Template:Did you know nominations/Sing for Me (Christina Aguilera song)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
See Moswento's tick

Sing for Me (Christina Aguilera song)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Christina Aguilera sings about how she was born to sing on her song "Sing for Me"?

Created by FanofPopMusic (talk), Calvin999 (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 01:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fail. The hook is unsupported by the article, which ignores the mechanism or planning of her birth and its effect on her singing. (Otherwise, the hook has a semantic error.) Charitably, I looked at the article, which needs a lot of copy-editing before it can be presented on the main page. There are obvious problems with synthesis. I did not investigate close paraphrasing, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ALT2 ... that according to Christina Aguilera, "Sing for Me" is "one of those singer's songs where if you're not a vocalist you can't mess with that song"? AARON• ^TALK 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  DYK is the front-piece for an encyclopedia, not an echo chamber for aphasics. Try Wikia. That does not seem like a quote appropriate for the front page of an encyclopedia, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're allowed to use quotes. AARON• ^TALK 23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  The article is badly written and cannot be on the main page without a lot of work. Worry about the quote when the article meets DYK requirements. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article isn't perfect but it's not that bad. I'll work on it tomorrow night. AARON• ^TALK 00:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Good luck! Let me know when you finish. Perhaps trimming the article of inessential material would be a good step before perfecting the rest? Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Aaron, I have to ask: what were you thinking when you nominated this article? Once again, you (or FanofPopMusic) have taken the Lotus background paragraph and reused it in the Background section here. Given what is currently holding back "Make the World Move", you must have known this wasn't going to fly. I see at least 1525 prose characters reused which would require this article to be a minimum of 7625 prose characters (by the 5x expansion rules when old material is incorporated into a new article); at the moment, the "Sing for Me" article is only 6727 characters, and you've just gotten the advice to prune inessential material. You might want to start your pruning with this background boilerplate paragraph, which as Crisco noted in the "Make the World Move" review is "terribly written". BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The background is the same for all of them, there is no problem with having the same one. I think you are taking things too far, this is simply for DYK, not an FAC. AARON• ^TALK 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• PopMusicFan seems to have imported a chunk of text from another article, without giving credit to the article even in the edit summary; this violates standard operating procedure. Unless PopMusicFan wrote the original (and still retains the copyright), such an importation may seem to create the appearance of copyright infringement, I am afraid. I would ask for help. There are links to copyright experts on my user page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote and added the background. Actually, FanofPopMusic has been copying what I have written in several Christina articles and pasting into a few he has worked on. AARON• ^TALK 22:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Will do this tomorrow.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Time is escaping me atm, will overhaul the article this week.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have completely overhauled and re-written the article. Could someone finish the review please.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that according to one music critic, the Christina Aguilera song "Sing for Me" is an updated version of her 2002 song "Beautiful"?  — AARON • ^TALK 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is still badly written. The lede is missing "by", etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not badly written at all. I don't see where there is a "by" missing, in what I assume you mean as 'lead'. I know its not badly written, because you would have been able to give a better example than what you gave, and even that is non-existent. This hook is interesting, well written, well sourced and 100% properly referenced. Although the article should be written reasonably well anyway, the hook should be your focus.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is badly written. The lead has this syntactic error:

"she was inspired by Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and Etta James while recording it, and how she used to sing their songs as a child"

Please run it through a grammar checker and then ask for help from the league of copy editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What does that sentence have to do with the hook? This is DYK, not GAN.  — AARON • ^TALK 01:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is badly written. Your 3rd hook should be "according to", if you want it to be English. Again, use a grammar checker and then ask for help from a copy editor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not badly written. It's written in the same style as I have written 55 articles which are a GA. Again, how the entire article is written should not be the focus here, it is the hook.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Having difficulty with writing standard written English, you should not be evaluating good-article nominations. You have promoted many articles in the "Rihanna project", but such articles don't concern me.

Have you written any good articles? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have written 55 GAs. I don't think you are in the position to question how I write to be honest. I've had a vast amount of reviewers review my nominations and many of them find little or hardly any things wrong. It must be your personal opinion that you don't like how I've written this article.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have written 55 articles that have been awarded GA status, for better or for worse. Any editor can nominate your GA articles for GA review, of course. Any article that doesn't have a source of the music by Rihanna's publisher would quickly be removed, before we even consider whether they are written in standard written English.

The problem relevant here is that this article is not in standard written English. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. Stop being silly.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Is not. You haven't even fixed the grammatical mistake I quoted above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did change the sentence, you obviously didn't check the revision history.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, you introduced a new error at the beginning, and you still have the horrific ending of that sentence. You need to write in English to get something on the main page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It is written in English!  — AARON • ^TALK 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-read the article please.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am coming across as an obnoxious prick. Just try to understand that we need to have clear standards for the main page (and GAs), and your writing an article that pleases a stickler for details and grammar might be good for you and the article.... Consider that you only have to deal with me here, but I have to deal with myself always! ;)

I had asked Demiurge1000 to copy edit, and I had wished that somebody else would. I did what I could.

My expectations are low for "rs" that would cover this song so soon, but I have trouble regarding Younie as a reliable source after the comment that the song changes key(!)---but your source does not say, "at the end", so you should remove that OR. If you found the lede sheet from the publisher, and it's clear that the key change happens at the end, then I don't mind the fact; it would be best to cite the primary source.

I am nervous about the use of sources (and their quality), the lack of writing rather than stringing together quotations, etc. A reviewer should also do a spot check on a few sources, but the one (Younie) I looked at seemed to have been strip-mined for quotations or paraphrases: I would not put this on the main page unless Nikkimaria okayed it, because of the problems with heavy quotation from all sources, and heavy quotation of some sources. If you paraphrase/quote 60% of the material in Younes, that seems like an issue.

There are more grammatical problems in the text below where my copy editing stopped. I also did not check the references, except for one (where I was delighted to read about the key change). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

4Music, not the reviewer, is a reliable source. 4Music is own and broadcasted by Channel 4, one of the four major TV channel networks in the history of the UK. So that is fine. I don't heavily use quotations at all, nor do I string them together. Are you familiar with music articles?? You seem to have a warped idea about the use of quotes in music articles. I have changed the sentence about "at the end". I asked someone who I know is very capable to copyedit the entire article, and he did, so I even further disbelieve that you believe there are gr errors.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You should suspend disbelief. There is at least one grammatical error in each sentence in this excerpt:

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.

---

Jim Farber of the New York Daily News thought that the singer appeared to be snarling as she sings about "nothing can take away the glory and power she derives from her voice". Melinda Newman of HitFix thought that starts to sound "defensive" as the song progresses, but is "otherwise glorius". The song generated disappointment for Sal Cinquemani for Slant Magazine, writing that although Aguilera's vocals runs are "pretty", they are "enough to save the otherwise too-bombastic and rote power ballad."

— User:Calvin999 (aka AARON), Sing for Me (Christina Aguilera song)

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.

DYK-worthy articles should not quote sentences containing the redundancy "too bombastic" (or hyphenating the adverb-adjective pair "too-bombastic" (sic.) while failing to hyphenate "rote power-ballad").

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)17:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Five weeks after the first review, this article still needs copyediting work (even beyond what Kiefer has pointed out), there are issues with close paraphrasing in the critical reception section (and possibly elsewhere), and the article is not long enough per DYK rule A5, as the Background section consists of text copied from another article with such minor changes that it really cannot count as new text. Enough time and energy has been spent on reviewing this, and it's still not ready for the main page. Moswento ^talky 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)