Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rehab (Rihanna 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 Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 [1].

Rehab (Rihanna song)

[edit]

Rehab (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I really think that the article is close to the FA criteria. This is the third nomination of "Rehab" and I really that it really progressed since it was nominated for first time. During its history, it got a number of copy-edits and also one major peer review that lasted for nearly two months. I plead all the users that Oppose, to put the comments on this page. Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Check by Wikipedian Penguin

  • Pictures need alt text.
  • Ellipses are not used in the beginning of quoations.
  • Hello, Baffle gab1978. I respect you in the sense that you are a fantastic copy editor. However, ellipses are never used in the beginning and end of quotations unless the reader may mistaken it for a complete sentence and meaning is lost. It is not needed here as the quotes are integrated into the prose. "Over the couse", I assume, would mean within the quoted text, not outside of it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, WP. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure precisely what the original comment meant by "spaces between dates and ellipses", but: (A) MOS does not require nbsps inside mdy dates and the examples in WP:MOSNUM don't contain them; actually, nbsp between the month and the day seems quite nice, but I think that before the year it's overkill (I'm not suggesting to go through removing them, though). (B) nbsp is needed before an ellipsis but not after one. --Stfg (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for WP:OVERLINK. Articles should not be linked more than once in the body of an article.
  • Album notes citations need page numbers.
  • Not covered by MoS, but check for colons vs. commas when following words such as "said" and "wrote".
  • Citation inconsistencies remain, such as usage of parentheses. Some EW refs have Time Inc in brackets, whereas others do not. Same with Billboard references.
  • Why do the Year-end charts follow a different format in terms of chart names than the weekly charts?
  • Trim down the usage of quotes.
  • Removed some sentences as a result of death sources... What do you think now?

Sincere apologies for not picking these up in the previous reviews. Also, various issues from previous FAC remain unaddressed. For example, I still do not understand by what you mean when you say Rihanna was accompanying Timbaland. Another prose problem is "'Rehab' received positive and negative reviews from music critics." This literally makes sense, but reads awkward in the sense that it does not do a good job summarizing the section. There is usually always one critic who will write negatively. How about "Critics were divided" or something like that. Loose prose is also present, such as "It was one of three songs produced by Timbaland for Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad album; 'Sell Me Candy' and 'Lemme Get That' were the other two." You can shorten that down to "'Sell Me Candy', 'Lemme Get That' and 'Rehab' were all produced by Timbaland for Good Girl Gone Bad."

  • Actually by accompanying I mean, she was with Timbaland while he was a special guest on Timberlake's tour. So three of them were on his tour together. But I don't know how to re-word it. Rihanna also said similarly in the source interview. However, I changed the other sentences. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to oppose, but I want to see what other reviewers think and if you can address issues quickly and promptly. :) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin, I agree with most of your points, but alt text is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about supporting. But there are still some prose issues that confuse me, such as "Rihanna responds with the ad-libbed the song's hook" and "The video premiered worldwide on MTV on November 17, 2008", where your use of "on" is repetitive. Remember, the prose must be engaging and professional. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOS issues with quotations, as pointed out by Penguin and Efe above
  • Title given for FN 1 doesn't match that of the source
  • Check for typos in refs, for example in the author name for FN 1
  • Be consistent in how magazine publishers are notated
  • What are Quentin Huff's qualifications as a music reviewer?
  • Some of your archive links, for example this one, return errors
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking
  • Your options are: link terms on every occurrence in footnotes; link terms on first occurrence in footnotes; don't link terms in footnotes. For each potentially linked term, you must apply one of these options, and do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't appear to be the right link for FN 31

