David Browne of Entertainment Weekly considered "Overprotected" Spears' "voice hovering between testiness and aggression", while commenting that both "Cinderella" and the song are "top-dollar variations on the hits off her first two albums", and saying that the lyrics "rings absurd coming from someone who was grooming herself for multimedia stardom even before she auditioned for The Mickey Mouse Club. ---> David Browne from Entertainment Weekly" about "Overprotected" stated that "Spears' voice is hovering between testiness and aggression". He later commented that both "Cinderella" and the song are "top-dollar variations on the hits off her first two albums", while concluding about the lyrics that "ring absurd coming from someone who was grooming herself for multimedia stardom even before she auditioned for The Mickey Mouse Club.
  • Critic Robert Christgau considered ---> Critic Robert Christgau also considered

Commercial performance

[edit]
  • "Overprotected" achieved commercial success in Europe. ---> "Overprotected" was commercial success in Europe.
  • It also entered on the Pop Songs chart, where it reached number thirty-seven ---> It also entered on the Pop Songs chart, where it peaked at number thirty-seven
  • In Canada, it peaked ---> In Canada, the song peaked ...

Music video

[edit]
  • we see segments of Spears ---> vague wording, re-worded
  • exiting the building. ---> and exits the building.
  • It is late now, and heavy rain begins to fall. ---> Also vague wording, the section is full with it. Copy-edited it a bit

Live Performances

[edit]
  • first time on 2001's Dream Within a Dream Tour. ---> first time on Britney's Dream Within a Dream Tour (2001).
  • was later ---> When is that later?
  • The Onyx Hotel Tour ---> The Onyx Hotel Tour (2004)
  • Spears also performed "Overprotected" on Euro Disney. The performance was recorded and included on the enhanced section of Britney (2001). ---> Find a third-party source or if you can't do that, just remove it.

Track listing

[edit]

The Singles Collection Boxset Single 

   "Overprotected" — 3:19
   "Overprotected" (The Darkchild Remix) — 3:20

SOURCE?!

Credits and personnel

[edit]

Do it by the example of "Rehab" ...

Charts

[edit]
  • Remove the [A] note, and maybe just write as it is here, it breaks the chart ...
  • The certification reference for France and Sweden put at the country name ....
  • Also put the certification categories in the end of the article

References

[edit]
  • reflist|2 ---> changed it with Reflist|colwidth=30em (use big { brackets of course)
  • Actually the publisher for MTV is Viacom.
I disagree here. MTV Networks is best. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use overlinking at the references. Only link at first time.
  • Mmmm Publisher for Amazon, Staples, Inc., not sure check it again
  • Reference number 16, wrong publisher
  • Reference number 3, split work and publisher ---> work=Ultratop 50 ; publisher=Hung Medien ... same with the similar references
  • Reference number 25, MTV is always Cite web, not cite news
  • Reference number 46, work=ARIA Charts, publisher= Australian Recording Industry Association
  • Reformat 47 and 48 ... look awful
  • author and work? decide... I would go by work, you should be consistent in the references, definitely
  • Certification references also look akward, visit some FL discography and change them
  • Note, when it comes to the reference work, if the work is published edition (newspaper, magazine) it should be italicized, and that would go automatically, however if the work is online edition than it should be normal text that you done it by italicizing the work [for example work=USA Today (in the reference will go work=USA Today), however when you put work=Slant Magazine, you should make it work=Slant Magazine, so in the reference will be shown like work=Slant Magazine] ... I hope you understood me :)
Do you know what is normally italicized and what is not? Let me explain. If you want to know whether Entertainment Weekly is italicized, go to its page on Wikipedia and see how the title is written, that is, whether it is in Italics or not. If yes, the reference formatting should be
  • |work=[[Entertainment Weekly]] |publisher=[[Time Inc.]]

If no, then the reference formatting should be done as follows

  • |publisher=[[Entertainment Weekly]]. [[Time Inc.]]

Please my friend, be frank. If you did not understand, tell me without hesitating. We just want to help you. Feel free to ask again if need be. Please. No one will make fun of you. We all arrived to this stage through the teachings of someone else. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everybody has it's formula. This is what I learnt from Nathan. But it can also be used your case. Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually talking to the nominator. I am sorry if i offended you. It was not intentional. Jivesh • Talk2Me 02:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it' cool. :) Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great i love your cool attitude. Always remain like this. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am always nice and cool with good people like you Jivesh :)! Btw I know it is not the place, but I hope you are continuing with "Rehab" today. Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes at night. Right now, i have to go to buy some gifts for my cousin. I will go to his place today. But when i return, i will do it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the references, you better format them the same way i do because the day a bot will run through the article, he will remove all the '''' from the work parameters. I have already experienced that and i prefer not to tell you how it was to format more than 1000 references on all Beyonce's articles. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! I didn't have idea that that was actually happening. Well than definitely I will use your advice. Thank You :) ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome (as always). Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Changed the VEVO one, with YouTube, not all countries have Vevo.

Conclusion

[edit]

All in all the article has a lot of issues. I mentioned them, and I will give you one week to address them. I'm not home from tomorrow until Wednesday, so you don't have to hurry up, take your time and do them. Personally, I think that the references deserve attention a LOT ! Re-work them. If everything's alright I will pass the article. :) ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 00:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taking me so long to continue the GAR, I'm very busy lately at school and also at Wikipedia. I'll continue this as soon as possible. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time :) ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to withdraw the nomination my friend. Take your time and fix all these issues. Some nominators even take more than one month. So why can't you? Talk to Tommy, he is nice and i assure you that he will give you more time. If you need help, i will be very happy to help you. Let me know. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he can take his time. It's on him definitely. I will let him how much he want ! :) Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am failing this. :/ It's nominators will. Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 14:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Overprotected/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

"The singer has performed "Overprotected" ..." ---> "Spears has performed "Overprotected" ..."

