Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2015 [1].

Only Girl (In the World)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 07:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of Rihanna's best selling singles. The song reached either number one or number two in pretty much every country that it was released in. For every country in which it received a sales certification, it was either platinum or multi-platinum. It is the lead single from her career defining Loud album, and it has been a staple of live performances since 2010. It is the first and so far only lead single in U.S. chart history to have reached number one on the Hot 100 after the album's second single reached number one. It also won a Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording.  — Calvin999 07:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Participation Guide
Support
None
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
NapHit, Azealia911

Oppose After reading through the lead, I have noticed a number of issues, which does not bode well for the remainder of the article. Here are a few I noticed:

  • "prior to when the production..." when should be removed
  • "Backed by a hefty bass..." hefty is not encyclopaedic language
  • "and it has become the nineteenth..." this should be past tense
    • Why should it be past tense when it is currently the 19th best selling by female?  — Calvin999 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first part of the sentence is in past tense, you can't mix separate tenses in the same sentence. Change has become to became to solve the issue. Also change "Selling over a million copies" to with over a million copies sold" to avoid repeating the word selling in close succession
  • "and it reached the top five..."
  • "and at the 38th American Music Awards in the United States, and on The X Factor and on The Graham Norton Show in the United Kingdom." This does not read well at all, do really need to list all these shows in the lead?
  • "its bright and colorful yet simple theme..." what does this even mean? bright and colourful yet simple, it doesn't make much sense at all.

I'm reluctant to read the rest of the article due to the number of issues present in just three paragraphs. Also concerning is the fact that this is the article's third nomination since March, yet it appears none of the underlying issues has been properly addressed. In particular, the last nomination was only closed two weeks ago and going through the nomination none of the issues raised appear to have been addressed. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and getting it thoroughly copyedited by an impartial editor. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really see how you can say that no issues have been addressed in the previous two nominations. I changed any issues in the previous nomination that I agreed with while the nomination was still open, that's why those issues weren't done after the nomination was archived, because I'd already done them. I'm not going to withdraw; this article follows the same style guide that I used for "S&M", which went through a lot of nominations and ultimately promoted, so I disagree with you wholeheartedly.  — Calvin999 07:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you say, you changed the issues YOU agreed with. Reading through the issues they were all pertinent and should have been followed. I think you are too stubborn for your own good, if the article got a thorough copyedit to eliminate these issues then you wouldn't have to keep nominating the article over and over again. Just because a previous article got promoted because you did things a certain way doesn't mean this one will. Standards change over time, they don't remain constant and every article should be considered on its own merit. I'm trying to help you here, but I get the feeling that I am pissing in the wind. You can choose to take my advice or not, it's entirely up to, but if you don't I feel you face this situation consistently until you do. NapHit (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't agree with some suggestions. FAC is not supposed to be a dictatorship with nominators bowing down to every reviewers request. A lot of the stuff in the previous nomination was purely down to personal preference, because it was fine for my previous FA. I don't see how standards can change that much in just a short amount of time. I am listening to what you're saying though, and I have done everything that you asked of above. I get nominators disagreeing with me in GANs, but I don't fail them automatically just because they disagree. Sometimes a compromise or meeting the middle is required. Nobody ever highlights anything positive in these FACs, either. It's always focusing on the negative in a really negative way. Perhaps that's why I'm slightly stubborn with things.  — Calvin999 21:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where are you are coming from, but personal preference only goes so far, alot of those suggestions in the previous nom were valid. I do think you jumped the gun here. It would have been better to get a copyedit and then bring it here. What I'm trying to say is, it would be better getting it properly copyedited, without having to renominate 10 times before it gets promoted. That's just making hard work for yourself when you really don't have to. Anyway, I'll go through the rest of the article and have a look. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "Tor Erik Hermansen revealed..." who is this Tor, I assume he is part of Stargate, but that is not made clear. Anyone without a background in music will have no idea about the significance of the random name here
  • "The singer said..." remove it goes without saying that she said the following quote. Put a colon at the end of the previous sentence instead and merge them
  • "Eriksen and Miles Walker..." again who are these two people, they are not introduced previously in the article
    • Added 'of Stargate' for Eriksen but this is the first time I mention Walker hence using his whole name, so no of course he hasn't been previously introduced. I say here and now what he contributed. Bit confused by what you're trying to get across here.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you've added "Srgate" so that typo needs to be fixed and you're missing my point above about Miles Walker. Yes I know that is the first time he is mentioned, but why is he mentioned? Who is he? Who does he work for? It's not clear what his role is and therefore, why he is included. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not missing the point. Why? He is mentioned because he recorded the music alongside Eriksen and Vee. Who? He is clearly someone who records the music in the studio. Employer? 45th & 3rd Music LLC is written in the booklet, but I don't know if they are his employer, but not even FA articles say who people involved work for and it's information that the reader probably isn't interested in knowing, either. I think you're going in too deep on this point frankly and rather unnecessarily I might add, too.  — Calvin999 09:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Roc the Mic Studios in New York City and the Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles, and by Vee at The Bunker Studios in Paris" no need for The in front of the studio names, also is there any reason why the instrumentals were recorded at three separate studios? Doesn't make much sense to me.
    • 'The Bunker Studios' is the name of the studio, like how 'The Ivy' is the name of a restaurant in London, you wouldn't write 'the Ivy'. I'm just paraphrasing what is in the booklet, there is no comment or explanation as to why they recorded different bits in different studios, and quite frankly, they don't have to. It's extremely rare for a song to have vocals and all music recorded in just one studio, not everyone can be in the same place at the same time. Look at "Thirsty" for example, that was recorded in seven different studios.  — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentences just list out of people involved in making the song, its not exactly engaging prose. Is there any way to improve it?
    • Well, that's what it is. Who did what, it can't really be written any other way without having exclusive info on the recording processes, which doesn't exist. — Calvin999 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it can be written better, so that is engaging to the reader, right now it reads just like a list. This is why you should have got a copyedit beforehand. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a melange of genres in its composition"
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" combines a melange of genres in its composition, including dance, electro, Europop, Hi-NRG, pop, rave and R&B.[6][7][8][9] It lasts for a duration of three minutes and 55 seconds." merge these sentences
  • Are there any more critical reviews? There must of been more than one? As it stands this section is not very balanced
  • The accolades tables needs to meet WP:ACCESS, there are no row or col scopes
  • "album's first single ascended to the peak..." not encyclopaedic language here, just state simply what happened
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" was the fourth of Rihanna's single releases in 2010 to reached number one, meaning that she became the first female, as well the first artist overall since Usher, to chart four number one's in a calendar year." this sentence is very clunky and needs rewriting
  • "It further meant..." again poor prose, just state what happened
  • "this century.." use the actual century, this century is ambiguous
  • "reached the peak..." the charts are not a mountain, just say top of the charts
  • "rose 2-1 in the chart..." what does this mean? its unclear
  • ref 8 is actually The Observer not The Guardian and the dash should be an en dash