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
  • Production and recording is still lacking for me, and seems padded with quotations in the second paragraph that add nothing to what actually went on in the studio.
  • Prose remains choppy in ares: "After performing a show in Chicago, Rihanna and Timberlake went to a studio to collaborate. They later went to New York City... where he began writing a song for her.." Well, what was the result of their first session, after the show in Chicago? If nothing notable came out of it, why is it mention here? And, the song that he began writing for her in New York, was it this one? or was it another song?
  • "Timbaland and Timberlake worked together on the latter's album FutureSex/LoveSounds in 2006;" What's the notability of this point? Why not just give it a cursory mention, as in "Timberland also recruited the help of American pop singer and musician Justin Timberlake, with whom he had previous collaborated." Here, the last clause of the sentence serves as just a "fyi". Also, Timberlake and Timbaland have worked on many other songs since his album, so don't limit their work to Timberlake's album.
  • "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from the low note of F3 to B4"-- F3 isn't low, by many people's standards. I'd suggest saying "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from F3 to B4".
  • "Rihanna told Entertainment Weekly's Margeaux Watson: "'Rehab' is a metaphorical song. Rehab really..." Paragraphs need a topic sentence. But beyond that, please introduce your quotations properly. At least try and hint to the reader what to expect from the quotation, or what the quotation is trying to support-- "In an interview with EW, Rihanna explained the meaning behind the lyrics of the songs: 'Rehab' is a metaphorical song ...'."
  • This is more of a personal thing, and I haven't yet consulted the relevant Wikiproject. But why has the section "Live Performances" become such a staple in these articles? What makes some performances more notable than others? And if none is more notable, then are you going to include every single live performance of the song she has ever done? And if she performed it tomorrow, would you add it to this article too? And, as expected, this section is the lengthiest.
  • ""Rehab" received both positive and negative reviews from music critics." Doesn't make sense. Almost all releases have received both positive and negative reviews. Your job is to weigh them and say if they were generally positive, generally mixed, or generally negative.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the article. But in all good conscience, I cannot support. Not yet. Orane (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Rehab_(Rihanna_song)#Production_and_recording. Orane (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen, responded and copied the paragraph in the article. What you did was really marvelous. I also made some c/e. Thank You... logically comes the question ... Are you satisfied how the article looks now? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I have done a rough copy edit of that section. This is my edit. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Struck my oppose vote. But still unsatisfied that crucial sections seem to suffer from a lack of comprehensiveness. The "Composition" section is a little incoherent, since the section mentions the music and time signature, then uses a long quotation to explain the song's lyrical theme, then goes back to mention the song's structure and instrumentation. You also said "Critics noted similarities between "Rehab" and some of Timberlake's songs such as "What Goes Around... Comes Around" and "Cry Me a River"." In what ways are they similar? Beat-wise? Lyrically? Structurally? Also, how did the song perform on the charts? We got 2 sentences about its performance in America: its debut and its peak. But how long did it take to get to the peak? Did it chart on any other mainstream, radio-based chart (Pop 100?, R&B/Hip Hop chart?) Place it in context: how did it do compared to other singles on the album? These are questions that remain unaddressed when I read the article. My addition to the production section was just one way that it could be improved. So I won't oppose it. But in answer to your question, am I satisfied with how the article looks? Not quite. Not when I compare it to other featured articles like "Irreplaceable" or "4 Minutes". Orane (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist, I think that you should directly struck your oppose vote. I changed a little bit the composition section: First added the structural stuff and then what critics commented. The both critics considered that structurally Rehab is similar with the other mentioned singles. I also added some chart info about the US and UK and I expect to be a little bit c/e. Also, there is not much information in this section because in fact this song has never reached number one or chart strongly in any territory. I know that NOW the both FA that you mentioned look stunning, but please see how "Irreplaceable" and "4 Minutes" looked at the time they were promoted. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I struck my oppose vote, so I don't know exactly what is expected of me. To be honest, if I critique the article, it may seem like I'm nitpicking. But if you wanted another reason, the prose is not compelling and professional, in my opinion. Here are examples:

