Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] We Belong Together

This article has gone through a lot of edit warring, fan-cruft, various chart and music-single tables, and non-stop rivalry between style and format. Finally, I believe that the article has been met with a gift: references, citations, and the whole entire package! Therefore, I nominate it to become a featured article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Great song, great article. Having worked on it with two great editors (Eternal Equinox and Extraordinary Machine), I think it's now ready; it meets all the FA criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Personally, I'd like to see some paper references, but the article looks solid to me. Circeus 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I moved your support to the front of your comment so that it is easier to locate. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Erm, if you've worked on it is it a good idea to vote? Mikker ... 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it? I'm not sure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's a problem; or I've never heard of any objections being raised about it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Just to be on the safe side, I've removed my support. As the nominator, I think that E.E's support vote isn't a problem (thought it's a given that if you are nominating an article, you'll most likely support it.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • On the one hand, FAC is not a vote in that if 51% of ppl oppose/support it fails/succeeds so voting may not be a problem (Raul could just ignore your vote). On the other hand, it seems slightly bad form to me... Mikker ... 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object A couple things I'd like to see sourced before this makes it through the FAC process. Also, the third suggestion I made during peer review [review/We Belong Together/archive3] wasn't looked at, although I found the RIAA source and put it in the article myself. The RIAA site is great for information on Gold, Platinum, etc. singles, and might be a valuable source for future music articles, as I know you all have a history of bring them to FAC status.
  • I think that sources are needed for the Nielsen chart impressions (in Chart performance), the Launch's most watched video with 7.5 performances (Music Video) and for "Bronson also stated..." (Free Downloads Controversy).
  • A very minor detail (and you can yell at me if you want for being so minor!), but do you need to source song lyrics? I don't know if there's a Wiki policy or not, but I won't lose sleep over this issue.
  • Finally, just a Comment; is the song still in the Billboard 100 (I saw on Billboard.com it wasn't in the Top 50)? I personally don't think it should reach FA if it is, as it might be miscontrued as an advertisement if it reaches the front page (I know that's not your intention, but I can see the arguments already if it makes it while still in the Top 100). However, if it's not in the Billboard 100 and the objections above are addressed, I don't see any major problems. All in all, a decent overview of the single.
  • I wish you the best,--Ataricodfish 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Bronson statement is sourced; the citiation is at the end of the paragraph. As the points are from same source, I thought it best to place the citation at the end of the entire statement. The "7.5 performances" are pending. I've just added another source. Also, the fact that the song is in the top fifty (or not) should not affect the article's promotion whatsoever. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Orane, that's why I placed the current chart performance was placed as a "comment" and not an "objection". I'll withdraw my objection if the other issues are resolved even if it's still in the Top 100. I'm just saying that I won't personally support it unless it falls out of the Top 100, just my personal opinion, and other voters might feel differently. --Ataricodfish 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Understood. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been looking for several "7.5 streamed performances" citations as well, but I have been unsuccessful. Journalist, do you know if there are any on the internet? Does Launch have a magazine that we could perhaps retrieve a print source from? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The 7.5 thing is on the internet; I'm sure that Ive seen it somewhere. I dont know of any magazines that could help. I'll keep looking, but I have some schoolwork I gotta finish, so this may have to wait. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Orane, I found the reference you meant for Bronson, but it came at the end of the paragraph before the quote I referenced, which is why I didn't notice it. I struck that and the Launch data, as well as my inquiry regarding lyrics since I see a link at the bottom of the page. Nielsen ratings will still need a link. Another Comment that came to mind; I noted most new FAC articles regarding musicians have an audio sample (see Wikipedia:Featured Music Project). I think a 30 second clip would be appropriate, if you could get one.--Ataricodfish 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. There are now about 22+ sources in the article (5 in the section that you pointed out)
  • Objection withdrawn, and I currently Abstain. As I mentioned previously, I don't think a Top 100 song should be promoted to FA only because its a current event and, if it makes it to the main page, it could be seen as commercial despite the intentions of the authors. Should I verify that the single is no longer a Billboard Hot 100 (which, admittingly, I haven't had a chance to verify), and if an audio sample of the song is added, I will change my vote to support. Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm glad to see a song article which also features sales and awards and not just the "easy stuff" of what's in a video. More song articles should have this much information. --Ataricodfish 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though I should mention that I did do some work on this. 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reluctant object, I'm afraid. I have just noticed that the references section includes two Wikipedia articles, but we should never use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Extraordinary Machine 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But now there's a problem concerning the material in the article previously supported by those two references now being uncited. Extraordinary Machine 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've repleced them with better, outside sources. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, I now change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The writing is dreadful. First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. It isn't as though the love ballad is a particularly complex form, nor that this one offers any innovations on it, and yet the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times. Secondly, there is horrendous redundancy throughout, but one example alone would be how the song's music is described (starts with a piano in C major ... not exactly an unusual piano key, there, so not really something that would deserve much note, and then 4/4 in quarter notes... 4/4 with quarter notes? is 4/4 frequently performed in some other way?). Next, we get a critic's sampler where the criticism is cherry picked to say generally self-evident things that the article has already stated three times (it's her anthem! we like it! it's a good song!). If one puts in a note, one does not generally need to go through and repeat the note's text over and over again. Essentially, there are stretch marks all over this article, as the informational content of two paragraphs has been stretched to fill two screens. I'm sorry that Peer Review didn't pick the prose clean, but I'd have to refer it back to Peer Review and another (non-fan would be good) editor. Geogre 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.I'm not sure that I understand your objection. "First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. You are objecting because the writer(s) explain the lyrics of the song without providing innovations? Isnt that necessary in an article like this? Why should I provide innovation? The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to add to knowledge, it is to summarize existing knowledge.. Hence its nature as a general source. "the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times." What three times? Do you mean the introduction and the relevant section that deals with "lyrics and themes"? Isnt that where its supposed to be? Is something wrong here? You are objecting because the article states that the song starts in C major like may other songs? What if it was in G major like "A Hard Day's Night (song)" etc, would you have objected to it then? We need to make note of the obvious, unless you want me to find some secret in the song and explain it in the article. I really dont understand what you are saying here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The article explains what is going on in the lyrics, the story they tell, three times. Once would be more than enough, especially when it would take merely a single sentence to do the job, and not "it's this and then this and then this and then this." Indeed, a G major would be more unusual. There are natural keys for piano, natural keys for guitar, natural keys for woodwinds, etc. These keys are "home position" and require the least stretching to get all the notes in the scale. For a piano, C, B, and B flat are naturals. (Find a song in B, and you'll find one probably composed on piano -- e.g. Johnny B. Goode.) So note the usual features, the things that make it interesting, notable, worthy of discussion. There's not much point in saying, "Gosh, this piano song is in C!" Of course it's in C. If it were in D-minor, it would be weird. If it were in E, it would be weirder. The point is that unremarkable things are remarked upon, and then a few sentences later restated, and then things that cannot be otherwise (4/4 being 4 quarter notes per measure) being explained. Repetition and redundancy are valid objections in the writing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In order to deal with the music section of the article (fulfilling its comprehensiveness), then the writer has to talk about the basic and fundamental characteristics of the song, including the time signature/beat, instruments and the key in which the song is set, whether or not people will find it weird or redundant. You are assuming that everyone knows the song is in C major and we do not need to mention it, but that is just your (very subjective) opinion. Secondly, the mention of 4/4 etc is just a statement. There is no lengthy explanation as you imply, just a summary of the fundamentals. If Im describing the music, I have to describe the music, whether or not my description will shock the reader; if there is nothing strange, am I to just omit it like it does not exist? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes you assume that two fans edited the peer review Geogre? I am not a fan of Mariah Carey at all. The only reason I helped edit the article is because I thought the song was notable since it broke numerous airplay records. If I'm not mistaken, I also pointed out that the prose was awkward in a few places. It should be corrected, yes, not all of it could be considered "brilliant". The comments about the lyrics being "self-evident" is unclear. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What makes me think that is that the article has a fannish tone. A non-fan might well spot the repetition, if that non-fan is an active reader. A non-fan might also see the song in a wider context, if that editor is knowledgeable. The article has been submitted for FAC when it is not ready, when it still shows the flaws inherent in group editing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I do believe that the article is ready though, which is why I nominated it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The song lyrics do not need to be sourced, however, there is a link to them in the external links portion of the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I see the link now, thanks. --Ataricodfish 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Writing is awkward. Now, I agree with the above, that every topic in the article should be there, all the discussions and so forth are a good idea and contribute to the article in a positive manner. What it lacks is flowing prose. Each paragraph seems to be a series of unconnected sentences on tangentally related, leading to a very stilted reading experience. This problem is pandemic throughout the article, so the example I'm about to display (and correct) is not sufficient to change my vote to support. It may take a lot of work to get this fixed.
