Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Candy (Foxy Brown song)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 December 2020 [1].

Candy (Foxy Brown song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is about the third and final single from Foxy Brown's third studio album Broken Silence (2001). It was produced by the Neptunes duo Chad Hugo and Pharrell Williams, and their frequent collaborator Kelis performs the hook. The lyrics are about cunnilingus, with one music critic describing the song as "an ode to oral sex". "Candy" was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews, and is the subject of academic analysis for how it represents black female sexuality. Although the song often appeared on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, only reaching number 48 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart.

I would like to thank @UrbanJE: for their GAN review back in 2018. The article has gone through two peer reviews earlier this year, with comments from @Ojorojo:, @Moisejp:, @Homeostasis07:, @HĐ:, @SandyGeorgia:, and @SatDis:. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback, and I will do my best to further improve the article. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Heartfox

[edit]
  • A minor hit in the US: This feels too vague (is there a particular source that says so?); maybe just say it was a top 10 hit on the rap charts.
  • Fair point. The "minor hit" phrasing is rather subjective as I could see another reader looking at the data and saying the song underperformed instead. I have adjusted the lead to be more objective and hopefully clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard b ref link no longer links to correct page (Billboard is so annoying with all this I don't know why they redo everything every year it seems). You may want to change the c ref as well.
  • That is strange. I should have double-checked those links prior to the nomination. I have replaced Billboard b and c. For some reason, I am having trouble archiving the latter so I left it unarchived for the time being. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason the author isn't given for the Tidal ref? It does say "By Candace McDuffie" after the image.
  • July 2001a ref appears to have incorrect author

That's all. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching this. That was a very big mistake on my part. I have corrected it. I am going to re-examine all of the citations again over the weekend to make sure the data all matches up. Thank you again for looking through this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I don't think the Associated Press is supposed to be italicized? Heartfox (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tables Will Turn" is described as the "subsequent single" from Broken Silence, but it's already stated that "Candy" is its "third and final single"?
  • A music video on YouTube does not necessarily mean "Tables Will Turn" was released as a single.
@Aoba47: you may want to change this. Heartfox (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you catching this. This was a hold-over from a previous draft before I found the source about "Candy" being the third and final single. I have replaced it with album track and track instead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • single.[6][7][8] and -- supposed to be a comma?
  • I've always been kind confused if YouTube videos are supposed to be via= rather than publisher=. In this case I would personally use via= because YouTube isn't the publisher of the video (the record company is), and it could also be available on other services, and wasn't orginally published on YouTube. I guess technically you could also cite the video itself like liner notes are. Do you know of more discussion on this topic?
  • I have changed it to reflect that the record companies are the publishers and added a via YouTube tag. I would rather use the YouTube link than just cite the video without it so a reader can click on it and see the information is correct. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was also played -- I think "also" is redundant because the sentence starts with "Along with"
  • The song was a part of -- The song appears on the
  • chart on September 15, -- chart dated September 15
  • in lyrics such -- in lyrics such as
  • the song was "an ode -- the song is
  • I don't believe it's being used inappropriately here but perhaps UDiscover Music has some possible NPOV issues given it's about Foxy Brown who was signed to Def Jam, which is owned by Universal, and Universal operates the website.
  • chart on September 15, -- chart dated September 15
  • The source says "cocky anthems" not "cock anthems" 💀
  • Curriculum professor Nichole A. Guillory likened Brown to a stewardess instructing a lover to examine her body. In the lyrics, "Licking my lips / And adjusting my tits and switching my hips", Guillory said the focus is on how Brown seduces a man with her body -- the lyrics in the second sentence could be combined with the first and the latter half deleted
  • How authoritative are articles by a contributor to Tidal? The text "Critics praised the single and it appeared on several Billboard charts" is eerily similar to the way this article appeared on August 29, 2019 (the date of the Tidal source) with the text "Critics praised "Candy" following its release and in retrospective reviews ... "Candy" appeared on several Billboard charts." I wouldn't mind if it was just sourcing her comments, but there may be some issue with citing hers that summarize others', especially when it looks to be from Wiki. It'd be nice if a more authoritative outlet did so.
  • Thank you for pointing that out. I have decided to just remove the source altogether. I added it in more so because it made a point that this was the third and final single from the album since a previous version of the Broken Silence article listed "Tables Will Turn" as a fourth single and I could find any sources confirming that. Aoba47 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he questioned the song's appeal to some audiences, specifically those of conservative radio stations, due to its sexual content. -- does this matter?
  • I believe it is important because it is a more critical part of the review so I wanted to keep it more balanced so that I am not just cherry-picking the positive aspects from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • went as far as to write that -- this is subjective