  • The first paragraph in the lede is choppy, and none of the sentences connect. And, in addition to that, read them out loud and they sound too simplified: X did this, the song did that. The song is this, it was sung like this. Vary the sentence structure and create a nice flow throughout. Read this out loud and listen to it:
  • It was written and produced by Hannon Lane and Timbaland [fullstop] Justin Timberlake also co-wrote the song and provided additional vocals[fullstop]. Development of "Rehab" began while Rihanna was accompanying Timbaland on Timberlake's FutureSex/LoveShow tour in 2007[fullstop]. The chorus is sung in an emotional, melancholic style [fullstop]. "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with a subtle beat [fullstop]. Def Jam Recordings released the song to contemporary hit radio in the United States on October 6, 2008 [fullstop]. It was released in the United Kingdom as a CD single on December 8, 2008.[fullstop].
  • Do you get what I'm saying? Am I being unreasonable?
  • "Critics generally gave mixed reviews of the song". This is ambiguous. Did most critics, as a collective, give the song a mixed review? Or did the song get a lot of positive and negative review, and so average response to it was mixed? (In other words, if 10 critics reviewed the song, did all 10 of them give the song a 3-star rating? Or did 5 give it a positive response, and another 5 gave it a negative response?) Am I being clear?
  • "It features Rihanna and Timberlake as a couple who engage in sexual activity in a desert." So... they have sex?
  • In the "Composition" section, you can get rid of the last section of the quote ("We're just saying, 'We don't wanna smoke any cigarettes no more,' meaning we don't wanna deal with this BS anymore.'"). It's grammatically unsound (you need a [sic] sign). Plus, it adds nothing to the section. Problem still exist, even without the [sic], as of Orane (talk). Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Tomica1111 has asked me to take a look at some things, which is why I'm commenting.) I'll leave the question of removing it to Tomica1111. As to the [sic], it isn't clear to me that it's needed to assure the reader that there is no transcription error on our part, and I didn't want to be guilty of the solecism described in Sic#Using 'sic' to Ridicule. To me, it's obvious that the quotation is colloquial and slangy, and I don't think it needs pointing out. I am not sure where a [sic] could usefully go, but if you have somewhere in mind, please would you do it? --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every second sentence in the "Chart performance" section begins with "'Rehab entered...'"
  • ""Rehab" entered the US Billboard Hot 100 chart on November 22, 2008..."
  • "Rehab" entered the Canadian Hot 100 chart at number 56..."
  • "The song entered the Australian ARIA Singles Chart at number 37 ..."
  • "In New Zealand, "Rehab" entered the singles chart..."
  • ""Rehab" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 51"
  • ""Rehab" entered the Dutch Top..."
  • "In Norway, the song entered..."
How about "the song debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at ...", "the song first appeared at number 56 on the Swiss Charts ...", "the song entered the Canadian charts", "The song peaked at number five after first appearing at number 56 ..." See? Something can definitely be done to the prose. Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have mentioned that, apart from making my comment, I also copy edited to tackle the problem you mention. Here's the diff, though this section has had a couple of modifications since. In general, in popular music articles, I find the repetition of "the song" in every other sentence to be even more excruciating than repeating the song's title, but the unmarked word "it" can be repeated as often as one wants so long as what "it" refers to is clear. Anyway, please would you have a look at the current state of the section, and comment or adjust it as you prefer? --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see what more needs doing. There's something in RL that I really must attend to, but I will work on it again later today. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had concentrated on the repeating "Rehab" and forgotten the repeating "entered" and the generally litany-like run. Duh! How is it now? --Stfg (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Music video" section, you devoted an entire paragraph to hear-says and gossip about Jessica Biel. It was already advised in the first FAC that it added nothing to an encyclopedia article about this song.
  • "In his book Post Cinematic Affect (2010), Steven Shaviro wrote that the videos of "Rehab", "Love Sex Magic" and "4 Minutes", Timberlake is "radiat[ing] a smothering sexual heat", which "can be contrasted with the videos from Timberlake's own Future Sex/Love Sounds album which Joshua Clover convincingly describes as a 'homosocial' exchange between Timberlake and his producer Timbaland"." [Sentence is awkward]
  • "which Joshua Clover convincingly describes as a 'homosocial' exchange..." What do you mean "convincingly describes"? I don't follow. Are you making the conclusion that his argument is convincing? If so, why? Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? What's going on here? This is a direct quote from the source; of course we're not drawing that conclusion! I've restored "convincing" as it's in the quoted source. I have, however, clarified the relationship between the two quotes from the same source. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical Reception" section lacking. Stop making the quotes do the work for you!
  • If the tones of the reviews change for the second paragraph, how about indicating this with contrasting prose. Something like "Rehab also garnered negative reviews from critics. XX criticized its songwriting [i.e. that's what the Slant Magazine critic did; ]..." I don't know. Something. Anything to unify the prose.

And fixing these specific concerns may not be enough. These are just examples! Orane (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely agreeing with what Orane wrote above, I would also advice you Tomica to not leave sentences which are open to interpretations. Fro eg: in the composition section, you have a comparison between "Rehab" and Timberlake's other singles, but what exactly is being compared, is not explained. Also I found there are some repetitive wordings in lead, which could be avoided by tweakings. For eg: "The video won the award for Best Music Video at the 2009 Urban Music Awards." Consecutive usage of award here is problematic. Also a big thing missing is the main inspiration for the track. Wasn't there any available? — Legolas (talk2me) 17:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with a subtle beat with an emotional and melancholic-style chorus. How will we qualify mid-paced and subtle?
Not convinced you need to qualify mid-paced: musical tempi are often called fast, medium or slow according to how they compare with a normal pulse rate (70-80 bpm), but that might be too technical a side-track here. Is "subtle" a bit POVish? --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not comfortable reading mid-paced song with a subtle beat. Isn't it redundant? Subtle here is vague. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, really. I've removed the subtle beat from the lead, but kep the other two occurrences, since it's directly cited to the Spence D reference (FN9 currently). --Stfg (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the 2nd "with" to "and". --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "melancholic-style" to "melancholy". I understand it to refer to the character of the music itself (i.e. it would still be melancholy in any reasonable cover). --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first part has them divided, the second apparently all comparing it to <thingy>. I've tried "divided on the song, some comparing it ...". Does that do it? --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO its not enough. What caused the division of opinion? --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Rehab" is one of the three songs composed and produced by Timbaland for Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad.[1] During this time," That is a poor connector. What time it is being referred to? --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase removed as unnecessary. The historical account begins in sentence 2. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how formal something has to be to qualify as a "session", so have not touched that. But I changed "failed to" into "did not", because the source doesn't seem to be clearly saying that they were trying to achieve a complete song. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not very contentious in nature, but it qualifies as an original research. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it does (the source says nothing about not yielding a song). Sentence deleted. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is very week for inclusion: She said, "Working with Justin in the studio is just great. He's a fun guy and likes to make all the sessions enjoyable. He's also such a genius when it comes to lyrics."

