Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)

Self-nomination. Article about a notable #1 hit single. --FuriousFreddy 04:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to see explicitly mentioned in what country it was a number one hit. Not everyone knows where the Billboard Hot 100 is from. Also, the sound sample should be linked in a template as is common with music samples. Finally, I'm not sure about "Concurrent group tension". It's more about the group and its members than the song the article is supposed to be about. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've changed the sample link into a template myself, using a copy from the one at the "Moonlight Sonata" article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sound excerpt is tagged 'fair use', but there is no justification for this. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_using_sound_excerpts for text that you might cut and paste onto the info page, although you'd need to tweak it for this particular item. Thirty seconds would be better than 20, and if you justify it properly, that would probably be an acceptable duration. Better if you say something about the music or lyrics in the text—then it qualifies more strongly as 'educational' use. Please provide complete info on recording and performance.

Some paragraphs are too short. Some of the writing is awkward or incorrect; e.g., 'base instrumental track'; 'the song's instrumental track' (remove 'song's'); 'Williams had been in and out of the hospital' ('the' hospital? Why be so specific?); 'crafted' appears twice in a short space; inconsistent tense in first para; Kendricks and Williams' departures (?); 'mutually agreed'? 'did the orchestral arrangement '. Needs a complete edit.

A few years and decades are linked, most are not. Better to delink the few that are linked, for a whole bunch of reasons (see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context). Tony 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just thought I would point out that it is common in AmE to say the hospital, as in "he went to the hospital," "he's in the hospital," etc. To say "he had been in and out of hospital" sounds quite odd to American ears. —Wayward 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's gone now, however. I just summarized to say Paul Williams was ill. --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I revised the artice entirely, based upon your comments. The information on the recording and performance is complete, and the text discusses the song's lyrics and music. I also followed your instructions reguarding the fair use of the song sample, nd saw enough justification to revert to the original stereo uploaded version (I only uploaded a mono version because I was told samples had to be 20 seconds long and 64 kbps in bitrate, which would not have worked well for a stereo sample). --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have one quibble before supporting: The "Origins" section is nice, but I think it's missing some background. Explain why there was pressure for psychedelic recordings in the late 60s -- not just that the Temptations had had a couple psychedelic hits, but the general pop scene at the time. Tuf-Kat 05:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Noted. --FuriousFreddy 11:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks great. Support Tuf-Kat 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• object for the moment - I think the article lacks comprehensiveness without a lengthier discussion of some of the cover versions. Also, I think 'song information' should have more about the musical structure of the song, and should be in a section of its own rather than in the history section. A minor POV point is the sentence '..."Just My Imagination" has a "dream-like quality"...', which is reporting someone else's POV as if it is a fact. Worldtraveller 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • While reasonable, fulfilling those suggestions goes beyond my means. I don't have any information on (nor have i heard) any of the covers of the song, and I don't know enough about music theory to be able to write abotu the musical structure. Is anyone willing to help? --FuriousFreddy 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you wouldn't need too much about the covers, just mentions of any particularly successful ones (the one I know is by Donald Byrd, it was on his very successful album Places and Spaces). Check out www.coversproject.com for more! I do think something about the musical structure of the work is essential though. Some of the Beatles FAs have good examples of this. Worldtraveller 12:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think info on the musical structure would be good, as well....only I can't write it myself. I'm not knowledgable enough. As far as only mentioning the covers, what is wrong with the way they are currectly mentioned? --FuriousFreddy 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. Object but only one point needs to be addressed before I'll support - I agree that "dream-like quality" is "reporting someone else's POV as if it's fact" but can't think how it should be rewritten. I'm not even sure if it should be rewritten, substituted or just deleted. I made some minor copyedits mainly substituting colloquial or superfluous words; I condensed the bit about Kenricks' mother wanting him to stay with the group and Kendricks' mind being made up etc, mainly because it looked awkward. Now that I've condensed it, I don't think we need to know about Kendricks' mother's efforts, and could just cut that phrase out. I'm not objecting to that though, just drawing your attention to it. Aside from the "dream-like" quote, I think it's a great article and will support. Rossrs 23:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted both. --FuriousFreddy 00:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then it's a wholehearted support from me. Rossrs 01:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • Can chart positions be piped into one link? It looks weird here with only "chart" linked
  • Needs more information on chart performance, which is very underdeveloped. How were singles sales? How was airplay like? Certifications? How was chart behavior like? Did it last, or did it peak and drop? We need more information than just peaks.

