Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive3
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:27, 7 October 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe that previous problems regarding the article failing just short of the professional criteria in 1a has been addressed. The prose is refereshed to a professional version. Every concerns have been addressed and "4 Minutes" is, one the most complete articles on a song, I believe, here on Wikipedia. Hence it should be a featured article after gaining consensus from my fellow reviewers here at FAC. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text, dabs, sources reviewed in previous FAC; needs an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright is fine. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still some awkward prose:
- "She appeared to cleaning the set of the music video"
- "The last "tick-tock, tick-tock" sound is heard and dance again on a long stage,"
- But that's as much as I could find. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both have been corrected by introducing missing words. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good now some of the prose have been tightened. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Aaron. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy to support this article's nomination for the second time. All of my concerns have been addressed and then some. Great article! Drewcifer (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments I supported the article's nomination at the last FAC, but upon taking a fresh look I feel the prose could be tightened up further. Alot of this is minor stuff that is easier to do myself, but feel free to keep a close eye on my edits and undo any that rub you the wrong way. However, I do have a few complaints about the Composition section. Namely, a few of the descriptors seem unsourced and a personal asessment presented as fact. For instance "Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats". Who says they're characteristic? This sounds like an opinion to me. Take that word out and it reads much better. Also, "with a moderate tempo of 115 beats per minute." By whose standards is this "moderate"? Surely not to a drum and bass fan. Again, take the word out and you're cool. So I'd recommend a thorough scan through the entire article (there's stuff like this peppered throughout, not just in that one section). Also, I feel the article needs a sweep for WP:LQ. Also, there needs to be "[reply] " between stuff like "number three". Drewcifer (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed or removed the words which tended towards OR. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done a sweep for WP:LQ? Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I also did for MoS too. Found quite a number of quotes in the reception section to be failing WP:LQ, changed them back. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done a sweep for WP:LQ? Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed or removed the words which tended towards OR. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I mentioned this in the previous FLC, but it's still a problem: the music video and Live performances sections go into too much detail, hence bordering slightly on fandom. For instance, the music video section goes into a section-for-section plot summary of the video. Is it really that important for our knowledge of the topic at hand that they end up in a supermarket at one point? Or that they dance on a conveyor belt? The performances section is a little less fandomy, but I think it too could be trimmed down.
- I trimmed it as much as I could, but I am against further trimming down. For an artist like Madonna, the live performances and music videos have been the most analysed and reviewed. You cannot trim everything down to a bland version.
- You're right: analysis is important, and Madonna is surely a worthier-than-most source for analysis. But the problem is I'm not seeing alot of analysis here; only summary. Take for example, the following passage: "Madonna is shown in a car yard, pushing a car into a home. She sings the main verse as she comes inside. The home owners are shown to be oblivious to her presence in their home." Where is the analysis? This reads like a book report to me rather than anything even vaguely encyclopedic. And to myself - a non-fan of Madonna - it reads as something only a fan would take the time to write. I could watch the video in about the same time it would take me to read about it. Take for example the FA Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). There is a bit of a plot summary, but it is kept brief and sticks to only the main points of the video. (140 words to 250) And another, I Don't Remember does the same thing, also at around 140 words. I'm not saying delete it completely, but take out the stuff that doesn't tell us anything about the topic other than X happens then Y happens. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to keep things like set/environment shifts, important dance sequences/routines, and stuff having to do with the black wall thing. The wall thing seems to be the driving force of the video plot-wise and thematically, so it would be good to revolve the summary around that. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do get your points which I believe are really valid. I have copy-edited as far as I could, removing parts which donot seem encyclopedic and parts which tend to be fancrufty. Please take look if what I did is correct. I tweaked the summary to revolve around the screen and the time counting down. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I could still go for less, but it's definitely more focused and the rewrites help as well. I can live with this compromise. Drewcifer (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do get your points which I believe are really valid. I have copy-edited as far as I could, removing parts which donot seem encyclopedic and parts which tend to be fancrufty. Please take look if what I did is correct. I tweaked the summary to revolve around the screen and the time counting down. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right: analysis is important, and Madonna is surely a worthier-than-most source for analysis. But the problem is I'm not seeing alot of analysis here; only summary. Take for example, the following passage: "Madonna is shown in a car yard, pushing a car into a home. She sings the main verse as she comes inside. The home owners are shown to be oblivious to her presence in their home." Where is the analysis? This reads like a book report to me rather than anything even vaguely encyclopedic. And to myself - a non-fan of Madonna - it reads as something only a fan would take the time to write. I could watch the video in about the same time it would take me to read about it. Take for example the FA Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). There is a bit of a plot summary, but it is kept brief and sticks to only the main points of the video. (140 words to 250) And another, I Don't Remember does the same thing, also at around 140 words. I'm not saying delete it completely, but take out the stuff that doesn't tell us anything about the topic other than X happens then Y happens. Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to keep things like set/environment shifts, important dance sequences/routines, and stuff having to do with the black wall thing. The wall thing seems to be the driving force of the video plot-wise and thematically, so it would be good to revolve the summary around that. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed it as much as I could, but I am against further trimming down. For an artist like Madonna, the live performances and music videos have been the most analysed and reviewed. You cannot trim everything down to a bland version.