There's still a lot more issue to this article. But that's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jivesh (From lead)

  • I see released three times in the first paragraph of the lead. > Very repetitive use of the word.
  • Timberlake wrote the song in collaboration with the song's producers > Repetitive use of the word song. Keep in find that this is at FAC, we want near-perfection in prose.
  • the lyrics are about the singer's painful memories of her former lover > Does that mean the song details part of Rihanna's real life?
  • Critics were divided on the song, some comparing it to Justin Timberlake's 2007 single "What Goes Around... Comes Around". Divided on what? The comparison? This is the impression i get here.
    • They were divided on the song, and some of them compared it to the 2007 song.
  • on the official charts Is that the word official needed? Wikipedia does not allow some charts... So what's the use of the inclusion of official here?
  • Anthony Mandler directed the accompanying music video in Vasquez Rocks Park, near Los Angeles. Does not read well, according to me... What about > Anthony Mandler directed the accompanying music video, which was shot in Vasquez Rocks Park, near Los Angeles.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... More is coming.

  • Rihanna's stint with Timbaland also resulted in "Sell Me Candy" and "Lemme Get That", produced for Good Girl Gone Bad. > relevancy? Already, i feel that the first sentence was not necessary but after a second thought, i said to myself, there is nothing bad if it stays but Rihanna's stint with Timbaland also resulted in "Sell Me Candy" and "Lemme Get That", produced for Good Girl Gone Bad. is becoming too detailed now. Add to this, the section starts and ends with that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen professional music critics writing medium-tempo > mid-tempo is good.
  • published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing > published where? On their website (if they have one)?
  • I think it is important to precise that it is written in G minor actually refers to being written in a key.
  • I removed "in the key of" because it's a tautology. What else could it mean?
  • Not wanting to descend into appeals to authority, I think it might be fair to mention that I have a university degree in music and have taught children of that age. Yes, any child that can understand when a piece is said to be "in the key of G minor" (which very many can) can also understand a piece being said to be "in G minor". Not that Wikipedia is written for 10-year-olds. The fact remains, it's a tautology. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I became a regular editor on Wikipedia in 2009 (I was 15), i did not know what G Minor and company mean because i am not a native speaker of English and i was not familiar with musical terms. I can bet the same thing will happen with my sister (currently 5 years of age) if ever she reads this article in 10 years or less. But it's okay. I won't argue on this. Keep it the way you want. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've restored "in the key of" after all. Looking around, it's in pretty much all popular music articles and I don't want to tilt at windmills. Sorry for the distraction. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It calls for a vocal range spanning > What about simply writing ... Rihanna's vocal range on the song spans
Changed it.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't say anything about Rihanna's range. That's why I changed this in the article. It says "Instruments: Voice, range: F3-Bb4", that's all. The source also has clickables to get transpositions, and does not say that Rihanna sang in the G minor. In fact, in the Youtube video linked in our "External links" section, she sings in G# minor. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • nearly an octave and a half > Is that in the music sheet?
  • Please link some of the instrumentation like tambourine.
Done— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rihanna then sings the opening lines: > use a comma
  • between Rihanna and Timberlake, in which Timberlake chants, "Now ladies gimme that", and Rihanna responds with an ad-libbed hook. > between Timberlake and Rihanna, in which the former chants, "Now ladies gimme that", and the latter responds with an ad-libbed hook.
  • structural similarities > What is this?
  • Release section ... I can see it... it... it.... it... Know what has to be done, right?
  • on the iTunes Store in the UK and Ireland > Spot the mistake yourself(ves)
  • Critical reception... Please do not use say. When i see this word, i visualize the reviewer reading his review aloud rather than having written and got it published. It's a review, not an interview.
  • called the song a highlight of the album > a or the?
  • slinky-assisted Timberlake background vocals, tension-filled production, and contrasting strings and guitars What about writing this in your own words (if possible) and making it fit into the composition section?
  • Same for ... the groove being built around tambourine shakes, acoustic guitar swirls, and a subtle backbeat.
  • 12th US top-twenty single > Should it be twelfth US top 20 single, 12th US top 20 single, or twelfth US to-twenty single?
  • The song rose to number 19 on the Canadian Hot 100 chart after starting at number 56. Dates?
  • Somewhere else i see Rihanna's twelfth consecutive top-thirty single ... Many inconsistencies.
  • and in the week after that > Reword.
  • Never use The single > I have been told so.
  • it reached number 4 ... at number 3 ... to number 4 ... at number 8 > Read WP:NUMBERS
  • In Norway it > comma missing
  • Many style guides recommend not having commas in positions like this, because it makes things too choppy and is not needed for clarity. Among them are the (IMHO superb) NASA style guide. See its section "Introductory phrases and clauses" at the bottom of page 49 (p.57 in the PDF), though the relevant advice here is on the next page. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • to become Rihanna's seventh top-five single in that country. > Was it the aim of the song?
  • A song peaks on a chart not in.
I will be back tomorrow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video section is amazing but and Rihanna won the award for Best Female Artist. > How is this relevant?
  • For live perfromce, p;ease read WP:LQ.
  • where she won the awards for Favorite Pop/Rock Female Artist and Favorite Soul/R&B Female Artist. > Relevancy?
  • at the ceremony, There are many types of ceremonies, so please specify
  • which she later removed after she was lowered to the main stage > Can be made better. Spot the mistake in the structure of the sentence.
  • Link set list