Former lead section:
"We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. It was released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), and was both a critical and commercial success. The song is an R&B ballad and has been noted for its quiet storm ambience, laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. Its protagonist declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together". The song has now become Carey's signature song. After winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, it is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.
My changes:
"We Belong Together" is the title of a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. Released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), it was both a critical and commercial success, and has been noted for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. The protagonist of the song declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together".
This song has now become Carey's signature song, and after winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, and is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.
Basically, by beginning each sentence with the article "It" or "The song", it appears to declare each sentence the topic sentence of what should be its own new paragraph. By rewording and rephrasing, it adds coherance to each paragraph, for better ease of reading, and making for more "brilliant prose".
The information I see here is fine for a FA, but the writting could use some work. Hope this helps to bring the article up to standard. Fieari 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the things that had set my teeth on edge was the lead, which begins with the "co-written by Mariah Carey." No one person can co-write anything. It was co-written by her and someone. The other authors are invisible until paragraph 5. It's that kind of thing that set the tone when I was reading it and made my hackles rise. Geogre 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with saying "co-written by Mariah Carey and ..." is the fact that there are so many bloody co-writters for that song! Look at the list in the infobox! I'd rather not mention who it was written by at all than include all those names in the lead. Mariah Carey did sing it, however, so I think it's noteworthy enough to mention that she was involved in the process of writing and producing it. Perhaps the sentence could be re-written to include this information without using the words "co-written" or "co-produced"? Fieari 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem could be solved with "written by Mariah Carey and several of her album's producers" or "written by Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." In either of those cases, you'd indicate that hers was one hand among many and yet not have the incomplete phrase of "co-written by" and then a single name. The idea is that you at least mention that she was only one and yet that you're not obligated to mention them all; this avoids the sneakiness of listing only her (and thereby seemingly making her most important) and the messiness of listing all composers. Geogre 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
How's this? Fieari 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's great. Ive made some changes myself. Is the article any better? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The writing has improved, which is a positive for the article. Good job! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, but is saying "the title of" really necessary? Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree, and have scratched my objection above. Good work. Fieari 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Appreciate the effort put into the piece, but the temptation to misconstrue the article as a piece of indirect marketing in very strong indeed. We may well be validating more than just a piece of pop ephemera by holding such themes up as good practice. HasBeen 11:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The users who edited We Belong Together are not attempting to market the single in any way whatsoever. If the article is promoted to a featured article, it does not necessarily have to appear on the main page. The candidacy it is currently going through is a process whereby the best articles on Wikipedia are noted and recognized for their content. I hope you choose to give the article a read-through and place a vote. If you support, then your effort will be appreciated. If you object, then your criticisms will hopefully be met. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI agree with EE. No one is trying to promote the single. Let me finalise everything: the song has fallen off the Hot 100 chart (its now number two on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Recurrent chart, according to http://www.mariahdaily.com/newsdesk.shtml). With that said, I'd also like to point out that it's over and done, and no amount of promotion (especially by Wikipedia) can propel the single back to number one. Call me defensive (thought that's not my intention) but I'd just like to point out that songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release, and no one brought up the discussion of "wikipedia promoting singles". I say, if the article's well written and meets all the FA criteria, then it deserves to be featured. Period. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
See, this is where we disagree then, as I fully agree with HasBeen on this issue. The point isn't that you personally are promoting a Mariah Carey single currently on the market -- it's that if we allow currently promoted singles on the front page of Wikipedia (which all FA's can become), then we are creating an opening for others, such as marketers, to slip through onto the main page. As well, if a song is a current single, it's no different than a "current event", for the same reason that, say, Dick Cheney hunting incident would likely be disqualified if it were nominated today.