@Aoba47: further comments above. I tried to be as critical as possible. Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the help, and it is important to be as critical as possible with these reviews (which is something I still need to continually improve upon). Apologies again for the two prior pings. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments (either by editing the article or my responses). Please let me know if there is anything else I can do, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support; just made two slight adjustments. Heartfox (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of the help. You have helped to catch some very silly mistakes on my part and to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

[edit]
  • Probably the date for the Broken Silence listening party should be helpful?
  • The song is about cunnilingus, and was described as an "ode to oral sex" by a music critic I think The song is about cunnilingus alone should be enough
  • The production and release section looks great!

Apologize for the delay, below are my further comments after having read the whole article...

  • I think the subject for In comparison to her previous funk-influenced albums, Brown adopted a more pop sound for "Candy" is unclear; probably In comparison..., "Candy" has a more pop sound should work better?
  • R&B category rather than pop I think R&B and pop are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as both genres have found their way to penetrate top 40 everywhere
  • That is a good point. The line between R&B and pop is very blurry, and there has been a lot of recent discussions on it, specifically how it is likely a race issue (at least in the US). Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • new wave and 1980s influences From what I know, new wave is a 1980s genre, so perhaps 1980s new wave influences would be more appropriate
  • I'm seeing quite a few quotes describing the track's lyrical theme. I'd consider rephrasing some of them
  • The Billboard review in the critical reception section is quite lengthy. I'd split it into two sentences
  • that helped to brighten I may be incorrect here, but isn't it supposed to be helped brighten?
  • The para starting with Reviewers have compared "Candy" to music by other artists, specifically Lil' Kim seems to fit better under the "scholarly analysis" section below
  • I can understand your point, but I'm uncertain if it fits there sine a majority of the comparisons are made by music reviewers rather than academics/scholars. However, I will be more than happy to move this paragraph if necessary. I wanted to explain my rationale for its current placement first. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it depends on the context. For example, Stephanie Smith-Strickland wrote that "Candy" and Lil' Kim's 1997 single "Not Tonight" helped to establish a trend in music explicitly about cunnilingus can be moved to the "scholarly analysis" section, HĐ (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: Thank you for the explanation! I understand what you mean now, and I agree with you. I went with your original suggestion, and moved the entire paragraph under the "Scholarly analysis" subsection. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article reads just well, and I like the reference format used here. Once my concerns are addressed I'm more than happy to place my support! HĐ (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HĐ: Thank you for your review and your kind words. I've addressed everything except for the comparison paragraph placement, which I've left a response to explain my rationale. I'd be more than happy to move it, but I wanted to provide my point of view on it first. I've only recently started to use this citation style, but I prefer it as I find it cleaner and easier to read and navigate. Let me know if you have any further suggestions, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to give my support now. Listening to this song reminds me of simpler times when urban tracks by the likes of Usher or Rihanna dominated the '00s pop scene. Great work with the article!
  • P.s. if you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you could help out with my current GANs for the fourth and fifth singles from 1989. GA reviewers are few and far between these days so I'm hoping these won't take half a year to complete... HĐ (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review and support. I enjoy how this song is a great time capsule of that early 2000s sound. I actually prefer when the Neptunes produced music like this (with "I'm a Slave 4 U" being my personal favorite). I will pick up "Wildest Dreams for a review as it is the least I can for all your help. I'll see if I can get to "Bad Blood" as well, but I'll handle them one at a time. It helps that I'm very familiar with the songs and press coverage at that time period. Whenever I think of "Wildest Dreams", I cannot help but think of a YouTube video where Violet Chachki says she enjoys it even though she does not care for Swift lol. I've not been as active in the GAN space, but hopefully there will be ways to encourage more reviewers (ideally experienced ones) to participate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

I reviewed this during the PR stage, where I found little to complain about even then. Will go through the prose with a fine tooth comb over the next hour or so, and will post my comments here. I don't expect to find much (from a quick glance at the lead), but figured it's only good manners to see this through to its conclusion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Aoba. I see from your contributions page that you've started one of the aforementioned GA reviews. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, so please feel free to take as much time as needed to complete my mostly minor copy-edits. As suspected, it's a brilliantly written article. Will be happy to support once the following has been changed and/or responded to:

Lead

  • reaching the top ten in the Hot Rap Songs chart.→I'm not sure, but I think "on the Hot Rap Songs chart." is correct usage here?
→"Candy" appeared on multiple soundtracks in the early 2000s; it featured in the television series Dark Angel and the films Friday After Next and The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Production and release

  • Hugo and Williams co-wrote the single with Juan Manuel Cordova and Brown who is credited under her legal name Inga Marchand.→reads like it's missing a comma after Brown.