References

  • 6 same as 1
  • 14 Same as 1 and 6
  • 15 Why do i see Rap-Up. (Devine Lazerine) ?
  • 16 Radio and Records should be linked for the first time.
  • 18 Amazon should be linked for the first time.
  • 24 Not supposed to be Aria Charts. Hung medien but australian-charts.com. Hung medien
  • 25 Unlink Amazon
  • 26 Why do i see Billboard. (Prometheus Global Media) ?
  • 29 Prefix Magazine should italicized.
  • 31 same as 26
  • 33 same as 26 and 31
I will resolve the other issues with references, but have to explain about the brackets. As you can see all the printed sources in the article have their publishers in brackets. The issue was previously questioned in Penguin's comments, with a result bracketing all the printed references. 09:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
When you use {{cite web}}, brackets are not to be included. While using {{cite news}}, they are automatically included. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh, I think what Tom is trying to do with the brackets is that he will use them for all magazine publishers. (Rap-Up, Billboard, etc.) I do not see this as being a major issue at this point as long as he is using this style consistently with all magazines. Though, I prefer cite web as well, FAC reviews look for consistency. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We want this article as FA, right? So let's edit it the way it should be. Instead of complicating things by inserting brackets each time (at places they are not supposed to be), why not do the common thing, that it use cite web and cite news appropriately? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More coming about references later. I am hungry right now. :() Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back...

  • 34, 35, 36, 37 same as 26
  • 40. Wait you use acharts and you source it as The Official Charts Company being the publisher? Acharts is not allowed even in GAs.
  • 41 Same as 40
  • 43 is simply MTV UK
  • 46 Link Dutch Top 40
  • 47 Unlink Dutch Top 40
  • 49 No Caps in title + Link IFPI
  • 52 Instead of Associated Newspapers, use Daily Mail and General Trust
  • 53 Why is News International not linked?
  • 55 Link NBC Universal
  • 56 Link MTV
  • 62 Prefix Magazine is listed twice
  • 65 Unlink MTV News
  • 66 Use Guardian Media Group
  • 67 Variety is a magazine. So use {{cite web}}
  • 69 It is City Life, not CityLife. Unlink Guardian Media Group
  • 74, 77 Same as 26
  • 78 Why is Media Control Charts being linked again?

