Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait Your Turn

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Closing per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clearly in favor of retaining the article's GA status. The nominator's concerns are noted, and it appears that action is being and has been taken to address those concerns. FASTILY (TALK) 01:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article based on my understanding of GA criterion #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). This is an article about a song. I believe the main aspects of a song article would be its writing, recording and composition. Subsidiary aspects would be anything that happens after the recorded song is released, such as promotion (music video, live performances, etc.) and how others reacted to it (critical reception, chart positions, etc.). It is quite possible that a song might not be promoted at all and sold little and no critic saw fit to review it, yet its Wikipedia article could achieve GA status because reliable sources treated the subject's creation and characteristics in detail. I don't believe the opposite is possible as recorded songs don't just appear out of thin air, although you might wonder after reading this article. The first sentence after the lead begins, "After the song leaked online...." There are token sentences stating who wrote the song and who produced the recording. There is an insightful quote from the artist about how she picked the song – from which the reader can infer some things about the song's writing (principally that the artist wasn't really involved). Beyond that, we know nothing about how the song came about, or really anything about the song itself except for what critics have said about it. As I stated during earlier discussions, what we have here is akin to an article on Hawaii that says nothing about how the islands were formed (writing), or how they became part of the US (recording), or what the geography/flora/fauna is like (composition), but instead is quite detailed about how many people visit the island every year (chart positions) and what travel writers say about the place (critical reception).

Because the criterion is open to interpretation, I looked elsewhere for guidance. In the "Reader's experience" column of WP:ASSESS, you'll see that GA articles are "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." In B-class articles, "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." And C-class articles are "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." I believe this is a C-class article, because it can't provide a complete picture without some treatment of the song's writing, recording and composition.

The nominator and reviewer disagreed with my interpretation of criterion #3a, thus GAR. The argument made by the nominator – and I know he'll be here to present his side – is that the article gets a pass because the information I desire is not available in reliable sources. By that logic, I could write a GA on an obscure song from an obscure album solely with token writing/recording information from the album sleeve and one critic's comments.

I am hoping for input from people who don't normally get involved with the editing/reviewing of pop music articles, because it seems the deficiency I'm seeing is common in articles about recently released pop songs that are already good articles. There is evidence the reason for that is there is a clique of pop music editors who routinely review each other's work. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose de-listing - WP:WIAGA "it addresses the main aspects of the topic; This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It addresses all aspects that are available, you are arguing for a de-list based on your person opinion of what you think needs to be included in a GA which in not acceptable. I oppose this removal of a fine article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As "main aspects" cannot be defined in the criteria for every possible article subject, some interpretation is involved. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." ... Not really sure how that's open to interpretation, but again, i guess I'm not arguing based on my personal opinion. I can't explain this to you because you refuse to see anyone's view other than your own despite three editors telling you that you have a misinterpreted understanding of this particular rule and want the article to conform to your personal standards. You cite WP:ASSESS, nowhere in this does it say what you want has to be included, there is no consensus for it. Anyways I don't wish to participate in this discussion further I've just voiced my oppose and why i have done so. Have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (Assuming I cannot give my vote as an Oppose because I was the GAN nominator) Can I just say that I think you listing this article for GAR less than one day after it was listed as a GA looks extremely bad on your part, because after all Wikipedian Penguin and other secondary reviewers did to help me promote the article to GA status, you are effectively saying that none of them know what they are talking about and that they do not know how to review, which is quite rude and obnoxious too. Also, with regard to your "clique of pop music editors who routinely review each other's work." comment, Wikipedian Penguin has never reviewed a GAN of mine before, and I had never reviewed one of his. Additionally, with regard to your "The argument made by the nominator – and I know he'll be here to present his side – is that the article gets a pass because the information I desire is not available in reliable sources." I fail to see why you are not comprehending that all of the Background and Composition info currently present in the article is all that is known about the song. No one knows when the song was written, why the song was written, what the reasoning was behind why it was changed from being the second single to a promotional single. Believe it or not, not all songs have paragraph after paragraph of information about them, which is what you seem to think this article should have, and should be like the FA article you presented to me as an example. Newsflash, this article is not going through FAC, it went through GAN, and GANs do need to have the same amount of precision and info as an FAC does. Wait Your Turn was a relatively small song and a promotional single, it is not a song like Beyonce's Single Ladies where information is available and presented in abundance because it was a huge hit and has had a massive impact on pop culture. I think I have made my point. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I am saying about the reviewers is that I believe they misunderstand either what constitutes the "major aspects" of a song article or what "addresses" means.