• • • Comment/Question : I disagree when you say we "need more information than just peaks". "Just peaks" is the standard to which much credible music literature is produced, and has generally been the standard required by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states "It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I think the article is currently "tightly focused" and I'm unhapy that it may evolve into something that goes into what I believe to be "unncessary detail". 34 years after the song was a hit, why is it necessary to delve deeply into such trivia as "what was the chart behavior like" and "did it peak or drop"? The song has been placed into a historical context, and some info has been given about its chart performance that clearly establishes its level of success and noteworthiness. I feel that many articles are becoming overwhelmed by statistics and trivia that are meaningless to many readers, and which steer the articles away from discussion of such things as cultural relevance (points very well made in this article I think), in favour of a whole lot of numbers that don't really demonstrate anything of significance. I don't see how they add relevance, so could you please elaborate on why you think it's needed? thanks Rossrs 02:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • My sentiments exactly. Overinformation can scare a reader away rather than aid their education. --FuriousFreddy 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Rossrs, just putting the peaks can be very misleading and doesnt give out a true context of how the song performed. We're told it was #1 for 2 weeks, but did it have longevity? Like for instance, this year, Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" peaked at #2. It never hit #1, but it spent months in the Top 10 and is actually still on the charts (after entering the charts late last year). Compare that to Carrie Underwood's Inside Your Heaven. It peaked at #1, but quickly fell out of the Top 10, and quickly dropped down the charts. If we just put peaks without talking about chart performance, we'd be inclined to say that "Inside Your Heaven" was a big hit, when in reality it wasnt that big of a hit, as opposed to Since U Been Gone. Also take, Fantasia's "I Believe", it also peaked at #1, but did not rank on the end of the year chart. However, several songs which did not hit #1 and even peaked out of the Top 10 did chart. We dont need too much details, but some context would be good, since being #1 only means #1 that week, and doesnt give a proper context for how it performed overall. OmegaWikipedia 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • OK I understand what you're saying, but you've chosen songs that could almost be called "novelty hits". ie the Underwood and Fantasia singles were each the first single release following them winning American Idol. Their sales figures were concentrated in the first couple of weeks, and sure enough, by most definitions they weren't big hits. I know you were only using them to explain your point, and that's fine, I understand what you mean, but as far as chart performance goes those songs were "freaks". Clarkson, yes you're right. A massive, long running hit that only peaked at number 3. I think it's also important to remember that charts prior to about 1992 were much more stable. As a rule songs climbed steadily, and then dropped quickly. I don't think the charts need to be discussed in detail for "Just My Imagination" (or any other song) unless there is some significant anomaly. It probably should be discussed for each of the songs you've given as examples, but not for all. Thanks, I understand what you're saying now. I don't completely agree, but that's fine. Rossrs 02:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The song information section is awkward. That section and Origins would be better switched. Also the "History" header doesnt really make sense. Could this be switched to a better term?
  • International charts stats. Where are they? The Temptations are not only a US act. And we need to know this song performed around the world.
  • I'd like to see the #1's bolded. But since you disagree on this, I wont press it too much.
  • The chart mentions the Hot 100 as the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Pop Singles. Pick one and stick to it. Or better mention it only as the Billboard Hot 100, as there is a Billboard Pop 100 nowadays and people sometimes call the Pop 100 as Billboard Pop Singles too.
  • Song writing and certification should be listed in the infobox.
  • This section

Just My Imagination" was the third of four Temptations songs to go to number one on the Billboard :Pop Singles Chart in the United States; the others were "My Girl" (1964/1965), "I Can't Get Next to :You" (1969), and "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone" (1972). The single held the number-one position on the :Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks, from March 27 to April 10, 1971, replacing "Me and Bobby McGee" by :Janis Joplin, and replaced by "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night.