"David Browne of Entertainment Weekly also noticed europop influences on the song" - remove "also"

"of the single in the country" - remove

Referencing checking
  • FN#3 A catalog number (publisherid) and page numbers are recommended.
Url added. - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#9, FN#11, FN#12, FN#15, FN#16, FN#27, FN#28, FN#30 be consistent in weather or not you wikilink MTV and MTV Networks (compare with FN#1, FN#31)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Amazon. What doesn't make this reliable? - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to go through this AGAIN. Please look at this discussion. I'll pass the article once this source has been replaced. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that "release dates and other such information on Amazon is frequently wrong", since a single/album is released in several formats on different dates. These dates are provided by the labels. Plus, the album wasn't sold through iTunes since it had a minor release. I have changed the source, but you have no argument on proving that Amazon is unreliable. - Saulo Talk to Me 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#20 is in French and needs to be presented as such (compare with FN#5)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#26 the language is not needed - remove (if you insist in having it, please be consistent and add all other FNs that are in English)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#55 [1] does not verify that this single peaked at number 34 on the Swiss Charts
It's a searchable database. There is no permanent link except for this url. - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#56 [2] does not verify that this single was certified gold in AUS.
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com can be used for release dates but not for reviews (reception / critical commentary). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, it has never been established that Amazon.com is unreliable at least not by editors contributing to music articles. Bear in mind that iTunes Stores do not sell physical copies while Amazon do. Singers are not foolish to the point to release their material to Amazon if that website/retailer is bad. I can show you FAs using Amazon.com and they are recently promoted ones. Seeing that discussion (the link you provided), I would like to know the number of times Amazon has listed wrong release dates. I can bet anything, it does not outweigh the number of times it has reported correct release dates. We better use Amazon than apply WP:OR in music articles. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Amazon.com is only good for critical commentary (that's it). Amazon.com is not a reliable source (coming from someone who works with music articles) and have been deemed "not good" by experienced GAN reviewers. Once everything has been fixed I'll pass the article. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said the total opposite. Amazon.com cannot be used for critical commentary. It can only to be used to source release dates. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to User:Jezhotwells‎ (and myself) Amazon is not a reliable source. I'm done talking about this, its time to move on. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then how will we source physical releases? And it does not depend on you and the other editor (who I know). It depends on the whole community. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AJonna asked me to comment on this, can I ask what reference number the source for Amazon is quoting, other than that; "We can't really answer the question without asking ... reliable for what? There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source, or a 100% unreliable source... because reliability depends on specific context (ie exactly what statement in what article the source is supporting)." MayhemMario 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used to source a release date. I have always done this for all the GAs and FAs I have written. It is pretty normal to use Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational electronic commerce company with headquarters in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is the world's largest online retailer. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh with all do respect, you only have one FA (which I applaud, congrats :) However, look at this discussion about Amazon.com. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jona, I was not trying to be arrogant. Amazon may be frequently wrong but not always and remember that it is the label of an artist which goes the release date to Amazon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I was not trying to say that, please forgive me if it may have sounded as such. Oh yea I know, that's where I can verify if a Selena CD is coming out (can't trust chat boards ;-). Furthermore, I used to use Amazon as a source but since I've been told about it, I don't. I seek other sources, if I can't verify it then I just remove it. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than squabble over whether Amazon is or isnt a reliable source, why not look for antoher? I mean for instance, if the artist went a daytime show, the presenters always say at the end, so when's the release date? You could just use (Press release). {{cite press release}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), maybe? MayhemMario 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. It does not matter. Coming back to the topic, the problem is that you have been told. Amazon is good with release dates for music. I don't know about books, etc, but for music, it works. And there is no need for another source, even if we want we cannot find one as this song received a limited release. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, for release dates, why not use the albums/singles' liner notes? (If there was a re-release or a commentary release). Anyways, I do believe the user gave the source to the booklet of the single and removed Amazon. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents - Ajona, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you are contradicting yourself. I completely agree with Jivesh. On music articles, critical commentary is what is valued most. So, I'm confused as to how you think Amazon is unreliable, yet suitable for critical commentary? Additionally, if it's good enough for critical, then why not for release dates? From my understanding, Amazon is only reliable for release dates (what Jivesh told you). This method is used throughout many FAs (it was proven acceptable during my FAC), yet I have never seen it used for critical commentary. Point blank, Amazon can be used (obviously, record label press events etc. are the best to use) for release dates, but not for anything else. Lastly, Salo, I've said this before, but I really find this article running very short on usable and readable content.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Nathan and Jivesh. Amazon is one of the most reliable sources for release dates, and on the same level as iTunes (Amazon also precedes iTunes). To my knowledge, there has never been an inclusive discussion to question the reliability of Amazon: none at GA, FAC, or any of the relevant Wikiprojects. What put me off about Ajona was his comment ("According to User:Jezhotwells‎ (and myself) Amazon is not a reliable source. I'm done talking about this, its time to move on. "). Well who exactly is User:Jezhotwells? And when did both of you collectively decide that Amazon is unreliable? And why do you feel the need to impose this on every other article? On what grounds did you come to this conclusion? Show me the evidence. And, I'm not very familiar with the GAN process, but why is an article's promotion left in the hands of such editors? Orane (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads

[edit]

Why is there no section about the Crossroads video version under the Music Videos part? Such version is listed in the article Britney: The Videos. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

over is over 250000 copies in france

[edit]

as other songs of spears this song has gone to gold in france and you always change thish to silver so please check before you change =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.78.69 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Overprotected. 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) 00:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overprotected&oldid=1207835630"