  • You should take your own advice then, because you don't understand either. It is quite disrespectful to nominate for GAR practically straight after it was passed. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • You and Wikipedian Penguin were reviewing each other's GANs concurrently.
  • I started reviewing Love the Way You Lie before he started reviewing Wait Your Turn, I can't help that he also reviewed at the same time as me. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • I promised to not be involved in this but... I have read through this entire GAR and this is the comment that sparked me. I started reviewing "WYT" long after Calvin began reviewing my nomination. Besides, this is our first time reviewing each others' articles. THR, you think this is an issue? It would be different if we always reviewed each others' articles. And yes, I have read User talk:Two Hearted River/Sandbox3 and understand what you are getting at. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it's an issue – I assume you would have reviewed the same way even if Calvin hadn't concurrently been reviewing one of your GANs. I only stated it because Calvin was trying to misrepresent your previous interactions. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • THR, the only person in this entire thread/article I have replied to, is you. And when I asked some people to some and give their vote, I did exactly that. I didn't ask any of the to vote "Oppose". It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to vote in favour or against your proposal. And I'm not trying "misrepresent" anyones "previous interactions", stop trying to make yourself look better and correct when you have already dug yourself a huge hole. Only YOU seem to think that Wait Your Turn should be of FA quality for GA and your own personal opinions are NOT valid. You've made a complete fool of yourself by doing this, and all of the unprovoked and unasked Oppose's say that. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Calvin just asked five more familiar editors to participate. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? And who are these familiar editors huh? I've never spoken to them before. You complained I asked people I converse with, so I asked people who I have never engaged with in a peoper conversation with before. What a fail. You really are not making a good impression here THR. *Sits back and sips tea*. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Legolas' comments which hare valid. And THR, it does not matter if Calvin contacted seven or hundred editors. What matters is that he did not tell them openly to vote in favor of the article for it to remain a GA. This is not an example of WP:CANVASS. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Jivesh is one of the contacted editors and is a member of WikiProject Rihanna. From WP:Votestacking: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even see the comments i left at the GAR and i even made a second review (posted on Calvin's talk-page for "California King Bed")? Do you think i will vote oppose just because i am a member of the Wiki-project? That is a bit ridiculous. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I really dont understand why you are reassessing this article, it covers most aspects of the track. It isnt exceptionally brilliant but it certainly meets the GA standards! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Oppose - As no one has said I am not allowed to list my vote. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As consensus is found with the strength of argument, and not just the number of votes, I'll be posting my opinion on the matter. I'm going to lay it for you plain and simple THR, I'll try and be respectful, because I know you try hard and mean well. You're basically saying that if an article doesn't have sufficient coverage to warrant a full-scale recording, production, composition section, than it is not eligible for GAN? That is incorrect thinking. From the 2 years + I've been here, and the 50 GAs I've written, its always been about the information that available, not what you would like the article to say. Your main argument is based on the fact that you are't satisfied with the information available on the song. You know what you should do? Call up IDJ, and ask, or Twitter Rihanna (Oh wait, she had nothing to do with the song's composition anyway). Its not fair to make this whole thing up. Next, regarding this whole sandbox. I appreciate you made the effort in illustrating the problem, but that does not make you a moderator of anything, nor does that mean that you take this to extremes, by telling editors they can only review an editor's article once. Not at all. And to be honest with you, I don't find Lions to be so great, and not FA quality, at least not current FA levels. You are missing an accessdate on the very first reference, as well as publishers and several things that Nikki would Oppose for in a second. Hope you understand, and this made it clear. I've refrained on voting simply because I feel my argument alone stands stronger than an Oppose alone. And just as a last note, I am not a fan of Rihanna, not in the slightest, so my vote is not in any way a canvass etc.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You're basically saying that if an article doesn't have sufficient coverage to warrant a full-scale recording, production, composition section, than it is not eligible for GAN?" Well, I don't know what full-scale means to you, but the reader should learn something about those aspects, as it seems apparent to me those are the main ones (as argued above). You don't really believe that GANs should be passed simply because all reliable information has been mined, do you? Yes, criterion #3a does allow for "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail", but I contend that covering a main aspect entails covering at least some of the major facts. They don't all have to be there – the criterion says just that – but the main aspect is not covered if there is a dearth of major facts. You must instead believe that the writing, recording and composition are not the main aspects of a song article. Well, what do you think are the main aspects, and why? That's really what this GAR comes down to. Given that pop music GANs are almost exclusively reviewed by editors of other pop music articles, and many of those editors are teenagers who are unabashedly devoted to their favorite artist, it's not surprising to me that application of the criteria is slipping. By the way, I don't know how my FA could have any bearing on this discussion, but I would welcome a message on my talk page about its deficiencies as you see them. My goal, after all, is to provide the best possible experience for the reader. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify THR. Of course, the most important and revered section of a song article is the "writing", "recording", "Music and lyrics" and those such sections, absolutely. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that if that kind of information is not available, then that shouldn't be held against the article or nominator. In my opinion, a GA (maybe not FA) is an article that provides full coverage on the main aspects of the song (true some are missing in this case). However, that does not mean that the article is then not eligible for nomination. You may think that, but I simply cannot agree there. Now, regarding editors and their works. Obviously we edit artists that we like, do you not edit from bands you are familiar with and enjoy? Or else why don't you edit a Carey or Madonna article? That is obvious. Now, at the age comment. That has no merit here. We are not arguing that younger editors tend to produce weaker prose, absolutely (including me). We are discussing vital pieces of information that are missing from the article. Missing because they are not available, not because of the age or experience of the editor.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion about articles' getting a pass on criterion #3a because reliable sources don't provide enough information for it to be met. I'm thinking you get it from the note on criterion #3a, but I don't read anything in it to mean the criterion can be overlooked. Could you explain? ... Re: age – read the sentence again. The connection is between this kind of editor and their application of the GA criteria, not the articles they produce. Wait Your Turn passed with a quote that was about a different song entirely, as Ipodnano05 just discovered. A disinterested reviewer would be more likely to catch that, I would wager. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is why an article does tremendously benefit from having a non-affiliated editor review the article, because something that might make sense to him as a fan of Rihanna, might not make sense to you or me. True. But again, that is a mistake that anyone could have made or over-looked, and you could have easily fixed yourself. The only real discussion here THR, which we will obviously not agree on, is "required information" Vs. "available information". I hold by the latter, and you by the former. I honestly don't know what else to say, that is how view it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of how the criteria led you to your conclusion would be most helpful to your side, as no one else is really putting forth an argument. Maybe one of the others in opposition holds the same view and can help you out. At any rate, thank you for stepping forward to discuss this. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; I take this discussion seriously. I'll tell you, I guess that's my interpretation of the criteria. I know that my opinion is not exactly what's dictated or written in the rules per se, but remember that the criteria is subject to opinion and personal interpretation, hence the "fairly well-written" section, which you might have a stricter standard then others.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THR, you are still failing to see how everyone else is right and how you are wrong. You have made a complete and utter fool of yourself by doing this, and unlike Fastily who on my talk page said that even though you are completely wrong, you are doing it in good faith and are misguided, I disagree entirely and think that you are well aware of what you are doing (or trying, to do) and making it a personal vendetta against me to have Wait Your Turn de-listed. This GAR is absurd, and you have no clue what you are talking about. Your opinion of what an article should be DOES NOT mean it is right, which everyone has pointed out to you. And stop with this whole vote-stacking thing, everyone asks people to get involved in AfD's, GAR's etc., you are just clutching at straws trying to make yourself look better, when you are in fact achieving the complete opposite. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, while you may not like his actions, please let's keep this civil; no need for name calling. Now, while I don't agree with THR's comments, I definitely do not think they are bad faith. His argument does make sense, its just taking the wording a bit too literally IMO. I can assure you, having worked with him before, that this is not a personal vendetta at all. Let us stick with opinions and respect for them and nothing more.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is not how I see it. I do think that on the GAN review page saying that he would take the article to GAR without any proper explanation, and then doing literally hours after it passed, is bad faith, as it also discredits and insults the work of the reviewer. He is not taking any notice of what anyone is saying, both here and elsewhere, and is deflecting everything thrown at him. Sometimes it is best to own up to when you are wrong, instead of persisting that you are right. Why is it just this article he is being so involved in and critical of? I don't see him doing it to anyone else. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear during GAN what my position was and what I would do if it passed in that state, and I also told the reviewer he shouldn't that let stop him from making his own decision. No one should feel insulted; we just have different understandings of the criteria. The purpose of this GAR is to determine which is correct, and I would hope that the discussion would be allowed to play out instead of being closed early because it wasn't recognized that the consensus was false. Now then, I do believe there are scores of other pop music GANs that would require GAR if this one were to be delisted, but there's no point in initiating any until consensus is achieved here. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have mattered if I had of asked people or not (which there is nothing wrong with), people's opinions would have been the same. And I don't appreciate you keeping tabs on me and what I am doing on here. And the reason why I want it closed is because there is no need for this be going through GAR, and the fact that everyone has opposed the de-listing speaks for itself. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty big assumption, and WP:Votestacking does matter – those votes should be disregarded because of it. If you're so confident, why not let this discussion play out? Your article will remain a GA in the interim. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it might be a good idea to move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1, the GAR's talk page. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Everything above simply states why this should be kept. Believe me, I am a stickler for articles that shouldn't be created, and this isn't one of them. I have actually removed the quote, as the information pertained to another song of hers, but still believe the article should be kept. There is enough verifiable information (even though it might not pertain to the conception of the song). -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There's really nothing "major" about the song's genesis. The article could do without an elaborate detail about it. The nomination is merely based on personal interpretation of the criterion, which I fear is one of those "trends" followed by GA reviewers which certainly are disruptive (long term). --Efe (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not seeing a huge problem here in regards to #3a, as the article contains obvious details such as the writers and producers, charts, critical responses, composition background, etc. It is great when recording details are available, though they are not always, and readers generally wouldn't expect to have detailed recording information for every song. However, there are some details present in Rated_R_(Rihanna_album)#Recording which might be used to provide some background info - as in "The song comes from the recording sessions for the Rated R album, which took place during March to November 2009 at several recording studios throughout United States and Europe." I think inclusion of that would be enough. It would be great if someone has a source which could pin down which of the four studios that were used for the album were used for the recording of the song. But not having that information wouldn't be a deal breaker, and inclusion of the above sentence would be enough. I wouldn't suggest mentioning the four studios named in the album article, as that would simply be confusing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sentence. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree with some of what THR is saying. The quality of GAs have be decreasing extremely for the past while now. Personally, I don't think any of the above arguments should be taken into consideration due to the fact that THR basically asked people who are not involved with pop music articles to not leave their input. I don't think that's such a hard thing to ask for, do you? — Status {talkcontribs  01:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking the clique to refrain from commenting, I just hope that we can get some participation from disinterested editors so that we can be assured of the integrity of the process. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I avoid these nominations so can offer an "outside" perspective. Personally I would think that information about the writing, recording and composition would be an important aspect of any article on a single and am surprised that no information can be found covering this. I am assuming information cannot be found beyond the names of the writer and producer or they would have been added by now and as this was released in 2009 it is not likely to become available soon. While it is important, in my opinion it falls under the "major fact" component of note 4 and this meets the rather loose broadness criteria. However on reading the article I am a bit concerned about some of the prose.
    • The song was written by StarGate and Chase & Status, James Fauntleroy II, Takura Tendayi and Rihanna, and produced by the first two of these production teams Three ands (four if you include Chase & Status)?
    • After the song leaked online toward the end of October 2009, it was used in a promotional video for her first televised interviews since the alleged assault on her by former boyfriend Chris Brown, singing the line, "The wait is ova", which is part of the lyrics. How does "singing the line, "The wait is ova", which is part of the lyrics" fit here?
    • "Wait Your Turn" was written by Tor Erik Hermansen, Mikkel S. Eriksen, Saul Milton, Will Kennard, James Fauntleroy II, Takura Tendayi and Rihanna, with the song being produced by the first four of these, under their production names StarGate and Chase & Status, respectively. Respectively?
    • Alexis Petridis of The Guardian referred to "Wait Your Turn" as a response to Rihanna trying to move on from her innocent "Umbrella" pop star image, commenting "At the other, however, the desire to escape the single's vast shadow has clearly led some of her collaborators to indulge in feats of impressively risky invention: the hypnotic, dirgey electronic grind of Wait Your Turn, Gangsta 4 Life's druggy, intoxicating mix of backwards drums, minor-key verses and spectral backing vocals." This quote doesn't work. What is "At the other" referring two.
That's just from a quick look through the lead and background. For such a short article this is a little worrying. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the MTV page offers a lot of insightful information currently lacking in the "Music video" section, which at the moment contains only basic factoids and an overly-detailed synopsis (we need to know what she's wearing in every scene??). Why wouldn't you incorporate it? Have any offline sources like magazines and newspapers been scoured to help build this article? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Wait_Your_Turn/1&oldid=1140157754"