OmegaWikipedia should be in the section on the songs performance....Not its lead.

Ha, ha, this is humorous, and is technically (for the most part) an inactionable opposition. But I'll play along:

Freddy, why the rude behavior?

It isn't rude behavior. Most of these points of opposition are retaliatory, at best, and not in the interest of actually improving the article. The article derives its formatting from Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs, as it should.

1. The infobox was taken from the original one on the Songs project page; that's not a big deal.
2. All available Temptations chart information goes only as far as to note the peak positions on the pop and black singles charts in the United States, and pop positions in the UK on some songs. Googling for other charts provided only the UK position. I have no record of how the song performed in any other country, nor do I have access to such information. That information would be of use, but I can't include information that is not availiable to me through the resources I have. Encyclopediaic coverage only requires notation of the peak position, a trajectory goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.

Then you need to look harder to find this info on the interntational stats. Right now, when youre not talking about the international stats, theres an implication of POV with a bias towards the USA. And we're not asking for a trajectory, but some information on its chart performance would be good.

I've looked as hard as I can for international statistics and chart performance information without spending money to have someone pull up such statistics for me. You can't add information to an article that isn't available to the author. There is no USA bias, as United Kingdom chart information is also included. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Seeing that the song will be thirty-five years old this coming January, there is no available information on the song's airplay history. Motown never submitted sales records for public viewing, nor did they submit any of their releases until 1977 for RIAA certifications of any kind (they would spray-paint a copy of the record gold, give it to the artists, and tell them they had a gold record). "Just My Imagination" was known to have sold at least a million copies; there is no further sales information.

Then put that into the article about its sales.

It's an inexact and unverifiable figure. And a general user reading this article will have no interest in Motown's protection of its sales records; that would, however, make good trivia for the Motown page. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The Billboard chart will be mentioned by the name it was called in 1971: Pop Singles chart. All instances of Hot 100 will be removed from the article.

This is a bit unacceptable. When did it become policy to use archaic names? As I mentioned above, there is a Pop 100 chart, and calling it the Pop Singles Chart will only lead to confusion.

The chart should be called whatever it was called at the time of the relevant single release. Every article referencing Hanna-Barbera should not be changed to Cartoon Network Studios, and every one referencing Our Gang should not be changed to The Little Rascals. There are several different articles on persons named Michael Jackson, Paul Williams, Frank Wilson, Mary Wilson, and so on, and the link is properly piped, so there is no confusion. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The official song infobox templete does not require songwriters to be listed in the infobox, only producers. And, as noted above, there is no certification.

It really would be better to list it though.

...in your opinion. This article is formatted in accordance with the project it falls under; any additions to the infobox are purely arbitrary. --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Standard writing style for number-one hits is to notate the number-one chronology in the top paragraph.
2. "#1s" should never be bolded. It implies bias and point-of-view.
3. Song information comes after "Origins" for reasons of chronology. The events that led to the song being done happened before the song was done. That is why the sections are ordered the way they are. Be that as it may, I reversed the ordering anyway. --FuriousFreddy 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia 04:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) --FuriousFreddy 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. The article is up to (and in some ways surpasses) the standard set by other music single FAs, except that it is lacking in its discussion of cover versions. I can't bring myself to either oppose or support it for that reason. Jkelly 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've discussed the covers in as much detail as I can by myself, based upon my own knowledege and the resources available to me. I am more than open to contributions from others. --FuriousFreddy 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The few extra lines made the difference for me. Support. Jkelly 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)