These are just a number of issues I found after a quick read through. It's painfully obvious the article requires a thorough copyedit before it is near Featured standard. I have nothing more to add I stand by my original position when I initially commented. A further note, I'm trying to help you here, I'd advise you stop coming across as if you have a chip on your shoulder. Remember that I am volunteering to review this for you, I don't have to do this, so please try and understand that I'm trying to help you here. It comes across as if you are annoyed at times when you reply. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know you're trying to help, and I know you're volunteering, as it were, on here (we are all volunteering on Wikipedia). I generally find that FAC reviewers are quite negative about absolutely everything. I haven't got a chip on my shoulder, my back just gets put up. As I said above, having someone come in and blast you with solely negative comments when you've spent and dedicated a long time on improving something is a bit of a kick in the face.  — Calvin999 09:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The comments that refer to the lead should also be corrected in the appropriate section:

  • included on her fifth studio album—from her fifth studio album
  • I think we can lose Crystal Johnson's profession because it's easy to assume he is a songwriter since he wrote the song.
  • the producers Stargate and Sandy Vee—"the" should be dropped because Stargate and Vee weren't the producers during the writing of the song
  • prior to the production of Loud began—"began" is not necessary here
  • Ok, if got it right, Rihanna was not satisfied with the initial tapes of the song, and asked the producers to speed it up?
    • No? Lol. She decided that she knew she wanted it on the album when she heard their composition before she recorded any vocals (because she liked the beat essentially)  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created" is not the luckiest solution here. Why not use composed or written?
  • ominous themes which were present on her previous album–you can drop the italicized words without losing the meaning
  • why is "after" italicized?
    • Because I'm placing emphasis on the fact that the lead single reached number one after the second single reached number one, which is the first and only time that this has ever happened on the Hot 100.
      • I don't think that's encyclopedical. I've seen that kind of emphasising in personal conversation, but rarely in these kind of articles.
  • "Only Girl (In the World)" was written by Crystal Johnson in collaboration with the song's producers Stargate and Sandy Vee.—chronologically, Stargate and Vee weren't the song's producers when they were writing the song.
    • It's less convoluted than saying "It was written by Crystal Johnson, Sandy Wilhelm, Hermansen and Eriksen of Starage, and produced by Wilhelm under his stage name Sandy Vee and by Stargate" (as an example).  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, your explanation seems reasonable.
  • Rihanna had previously worked with Stargate on past singles, including...—Rihanna had previously worked with Stargate on the singles [song titles]
  • Is it really important to include where the interviews were given? (Vibe, live webchat with her fansite, etc.); by the way, she can chat with the fans, not the fansite.
    • Yeah, because saying "in an interview she said..." would need to have who she was giving the interview too. That's pretty standard.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can see that from the reference, right? My point was that it makes the prose tedious. Nobody is interested in who conducted the interview, but what was said in the interview. By the way, did you correct my second suggestion from this note?
  • What does "bigger sound" than "Rude Boy" imply? Did she wanted to be louder, more distorted?
  • it lasts for a duration of three minutes and 55 seconds—drop the italicized words
  • About the mixture of genres. Did you make that conclusion by combining the four references? If that's the case, I'm afraid that falls under WP:SYNTHESIS
  • How can the LA Times journalist call the song a "comaback", and then note that it was not a comeback single?
    • You'd have to ask him! Lol. I think he meant that because Rihanna had deviated from pop to hip-hop and dubstep so much on Rated R and it was generally less successful than Good Girl Gone Bad, that this was like a return to form and more like the 'old Rihanna'. That's what I get from it.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, since it's an excerpt from a review, I guess you can't do much aboout it.