Music and lyrics

  • which HipHopDX's Nomatazele further defined as dance-pop.(ref) In MTV News, Shaheem Reid said... → are the source authors here notable enough to have their name included in the prose? You could just rephrase to "which HipHopDX further defined as dance-pop.(ref) MTV News said, etc.
  • acts as stewardess through her instructions to a man to examine her body.→"acts as a stewardess, instructing a lover to examine her body."

Critical reception

  • Some sections use s' while others use s's. Suggest unifying throughout.

Scholarly analysis

  • questioned if Brown was promoting further the stereotype that→"questioned if Brown was advocating a stereotype that"
  • Gender studies scholars Jennifer Esposito and Bettina Love→This is from the third paragraph, but both of these scholars are mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. So maybe add the descriptive term there?
  • Thank you for catching this. The third paragraph was originally in an earlier section, but was moved down. I forgot to moved the descriptive term up to where the two scholars are now mentioned for the first time. This was a pretty big mistake on my part so thank you again for noticing it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I thought this was an informative and well-written article. Will be happy to support soon. Hope you keep well in these troubling times. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Homeostasis07: Thank you for your kind words and your help. You have helped to improve the article a lot by catching some of my silly mistakes. Please let me know if anything can be improved further. I am trying my best. Thankfully, I have not been impacted too much, especially when compared to others. I recently did a COVID test, and got a negative for the virus and the antibodies so I was happy about that. I hope you are staying safe as well. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review

[edit]

Hi Aoba. I hope you've been well. Sorry I missed the second PR, but it looks like you got some good feedback from other editors. I probably won't have time to do a content review, but I will do an image review for you. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I am trying my best, and no worries. You have already helped me a lot, and I am very grateful for all of the feedback I have received in the second PR and in this FAC. I hope you are doing well too. I cannot believe it is already December! Aoba47 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. Yes, already December, 2020 is winding down!

The image and media review passes.

  • Foxy Brown Candy.jpg, the cover image, has a proper fair-use rationale.
  • FoxyBrownCandyAudioSample.ogg also has a proper fair-use rationale. At 14 seconds, it is under 10% of the song's length of 3:45.
  • Foxy brown-03-mika.jpg and Kelis.jpg are properly licensed in Wikicommons and captioned.

It all looks good. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shahid

[edit]

Have more to read, but just looking at the reception section now, these are my comments:

  • "Bret McCabe criticized Brown for not having a strong enough voice..." - I wouldn't necessarily call it "criticised" but rather "dismissed Brown as/for not having" or even "argued that Brown's voice was not strong enough..."
  • "Although critics praised "Candy", Nadine Graham said it received a more negative response from the public; she wrote that "the streets hated it" - "a more negative" sounds awkward to me, especially in view of the quote. My suggestion, "Although critically approved, "Candy" did not fare well with (or: was negatively received by") the public; Nadine Graham went as far as to write that "the streets hated it".
  • "she criticized it as shallow in comparison to Broken Silence's more personal songs" - I'd write, "considered it shallow in comparison to the other, more personal songs in Broken Silence."

For now, Shahid • Talk2me 12:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going on (now Production and release):

  • "Cordova has writing credits on five other tracks from Broken Silence..." - why is it relevant here? Well if you think it is,I think the list of songs is a little too much information.
  • I think it is relevant to point out that Cordova is a frequent collaborator with Brown for the album, and not just for this one specific song. I have removed the list though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following its release, 'Candy' was often featured on early 2000s soundtracks, appearing in the films Friday After Next (2002) and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) - were these two films the only ones where it appeared? If yes, then remove often, or at least change it to several. If no, then add something like "among others" at the end of the sentence, or change "the films" to "films such as".
  • I originally used "often" because the source says the song was an "early-’00s soundtrack staple". However, when doing further research, I could not find any other soundtracks with this song so I have used your suggestion. I wish there was a database to look up a song and find what media it appears in, but I can only find the opposite (i.e. looking up the media to find the song). Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artists's" - I think the s after the apostrophe is redundant in plural noun possessives.