You have made reference to "songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release". As the ol' business maxim goes, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Roy Orbison also made the front page recently, too, but we don't advocate using that as a model for a current music article. Old FA's used to not need references, either, but you won't get far today without them. The criteria for becoming a FA should get tougher as time goes by, and it has gotten tougher in the last few months alone. Personally, I don't think Cool should have made the front page so quickly after the song release, but I wasn't an active part of the Wiki community at the time and didn't put my vote one way or another.
Finally, you're right, I confirmed in today's issue of Billboard that "We Belong Together" isn't in the Top 100 anymore. It's still on some of the R&B charts, though, but I'm personally satisfied that it's not a current event. However, I remain an abstain until an audio sample is added, since that seems to be the standard for music FA articles now. --Ataricodfish 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Audio samples can only be uploaded in the OGG format. Unfortunately, I am not experienced in this field. Does one know how to create such a file and release it publicly? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor and inexact prose throughout. I will give a few examples of misstatements and stylistic infelicities from the beginning of the article: To refer to — to mention or quote —other hits is not to "draw influence" from them. It's not "interpolation of these songs", either; that would mean the unlikely maneouver of putting the whole of the other songs in. Please remove all quaint, outdated, or facetious diction like "Said Carey, 'People ...'" or referring to the man the Carey persona of the song is in love with as a former "beau" (particularly inappropriate as the narrative is otherwise taken with great seriousness and reverence in the article). Please fix poor syntax like "It is then when she decides". Fix typos. Note, this objection can unfortunately not be taken care of by merely correcting the points mentioned. They're only examples, the whole needs a serious stylistic overhaul/rewrite. Please compare also Geogre's still standing objection above; the nominator saying "I do believe that the article is ready, though" is not exactly a responsive reply to a specific and detailed critique. Bishonen | talk 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
P. S. Also, I've thought of something that contributes to an uncritical, over-intimate tone: you should avoid telling us, as if it were incontestable truth, what Carey "felt" or "wanted". An encyclopedia doesn't know or claim to know such things. We're not in her head: tell us instead what she said or affirmed. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
Comment→I've done some extensive work on the language (not limited to the examples that you provided), and I've also tried to incorporate some of Geogre's suggestions. What do you think? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Objection stands. I'm sorry, I do acknowledge the effort, but this isn't FA style. Looking at the way it reads now, the abbreviating of some very diffuse passages is certainly an improvement, as such. I'd like to see more of that, as the "stretch marks" that Geogre speaks of come close to tautology sometimes ("sings sadly, creating a sorrowful tone": the reader can surely figure what kind of tone is created by singing sadly). Stylistically, too much remains to be done altogether, and I suggest getting some fresh eyes and merciless scissors in from outside. That would make the article shorter, no doubt, but IMO there simply isn't enough material there for the present length anyway. My advice to narrate Carey's statements rather than her supposed thoughts hasn't been successfully carried out. E. g. the revised sentence "Carey had implied that she wanted her vocals to be the main force on "We Belong Together", and decided to alter her style of singing" is merely less clear than before ("implied"?) while still claiming access to Carey's thought processes ("decided"). And so it goes. Incidentally, I'm unhappy about so much of the narrative being uncritically — fannishly — based on self-congratulatory promotional material ("People have to learn the art of subtlety... We realized that once we did it, it was an inspiration in terms of how I was singing it."). Such material is naturally the bread and butter of mtv.com (quoted here in a "behind the scenes" story), but Wikipedia needs to take some critical distance to it. I can't withdraw my opposition, sorry. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong object. The credits section omits any mention of the musicians who performed on the track. Unless Carey played piano, bass, drums, and whatever other instruments are not mentioned in the article, this would certainly seem a glaring omission. Monicasdude 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand your objection, and have been looking in several places for information on the album credits. However, I've been unsuccessful and don't know if there is any other way to correct your concern. Do you know of any paperbacks or websites? Also, I'm not quite sure if one piece of criticism qualifies as "strong object" instead of "object", but it isn't much of a deal. I'll continue searching. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand the objection. However, the "strong" is a bit of a stretch, as it does not give the objection more merit. I'm assuming good faith, but I can't help but wonder...Anyway, we can do one of two things here: we can complete the personnel, or we can just omit the section altogether. I chose the former, so I'll look. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed some of the prose. I hope it attracts favourable reception. Are there any other suggestions, comments, objections, etc.? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am unhappy that so many copyrighted images are used - are they all necessary. Obviously Image:Webelongtogether.jpg is justified, but are the others essential to the page. Could someone who knows more than me on this subject comment. Perhaps some limited sections of the score could be added - just a few bars, or are they like the images all copyright. Perhaps this could be overcome by transcribing a few notes into a different key from the original - just to demonstrate the melody either vocal or piano. I notice one ref. note which seems tp promise the music in fact leads to an internet shopping site - this is unlikely to be a permanent link. To download the music here involves downloading programs and licence agreements before being able to view the score. Hardly an encyclopedia arrangement. Giano | talk 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The images are supposed to enhance the flow of the writing. Two of the images are from the music video, presenting Carey in two of the three "phases" she goes through whilst singing the song; the third image presents Carey singing the song at the 2005 MTV Movie Awards, and enhances the text supporting the promotional state of the song; the fourth image presents Carey accepting an award for "Song of the Year", which is in honour in the music industry, and is positioned under "Awards". I condemn the removal of any images, but what suggestions do you wish to share? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Eternal. I can see quite clearly for myself what the images are, I am merely questioning if they are necessary for illustrating your description of the song, bearing in mind they are copyright. I am also aware that "Song of the Year" is an award, and I am quite prepared to take your word that Carey received it, without having an out-of-focus copyright image of a perma-tanned female waving at me to prove it. I note you do not comment on my question regarding an extract of the score. Finally, I am unsure of the reason you ask what suggestions do I wish to share. I merely question, before opposing or supporting, some content of the article. Giano | talk 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked if you had any suggestions because... I don't even know how to respond, sorry. Regarding the images, if you had worked on the article, perhaps you would have added different ones, but this is the way we chose to illustrate the article. Do you want me to search for different ones that are more to your liking? By the way, the images are indeed copyrighted, which is why we have added the fair use rationale. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are rather missing my point. Yes, I would prefer images not in copyright. I question the necessity 5 copyright images illustrating the same woman. I question if this quantity is indeed fair use. I again note you do not comment on my questions regarding the score. Giano | talk 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you had attempted to ask me. I believe you were not clear enough before, so I apologize for wasting your time. I looked over Wikipedia:Fair use, and it does not say that images of the same person (whatever the number may be) violate the fair use policy. Therefore, I suppose it is fair use. Did I answer your question correctly or is there something else you would like to know? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "I understand what you had attempted to ask me. I believe you were not clear enough before" ???- Eternal please (pretty please) read my questions - read my comments. Yes there is a further question - for the third time! The score! , the score! , the score! How can we have a musical page we no hint of the score! The little black dots, (look like tadpoles) which hop about between 5 lines. Clear enough for you now? Giano | talk 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I had been perplexed, and I continue to be. Your intention was either to type something absurd, or you are communicating your comment clear enough. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment, on the elaborate discussion of the first sentence above, and the various good suggestions made by reviewers for re-formulating it. I just noticed that the sentence doesn't follow any of them, but has instead been revised into incoherence: ""We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song partially written and produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." (If Carey together with "others" wrote only part of it, who wrote the rest...?") Only a detail, but symptomatic of much of the article. The laboriousness of this improvement-by-FAC procedure does suggest, as Geogre says above, that the article was nominated before being ready. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
I am starting to become overwhelmed. Fieari rewrote the sentence, however, it was once again changed to an option that Geogre had suggested. I already understand that Geogre and yourself believe that this article was nominated earlier than it should have been, but reiterating your feelings isn't actionable. As long as you provide criticism that can be corrected, the editors who worked on the article will be happy to attempt to resolve it. Bishonen, are there any other suggestions or objections that you have? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I only reiterated my feelings because I was asked to by Journalist; I think I've made my objections clear, and will be very happy to stop posting here. For the particular sentence, Geogre certainly did not suggest such illogic and tautology as having both "partially" and "in collaboration with others" in it. Read his suggestions more carefully, please. Bishonen | 美少年 15:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
If you were asked to reiterate your feelings, then I apologize. I had figured you would respond to Geogre's suggestion in such a manner, so I'm going to refrain from further posting on this topic. The first sentence reads The problem could be solved with "written by Mariah Carey and several of her album's producers" or "written by Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." I believe I read his comment one-hundred percent most accurately. Are there any other suggestions and/or comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If you put the illogicality at the door of Geogre, of all people, you force me to respond even though I had not intended to. Your belief is 100% erroneous. You seem to have failed to read the word "or" in your quote from Geogre. Do you still not see it? "Or"? I'm becoming very unsure whether you're genuinely failing to see my point, or there is some other explanation for the way you reply to me. Let's by all means agree to refrain from further posting on the subject. There is no dent in my objection to Featured status for this article. It's not for the nominator to decide what's actionable, you know. Bishonen | 美少年 17:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
Why yes: either or. The other one is just as acceptable. The last comment, "It's not for the nominator..." indeed makes me want to respond, but you are right. It is time to refrain from dragging out the discussion, mainly because I did some research and discovered that you and Geogre are good friends. I would defend what my friend had said too (it's common sense!), so this is my final post regarding the situation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone. This FAC is getting a little too personal, so let's stop this. After reading the above argument, I fail to see the big deal. I've reworded the lead sentence (call it an experiment), and I think that it's now more accurate. If you dont like it, please come up with something better.