A lot of work is needed here. I am a bit surprised that the supporters did not find the mistakes with the references (at least). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Based on the abundant reference errors cited by Jivesh above which should have been sorted before nomination, prose issues (cited by reviewers above) and awkward phrasing and a general lack of comprehensiveness througout. There are quite a few aspects of being bias as well, for example, "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with an emotional, melancholy chorus, critics don't call the song "emotional" or "melancholy", which makes it sound like this is your opinion. Basic issues should not be present over 3 weeks into an FAC, this is not a Peer Review, which is how some reviewers are treating it. Also, the Credits and personnel section is nowhere near FA standard, "by" should not be used and there is no linking at all. I can still see prose issues in the lead, but as you have told me before, you don't like like receiving "tips" from me. So I doubt you will correct anything I have said. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to make some comment here cause I am over with your behavior with me. First off all your oppose is a result of an frustration that you have. You had like maybe 5 or 6 FACs with no success. Peer review? What are you talking about? I also had one Featured List nomination together with User:Status (Jennifer Lopez discography) that also lasted for a long period and all of us (Status, me and users that commented edited the page and later became a FL. So, that's not some big problem here. Awkward prose? Do you want to remember you something? I think that you were the user that review the article and made it a GA. Understand me? I don't want to be rude, but this is happening over and over and over and it's enough ! In the end it's your choice oppose, but you don't have one reasonable sentence in your expression of opinion. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down guys. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Tomica, the things I have said are not different to what others have said, so don't just single me out. GAN is very different to FAC, and "Rehab" has changed a lot since I reviewed it. My behaviour with you? I don't have a problem with you and I never have, but you seem to think that I do. This is not about you, it's about the article. At the end of the day, this article is not perfect nor does it have very few minor discrepancies, thus, it does not get my Support. To me, this article is just not comprehensive or broad enough to be an FA. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well other users think that the PROSE is the only problem. And it is currently trying to be resolved, but okay I am not gonna argue with you. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, several have said it lacks comprehensibility. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said apart Legolas? Who?! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist/Orane also said it, and it is something which he still finds an issue. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely false. If you read better his comments, you will see. And here it stops this. This is not my talk page neither yours. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look Calvin, I have told you maybe like billion times that this is the right Credits and personnel structure that a descent FA should contain. I didn't invented it. During the peer review of the article User:Efe told me to wrote it like that and since he has quite a lot experience here and has advanced few articles including "Irreplaceable" to FAC I believe to trust him. And about the prose? Don't be ridiculous, it was copy-edited by three or four major copy-editors on Wikipedia. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved my point. First, you've never told me that that is the correct way. No, it's not. Other FAs do not follow this, thus Efe's is down to personal preference. Second, just because 3 or 4 people have c/e, doesn't mean it's perfect. Look at how many people have been involved with S&M, yet prose was still an issue. What one thinks is good, another will always think is bad. You shouldn't be depending on other people as much as you are, you should use some of your own initiative. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I can see here three people think that article overall is good. And even though you think is bad I will not changed anything of the prose, cause I believe to GOCE's participants, who really help me here. And about the Credits and personnel as I can see nobody also has a problem with that. I know Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song) was also Efe's FA nomination, however, it went through the FAC process and nobody complained about it, so overall it's fine being like that. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said this article is bad, you are misinterpreting. It is indeed a good article, I don't just think it's FA quality. My main issue is lack of comprehensiveness and lack of broad information. I do think some sections could be expanded further. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell me how can I do that, or eventually find sources for it. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few things:

  • I don't see the need for a three paragraph lead. Two would suffice. The first paragraph is so short.
  • with an emotional, melancholy chorus → As I said before, this is not said by any critic. Bias.
  • US Billboard magazine's Hot 100 → US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Why overcomplicate it?
  • reached top-ten → attainted top-ten
  • It calls for a vocal range → What on earth! This is very poor phrasing.
  • Release section might as well be one paragraph.
  • Credits and personnel section, I've said above what it is wrong with it.
  • The whole article has a "list of hard facts" feel to it, with very short, to the point sentences. I have real issues with this in any article, because it is important for an article to flow cohesively from one sentence to the next.

Support only because the discussion is opened for more than three weeks. If you haven't improved the article properly for this period, seems like you really have a long waste of time gossiping on completely non-sense things. Moreover, the things you're referring to are only slight changes and the time you've apparently spent discussing the issues should be better used to edit the article. My impression is that the article meets most of the criteria for an FA. The only problem for me is the lack of sources in the intro, that could easily be fixed, since most of them are already in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Kiril. I will explain you. The lead of the article is based on the main text which is placed more through the whole article. And about the sources, trust me this is everything I can find for the article. There were also some other sources which were removed from the Internet or were FA failure. If you find some information about the article which you think that is useful, please contact me. ;) And thanks ...— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there has been neither a spotcheck of the sources nor an image review. Ucucha (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, there was a spotcheck. Nikkimaria in a various situations through all the FACs questioned reliability of some sources which were respectively removed. Also there was an image review made by Penguin. And about some reference errors, well in the end Jivesh found all of them and now there are fixed.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, a spotcheck has not been done. Nikki did a source review, looking at the citation formatting and the reliablilty. A thorough spot check must be done to check for copyvio and close paraphrasing. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who can do that actually? Is there particular user or just anyone? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who hasn't significantly edited the article can do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Question(s)/Points not fixed

I believe i am satisfied with the rest. Address these two concerns of mine, then you have my support. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got everyone, fixing all magazine references and being clear on critical reception. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did on the lead. I am checking the references. Please wait. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, repaired them. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually according to many Wikipedians, YouTube videos are allowed to be used as a RS but are discouraged. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAC asks for high-quality sources however. Even most GAs would turn down YouTube as a reliable source. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well what about this? (At the recommendation of a couple admins (who mentioned the same "discouraged") they advised that if nothing else or even worse sources were available, then using YouTube (to prove the existence) would be a last resort acceptable alternative.) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a GAN-related discussion. Do you have any FAC information? Again, maybe it would be best to ask someone experienced with the FAC procedure whether YouTube passes FACR. I am highly suspicious that it is not. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry :-( But when you said YouTube is not a RS, what me and my old mentor was working on had came to mind. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! :) When reviewing a GAN, I would accept YouTube on certain circumstances, but FAC is different. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the type of YouTube video. If it is uploaded by Joel991xxx, no, it cannot be used. If, however, it is uploaded by the artist, the record label or some other licensed outlet (ex. Vevo, Hulu), or a media company (Rolling Stone, Billboard, Toronto Star, CNN, BBC, etc). it is perfectly admissable as a source. The same is true of linking to music videos. You can use {{cite web}} or {{cite video}}, depending on which one best serves your need. Alternatively, if you find a useful clip on YouTube from a TV broadcast containing information on the song, you can usually find enough information to cite the original TV or radio broadcast.

