Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] We Belong Together

Self nom. Well written, comprehensive and succinct. Meets all criteria. Hope it will be featured this time around. I will make every effort to address the comments made. Thanks. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

-Mask 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. It is also well-cited and has good pictures. --Ineffable3000 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, but may support if the article were thoroughly copyedited. As of now, it contains quite a few instances of awkward or overly grandiloquent writing (""We Belong Together" was not envisaged until. . ."; "sessions. . . failed to materialize"; the parenthetical sentence in the middle of "Music and structure"; the phrase "received unanimous praise" used immediately before a paragraph about how the praise was not, in fact, unanimous; etc.). I also have two other problems: one with the bulk of direct quotations from various sources throughout the article (they would be much more readable developed into original prose with sources given); and the other with the chart information at the end (the table contains nearly twice the number of charts recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts, and the weird trajectory graph thingy borders on indiscriminately collected information). --keepsleeping slack off! 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→ . Fixed. The chart was cut in half and the trajectory removed. Some of the direct quotations were also worked into prose (or removed completely if they simply reiterated what I had written). The parenthesis in the middle of "music and structure" is gone, and so is the comment about the song receiving "unanimous praise". However, I havent touched "envisaged" nor "materialize." The thing is I'm having difficulty finding precise synonyms. "Envisaged" (To conceive an image or a picture of, especially as a future possibility [1]) fits right into the context of the article. So does "materialize" — unless I'm going to write, "sessions that produced the single almost failed to become real, or almost failed to happen," which is wordy. Do you have any suggestions? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "In some sense an afterthought, "We Belong Together" was not written or recorded until late into the production of The Emancipation of Mimi." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; I stand by what I've said before: this does not in my opinion adequately cover a song that achieved such a high level of popularity. If there were subarticles, I could live with it. Everyking 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Object: Writing is not anywhere near FA quality.

  • Fails 1a.Not well written (some examples):
"the song was the last record to be composed for the album." Wouldn't "track" be better? And, what is the significance of it being last?
"and comprises a modest musical arrangement," wouldn't "is" be better than "comprises"? And what does "modest" mean? Is there something special about its "modest musical arrangement?"
"at the turn of the millennium," pompus
"was not envisaged until" also pompus
"to try and outmatch previous efforts" pompus and needlessly obscure
"which, according to Carey, combines the formulae of two of her previous 1990s hits:" where's' the reference for this? What is the formula?
"Carey became limited by time constraints" might "ran out of time" or something similar be better?
"and a trial version of the song" trial version? what made it a trial version? Who did they try it out on? Wasn't it really the best take they completed in the time they had? If not, please provide a reference for it being a "trial" version.
"final syllable of the titular phrase" stilted.
  • Fails 1b. Not Comprehensive, it isn't illuminating. Did it have any cultural impact? Is there anything special about it, other than it was at the top of the charts? I read the entire article and still don't feel I know anything useful about the song.
  • Fails 4. It is not of an appropriate length. It is much too long for the subject. The article substitutes unending clouds of awkward prose for any true insight into the subject. Here is an article about a song which, though it is only one-fifth the size of the submitted article, is more entertaining and much more illuminating.--Paul 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→ I have correct the following:
    • "the song was the last record to be composed for the album."
    • "at the turn of the millennium,"
    • "was not envisaged until"
    • "to try and outmatch previous efforts"
    • "Carey became limited by time constraints"
    • "final syllable of the titular phrase"

It may be too early to tell if the song had cultural impact. Afterall, it was released last year. However, as pointed out in the article, it was a career defining song for Carey, as it relaunched her carrer: she regained some credibility with critics and fans. There's nothing "special" per se. The subject of a featured article doesn't have to be 'phenominal' (for example, shoe polish).