  • Per Wiki's manual style of writing, tables should be placed at the end of the article (check "Accolades")
  • Where is this place 2 hours from Los Angeles? Is it two hours by plane or car?
  • Is JustJared.com a reliable source?
    • Considering it is Rihanna's words, I think it is.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the ref accredited to a journalist, and more importantly, is there another source that we can use instead of this one?
My overall perception is that the prose is too verbal at few places. Have you consulted a copyeditor prior to the nomiantion?--Retrohead (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made the changes.  — Calvin999 08:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you haven't responded to all of my comments. Have you done them?--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911

General comments

  • All violations of MOS:DASH need to be fixed.
  • File:Rihanna, LOUD Tour, Oakland 4.jpg located in Live performances and covers needs a WP:ALT.

Credits and personnel

  • Do none of the studios/personnel have independent articles that can be linked?
  • Consider moving "Credits adapted from the liner notes of Loud, Def Jam Recordings, SRP Records.[1]" to the top of the section, I initially thought it was unsourced until closely reading.

Charts

  • All mentions of U.S. → US per MOS:CHARTS
  • I see no issue in linking all instances of (Billboard), especially as when sorted, the linked entries can appear in the nether regions of the chart.
  • Billboard Hot 100 should place first when listing the US charts, per the second example in MOS:CHARTS
  • (Official Charts Company) should be linked.
  • I'd add the record providers (Billboard) (ARIA) (Official Charts Company) etc, to the year-end charts also, and link them.
  • For all-time charts, Australia's chart is constantly updated, while the UK's was an article published in June 2013. Considering the UK's place may have changed, consider creating a footnote stating something along the lines of "All-time UK Singles Chart place as of June 2013" or similar.
  • UK Singles Chart needs to be followed by "(Official Charts Company)" in all-time charts

Certifications

  • Switzerland (IFPI Switzerland) → Switzerland (IFPI SWI)
  • When sorting the Certification column, the figures are incorrectly listed, with the singular platinum's listing, then 5×, 3×, and 2× platinum following, needs fixing.
  • Consider creating a Ref. column after Sales/shipments, optional though.

Radio and digital release history

  • The Netherlands → The Netherlands
  • Consider creating a Ref. column after label, optional though.
  • Digital download for Germany and United States can be rowspanned.
  • rhythmic radio → rhythmic radio

See also

  • Seems somewhat overcrowded, possibly consider removing some, optional though. Should you decide to keep them all, they at least need sorting, preferably alphabetically, with the Grammy link coming first.

Weak oppose at present moment in time. I do however, fully sympathize with your reply to the previous oppose about FLC's being borderline insulting at times, and I'll of course switch to support if my comments are addressed, which I don't imagine you'll have much trouble doing. Also feel free to refuse to change something you don't think needs changing, if you have reason. From what I've seen, FLC's tend to result in sometimes unhelpful changes to an article simply in order to gain support from a reviewer. Good article (both literally and objectively) so far, just needs tweaks. Azealia911 talk 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Errors have been introduced in an attempt to fix the issues with the dashes. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. Graham Beards (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Singora (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC) There are errors everywhere -- it would be silly to list them all. To be honest, I think it's pointless trying to give articles like this an academic flavor.[reply]

It's obvious this nomination has no chance what-so-ever of getting promoted or being turned around so it might as well be closed to be honest.  — Calvin999 17:58, 23 June 2015 (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/Only_Girl_(In_the_World)/archive3&oldid=1138468346"