Digital booklets, as a type of music release note, are also acceptable sources in certain circumstances; namely artist/writer/producer/musician credits, track listings and runtimes, PIDs, dedications, and acknowledgements to other artists if there are samples used. {{cite music release notes}} can be used for that. I have done all of these on numerous occassions with no problems through my various FACs for No Line on the Horizon, "City of Blinding Lights", "Mothers of the Disappeared", and the currently underway "One Tree Hill".Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the concensus here would be that the both links are unreliable and both of them shouldn't be used. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is reported on by NME and is from her official YouTube channel. That makes it an acceptable source based on the above. I don't think you could mine much from the second; it doesn't say it is mined from Rehab, only that it sounds a bit similar. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go. Thank you Melicans for clearing things up! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Melicans from me too, but I have to find at least two covers with reliable sources, cause it's useless using one. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search of iTunes reveals 48 results for "Rehab Rihanna". About 6 are from various Rihanna releases; the majority of the remainder are karaoke tracks. There appear to be one or two actual covers, but they are by non-notable artists and so probably not worth even mentioning. A search for the song name and one of the writers (who would have to be credited as the original writer on any commercially available cover to avoid copyright infringement on the release) also turns up no worthwhile results; just more karaoke. The Jordan McCoy covers appears to be the only existing cover of some notability. As the song was only released 3 years ago, this isn't entirely surprising. It can take years, even decades for songs to be covered by other notable artists. Some songs never get this treatment. At this stage I would think it premature to incorporate a section for cover artists, though a one sentence mention under critical reception for the Jordan McCoy version should be fine I would think. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I now feel confident to support this. After that the prose has improved significantly and that the references have been fixed as they should have been since the very beginning, I believe "Rehab" can now be an FA. Though, this article is very short, (yes it is), it is well-written. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Cheers. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regards to the concerns raised above by Calvin regarding comprehensiveness of the subject, I have added {{find sources}} to the article's talk page. It seems likely that this article will pass the current FAC, but Tomica, if you have time, I think it would be good to check the template out; there may be newspaper interviews or reviews with discussion on this song that you have not yet found, or information in recently published books. There will undoubtedly be some junk articles mixed in there (mentioning the word rehab as opposed to the song), but by including Rihanna in the search parameters most of these occurances should be filtered out. The more information presented in the article, the better after all. I think it would well be worth a few hours of your time to check for any sources you may have missed. I know that I have often been surprised by the amount of content I am able to find after searching through that template. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: I saw that User:Nikkimaria asked about the reliability of Prefix Magazine as a source? Was it defended? I still see it in the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question is FN 63; the url is identical to one example that Nikkimaria mentioned above. FN 29 is also from Prefix Magazine, and so by extension is also under consideration for reliability. What makes Prefix a reliable source? In asking this, we simply need to know what sort of fact checking they do. This can be established by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. You can also show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions, or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute (ie. who publishes the material), or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods. There are some other ways that would work too. Put simply, it is their reputation for reliability that we are looking for. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches has further detailed information on this. Or there may be an archived discussion at WP:RSN (or you could initiate one yourself) that determines reliability. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Melicans, but I didn't understand how should I defend the source. Can you explain me once again in more simple way? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I'll try to explain a bit more clearly (sorry, I admittedly sometimes struggle with saying things clearly). Web-based sources have a harder time of it; partially because they are more recent and have not had as much time to prove their reliability, and partially because they are not as well known. Allmusic's reviews and Pitchfork's articles are two examples of reliable internet publications. In general, blogs are not reliable because they are considered self-published sources (though there are some exceptions; a blog by someone who is notable in the music field, such as Robert Christgau, is one example). The same is true of websites maintained by a single person (such as Serebii.net for articles on Pokemon). Websites composed of user-generated content, such as Sputnikmusic or reviews on Amazon.com, are more examples of unreliable sources. Prefix Magazine is, from what I can gather, an internet music website and does not have a print circulation (meaning actual physical copies of a magazine sold in stores or delivered to homes). It used to have an article but was deleted as a non-notable website. That makes it harder to show that it is a reliable source.