"And comprises a modest musical arrangement," wouldn't "is" be better than "comprises"? And what does "modest" mean? Is there something special about its "modest musical arrangement?" Actually, no. I've researched it, and "comprises" fits: the song consists of, or is composed of... See what I mean? "Modest" means to be free from excessiveness, showiness or ostentation. As described in both "history and composition" and "music and structure" the modest music arrangement ("music" as in both instrumentation and singing) gave the song more power, because it became simple and restrained. Thats what the critics from NY Times et al said. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then is there a citation to support that the musical arrangement is "modest?" Or is this an editor's opinion, which would naturally be POV and an actionable item. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed "modest." However, NYTimes, MTV and Metrotimes called the musical arrangement "simple." I didn't think that finding a synonym would border on POV. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It's not a matter of just one word (reference "modest" because that sentence also includes the interpretive adjective "simple" with no citation of a critical review). This article won't be featured status until the Hollow Wilerding et al's stilted prose has been excised. The prose is the problem and I don't see it ever being improved over the last several FACs. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree with you on that. I have made considerable effort to change/improve the prose: then — now. There is undenaible difference in the intro, "history and composition," and especially "music and structure." Unfortunately, some people refuse to see this because of the article's former connection to Hollow Wilerding. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll give you some examples of stilted, awkward, and just plain silly phrasing. I'll even throw in some structural deficiencies.
    • ...comprises a musical arrangement built on simple piano chords, and an understated, mid-tempo backbeat. Stilted and interpretive.
    • As a means of insurance... What does this mean? Sounds like a Wilerdingism.
    • After two days at Dupri's Atlanta studio the pair composed two tracks for The Emancipation of Mimi, and Carey returned to New York; however, "We Belong Together" was still lacking. Huh?
    • ...prominently utilized in hip-hop music.
    • It's unnecessary and redundant to include the Babyface and Womack lyrics after you already said they were included in the song.
    • ...comprises a very simple and understated musical arrangement... Here we go again with "comprises" and "understated."
    • Do you have a reference for the song being in the key of C and 4/4? The link to the sheet music site is not acceptable because it could be a transposition. A critical interpretation would be acceptable. The citation for the last part of this paragraph does not support the musical interpretation.
    • ...some of which have eclipsed the success of their original counterparts.
    • The music video...serves as the sequel to the video for "It's Like That," the first single released from Carey's album. Says who? There's no citation for this.
    • Critical response subsection: first sentence of first paragraph is a run-on with a comma splice.
    • Commercial reception subsection: The first sentence is redundant to the opening of the section.
    • Free downloads controversy subsection: Repeated and redundant usage of word "ascend."
    • Over-use of websites over trade publications for references.
These passages have existed since before the first FAC nomination. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have to admit that most of what you pointed out has to do with a matter of personal taste and not with correct/poor prose. For instance:

    • ...comprises a musical arrangement built on simple piano chords, and an understated, mid-tempo backbeat, which you called "stilted and interpretive" was paraphrased from an article by the Ny Times. The structure of the sentence of that article is nearly identical to this.
    • As a means of insurance... Taken in its entirety, the sentence reads, "As a means of insurance, Antonio "L.A." Reid, the chairman of Island Def Jam Records, encouraged Carey to attempt additional studio sessions with producer Jermaine Dupri." "Insurance" here means "as a means of making sure that the album was solid," or "as protection against failure...." (given that her earlier releases had failed. The mere mention of the slump in the preceeding sentences should have indicated this). There is nothing wrong with it.
    • After two days at Dupri's Atlanta studio the pair composed two tracks for The Emancipation of Mimi, and Carey returned to New York; however, "We Belong Together" was still lacking. The sentence means just that. After her first session with Dupri, she still had not composed "WBT," but yet, she went back to New York.
    • ...prominently utilized in hip-hop music. You haven't commented on this. Is there something wrong with writing that an instrument is prominently utilized in hip-hop music?
    • It's unnecessary and redundant to include the Babyface and Womack lyrics after you already said they were included in the song. Personal opinion. Many of the articles I've read about the song include the lyrics to show when and how they fit into "WBT."
    • ...comprises a very simple and understated musical arrangement... Here we go again with "comprises" and "understated." You're saying that an article is not good enough because it repeats two words? I'm sorry, but my writing teacher told me that it is o.k to use a word twice if it is precisely what you are looking for.
    • Endash punctuation inconsistent. how so?
    • Do you have a reference for the song being in the key of C and 4/4? The link to the sheet music site is not acceptable because it could be a transposition. A critical interpretation would be acceptable. The citation for the last part of this paragraph does not support the musical interpretation. I'll deal with these soon then.
    • ...some of which have eclipsed the success of their original counterparts. No problem here.
    • The music video...serves as the sequel to the video for "It's Like That," the first single released from Carey's album. "Says who?" Says Carey. It is sourced.
    • I'll deal with the comma splice. However, "ascend" was used twice in a paragraph? How is that a crime?

Lastly, there are few if any "trade publications" of the song. It was a pop song released a about a year ago. I doubt that you'll find scholarly journals or text books on it; the most you'll get are magazine article. And even then, that is still an unfair ground to oppose an article. It seems that most of your points are the result of thin reading of the article (as indicated with the "insurance" point et al), or just a difference in writing taste. At this point, I don't expect the article to pass, but I'm proud of myself.

  • PS: None of these problems existed at the first nomination. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Did some tidying. Veltron 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are back, then I want nothing to do with this article. Have you no shame? Orane (talk • cont.) 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I was just going to do some tidying, since the FAC was lagging again. I have no intention on working on this horrid song's article anymore. Velten 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The writing is not of FA quality. There are many errors in grammar, diction, and punctuation. The lead is too short, and doesn't supply any context for readers who aren't Carey fans.--Fashionslide 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_We_Belong_Together_8bcc.html"