More to come, Shahid • Talk2me 15:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really sure what a "Multiculturalism professor" means - looked up Nichole A. Guillory's name and she is an associate professor of Curriculum & Instruction at Kennesaw State University. "Curriculum professor" would be better, although it means that she is a professor of education at the end of the day. Anyway, I'd just call her a scholar as I can't see how her field could be more easily defined.
  • That is a good point, and thank you for bringing it up. I have used "Curriculum professor" instead of just calling her a scholar because I do not think the more general wording would be as helpful to readers since scholar could be used to described a multitude of different people and occupations. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...wrote that Brown acts as a stewardess, instructing a lover to examine her body" - I'd write "Scholar Nichole A. Guillory likened Brown to a stewardess instructing a lover to examine her body". Make sure the comma after "stewardess" is not there anyway (otherwise "instructing" seems to refer to Guillory rather than Brown). Shahid • Talk2me 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised with your suggested wording as it is better. Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly read through the article. I really appreciate the time you are putting into your review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're very much welcome. I took the liberty of making one small change; feel free to revert it. Otherwise, having read the entire article, I think it meets the criteria and is comprehensive and well sourced. I support the nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

I reviewed this article during the Peer Review phase, and found only minor suggestions. Looking through again.

  • With as represented in lyrics like "Let, you could replace "like" with "such as". And I'm wondering if the fist word of the quote ("Let") should have a capital letter or lower case, as it is part of the sentence?
  • Also, the colon appears twice in this section before a quote; clarified: "But the. Perhaps a comma or semi-colon would read better.
  • I just caught a 1980's in the sound box - no apostrophe needed.

Overall, the article is looking great! Hopefully those comments help. SatDis (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for addressing the comments, I support this nomination. Unrelated question - do you know if an editor allowed to have different Featured Articles / Featured Lists up for nomination at once? (I know two of the same category is discouraged). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to be that you could nominate two FACs if the first one was far enough along in the process and you reached out to the FAC coordinators to get their permission to do so (either on their talk page on the FAC talk page). I am not sure if that is still a part of the procedure or not, so I would ask this to a FAC coordinator. Typically, it is only one FAC and FLC at a time, but you could also have one up and another one active if you are a co-nominator. I hope that makes sense, and again, I would check with any of the three FAC coordinators. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done as the nominator is an experience FA writer
  • Whats the point of bundling ref 31 but not other triple (or double) refs? – would think there should be some consistency, eg. all bundled, none bundled – only triple refs bundled would be appropriate too
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I agree citation bundles only really make sense with the triple ones. I somehow just kept reading over the other two instances. I have bundled them. Please let me know if there are any that I am missing. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's retrieval dates in a seemingly random consistency – I would think they should all have them
  • I wouldn't say it was done randomly. I included access-dates for links that are not archived (except for one stray one that I somehow missed and edited out here) as I do not see the need for access-dates for archived urls. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an ISSN for Clover? You can find it here
  • What exactly is "Marcus Raboy (director) (2002). Friday After Next (Film). New Line Cinema." citing? The entire movie?
  • ISSN for Seymour as well? (here)
  • Again, what is "Writer: Robert Doherty. Director: Nick Marck. (November 16, 2001). "Some Assembly Required". Dark Angel. Season 2. FOX." citing? I would think citing an episode as a reference that a certain song was played is less than ideal
  • Please disregard the above message. I looked this up again and somehow I got the episode wrong so I am glad you brought this up. I watched the episode and cited the time-stamp and added a description of the scene in which the song is played to the citation so it is more useable to readers so they can know the exact moment the song plays. I will go back and see if I can do the same for Friday After Next. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks fine
  • @Aza24: Thank you for the review. I have incorporated your notes into the article. I responded to your points about the retrieval dates (i.e. I only use them for unarchived sources) and the film and television episode citations (although I am open to suggestions if you have an idea that would be more preferable). I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, all looks good now. Sorry I should have been more specific about the episode/movie thing, indeed it was less about the format and more about my concern on citing the entire thing; using timestamps is a perfect solution. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review, and there is no reason to apologize. I agree that it is important to make the citations as helpful to the readers possible and you have helped me to correct a rather embarrassing mix-up. I greatly appreciate your help and you have taught me a new thing by recommending the iSN numbers. I will be using that in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Candy_(Foxy_Brown_song)/archive3&oldid=993135154"