To assess if a source is reliable (and thus passes the criteria of WP:RS) we need to know information about the kind of fact-checking that they do; that is to say, how do they get their information and check to see if it is accurate? This reliability can be demonstrated in numerous ways:

  1. If the source (in this case Prefix Magazine) is cited by a publication that we already know is reliable. Print magazines such as Rolling Stone, NME, Q, Billboard, Mojo, etc. are almost always considered notable for music articles because they are some of the most reputable and well-known music magazines. One way to see if it is reliable is by checking to see if a Prefix Magazine article is cited or mentioned in an article by a different publication (probably something like Rolling Stone or Q, but sometimes they are mentioned by sources like BBC or CNN).
  2. Is the author of the article or review a notable person in the field? I've already mentioned Robert Christgau as one example, but there are many, many others. An article in Rolling Stone will always be considered notable, but the author of the article may not be. Proving the author's notability by showing their experience (who have they worked for, how long for, etc) is a great way of saying that the author's work is reliable. If they are (or were) the editor of a reliable publication, are considered one of their top staff by the editors, or have published a book on the subject are further examples. To provide one from my own experience at FAC, I work mainly on U2 articles. A great resource for me is atu2.com. The webmaster and owner of the website, Matt McGee, is the author of a book on U2. By showing his notability in the field, I proved that his articles on the website are reliable (though articles published by other staff members are not).
  3. Contact the website. Ask them what kind of fact-checking they do and bring that information to FAC. Some websites have a page where they say what kind of fact-checking that they do to get their information. Or you can usually contact somebody (preferably one of the editors) through a 'Contact Us' page. You can even get in touch with the author of the article; many internet pages list an email, Twitter, or Facebook address that allows the reader to send the author their thoughts (usually at the top of the page near the author's name, or at the tail end of the article). You can bring their response to FAC and even forward the email on to the FAC reviewers. It doesn't always work, but it is worth a shot.
  4. Who is the publisher of the information? By this I don't mean the name of the publication (ie. Rolling Stone), but the company that finances and distributes the publication. NME, for example, is owned by IPC Media, which is in turn a part of Time Inc.. This information is usually present somewhere on the website; in the fine print at the very bottom of the page, under 'Contact Us', or perhaps under an 'About Us' section. Small, independant websites are usually not notable. Publications owned by big media are, because the publisher gives notability and reliability to it through their reputation.
  5. Check WP:RSN. There may be an archived discussion on the source which says that, after a thorough discussion, it is considered reliable because of this and for that. If there has not already been a discussion on this source, you can always open one yourself. Having a discussion about it with other, experienced editors can help to prove the reliability of the source.

If you can provide information on any (not all) of these points, it helps the reviewers at FAC to assess the reliability of the source. There are some other methods, but these are generally the best options to check. It may take time but it is well worth the effort; not only for this FAC, but for future ones as well. I hope that this helps and is a bit clearer than my first attempt! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; hopefully you shall receive some answers soon. I still recommend trying some of the other methods to assess reliability; it can only improve your chances. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the publisher of the magazine is Prefix Magazine itself so ... and about the authors, Ethan Stainislawski (which is inactive. you can see on his side on Prefix Magazine website) and Norman Mayers! I don't know how notable are they ... I will also try to contact the magazine, so we can see what we get. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my own search for info on Prefix Magazine and the authors of those two articles. What I have turned up is less than promising. There is nothing to indicate the website's reliability, or that of the authors. I would recommend doing the following: Remove the Prefix review (FN 29). It really only adds about 5 or 6 words, and the other two sources you use in that same sentence - Village Voice and The Boston Globe are reliable. Its removal will not be missed. FN 63 is a bit more tricky because you use it to cite the performance at the Awards. I would remove the Prefix commentary about that performance. To cite the actual performance, change the source to the Award ceremony itself. {{cite video}} will be the best option. If you aren't sure about how to use that template, I am more than happy to do it for you. That should take care of the remaining concerns about reliability of sources (though I think a spotcheck is still needed?) Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel the same and now think that Prefix Magazine is unreliable for Featured articles. I have removed the first Prefix Magazine source and I would like to help me with the second, or better said with the {{cite video}}. Thanks :) !— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing it Melicans. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Tomica. I've been following this nomination since the initiation, and had I responded at first it would have been a definite Oppose. But there has been some absolutely amazing feedback from multiple editors, and Tomica has done an amazing job at responding to it and integrating the suggestions into the prose. It is perhaps still a little bit rougher than I would like in some places, but I am happy with the improvements and believe that the article now passes the FAC criteria. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Some of the material cited to this source (currently FN 9) doesn't appear to be there - no keyboard melody, no middle 8, etc
  • A number of your Webcite links returned a "page not found" error, which I believe is because you're trying to archive GBooks links, which they don't allow
  • "In the second half of the performance she leaned sensuously against a pole" - you're citing this to a primary source, so unless there's a commentator that actually says she was "sensuous", it's probably OR to say that


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/Rehab_(Rihanna_song)/archive3&oldid=1140156602"