- Some of the image captions need some work. If a caption isn't a complete sentence, don't use a period. Also, for the ones depicting live performances, the date and venue really aren't that important (at least to the topic at hand). Take that stuff out and make sure it's at least on the image's page. Lastly, many of the captions are just plain long. Try and trim them down a bit. Take out the extraneous stuff that's already obvious ("showing Madonna and Justin Timberlake kissing"), and leave the text for stuff that you're actually trying to point out with the image ("while the black background devours them, showing Timberlake's insides."). Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimmed down.
- In the Credits and personnel section, each credit has a colon AND a dash. Stick with one; you don't need both. I think it's usually a dash. Drewcifer (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should be en dashes. I've fixed these myself. — Σxplicit 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
…the song features vocals by American singer–songwriter Justin Timberlake and Timbaland. Does "singer–songwriter" refer to just Timberlake, or does that include Timbaland? If so, it should be "singer–songwriters"; if not, specify who he is, as readers unfamiliar with Timbaland won't know who he is.I'm pretty sure that the wikilinks to hip hop should be piped linked to hip hop music.The unusual instrumentation includes… Unusual to who?It became Madonna's thirteenth number-one single in the United Kingdom; the highest total for any female artist on the British charts. The semicolon seems a bit odd here. Perhaps it should be replaced with a comma or the word "and"?It was initially referred to as "4 Minutes to Save the World", even by Madonna. Is there a reason for the text in bold to be included?— Σxplicit 01:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Concerns have been addressed. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor issue: this reference no longer works.— Σxplicit 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Replaced with a working link from People magazine. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I would like to see a more descriptive caption for the music video screenshot, though. Since it's depicting the background devouring Timberlake, a little something should be added there. — Σxplicit 05:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll try to satisfy you both :( --Legolas (talk2me) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm glad to see this article back at FAC and now at the FA level. We told 'ya. ;)
- Initially known as "4 Minutes to Save the World", - This could be bolded, not necessary
- Yes. Even I feel that it's not necessary to be bolded when its used in the middle of a sentence. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the line "Sometimes I feel what I need is a you intervention", Madonna explained "[y]eah, meaning, sometimes I think you need to save me."[3] - In composition. Add a comma after explained.
- In Chart performance: "4 Minutes" was also a success in Australia and New Zealand. The song made its debut at number three on the Australian ARIA Singles Chart,[31] and ascended to the number-one position two weeks later, where it spent three consecutive weeks.[32] - where it stayed for
- and ascended into the top ten, finally peaking at number three.[35] - this should either be ascended to... or rose to
- The song rose to the top of the chart on April 20, 2008, thus giving Madonna her thirteenth UK number-one single. - cite?
- The citation is present in the after line, however, I still added one from BBC. That should do it. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It featured choreography by Jamie King, who worked on Madonna’s Confessions, Re-Invention and Drowned World tours as well as her video for the single "Sorry" (2006). Japanese hip-hop dancing duo Hamutsun serve also made an appearance in the video. - both sentences need cites
- As per above, the citations are present in the enxt to next line, that of the Rolling Stone link, however I made them in-line. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! ceranthor 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets FA Criteria warrior4321 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Easily comparable to the current featured articles on songs on Wikipedia. Spiderone 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporrt--Pedro J. the rookie 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the WP:MOSNUM boundary here on spelling out numbers vs. digits, and why is there small text in Track listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I followed the spelling out rule inorder to bring a consistency in the article. Also, in the tracklisting, the remixer's names or the version are generally made small, being not that notable as the main track. Another thing is, since we use
| class="col-break col-break-2" | , having the names (which can be quite long) in the normal font size may stretch the tables down. We have to keep in mind that not everybody watches with the same browser settings. Anything below the 800x600 resolution destroys the col-2 structure, if we magnify the names. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.