The writers of the article have done some labourous work, trying to follow suggestions and criticisms (very discouraging, especially when someone is so insensitive as to refer to your hard work as "dreadful", no matter how true that is). User:Bishonen, we have asked if the prose was any better, but you have ignored these questions, and have now focussed your attention on the lead sentence (which I've now altered). So I ask again: has your objection about the prose, been addressed? Bear in mind that all the examples that you provided have been corrected (and then some), so if you still choose to object, you have to find other, actionable examples. If you feel that your objection has been addressed, please strike your vote above (you don't have to support). User:Geogre also has not returned to comment on whether or not his vote still stands. I'm sure that the repetition he cited were removed. I can say though, that the info about the C major, 4/4 ... will not be omitted from the article, as it is basic info that fulfills the comprehensiveness criteria. If no one returns, its impossible to guage where the article stands, (and the FAC director will probably overlook these votes). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just returned here because your lack of an edit summary suggested you may be addressing my very recent comment higher up. When I see: "will not be omitted from the article". Will not? - Do you imagine you own this article? You can make statements in bold wherever you like, but I think you will find Wikipedia editors and the FAC director have minds of their own - For your own good, an attempt to redress comments would be more advantageous to you than the rather aggressive stance you seem to be adopting. Giano | talk 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→I have not adopted any agressive tone, nor have have I said that I own the article. The FAC is a very frustrating process, especially when voters' opinions conflict, and the writer(s) try to please everyone. For my comment about Geogre's vote. As you have seen, he assumes that everyone has his level of knowledge on majors and home keys, etc, so he opposes on the grounds that the article explains self evident information. What you have to realise is that, there is no such thing as a perfect article, and what you want might not necessarily be best for the article. Voters have to stop being so subjective and uncompromising in the FA process. They have even objected on grounds that are nether policies nor criteria. It's also unfair to the editors when people attempt to become part of the FAC process by voting, but never stick around to work with the editor and tell him how far he has come in meeting the requirements. The point of FAC voting is not to simply say "yes" or "no". Voters are supposed to want the best for the article, and as such, should be there to work through their objections. Finally, "for my own good"? I have done my best on this article and I'm very proud of the writers, but my welbeing does not depend on it's promotion. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "User:Bishonen, we have asked if the prose was any better, but you have ignored these questions". You must have missed my rather full reply, here it is. Hope this helps. Of course my objection still stands. Bishonen | 美少年 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Im sorry but it was very vague. You stated one example, then state that two much remains, without pointing them out. Additionally, you dont want me to use a source/quote because Carey congratulates herself? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose : This is all becoming rather intense, isn't it? I do think it is unreasonable of you to expect Geogre and Bishon to respond instantaneously to your demands. None of us live permanently on this site - no matter how it may sometime seem. You must remember you have nominated this page and thus invited comment - and comment you have received. If you think some of that comment unfair, then perhaps it would be best if the page went for peer review where it shortcomings could be fully dissected in a less forthright and more subjective fashion which you would find less personally hurtful. I'm sure we all want to see this page put in its appropriate place. I shall now change my vote to "Oppose" - refer to peer review - which I hope will help you. Giano | talk 22:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→You seem to lack knowledge of the FA process: you cannot simply vote "oppose" without stating exactly why. In other words, you must provide specific examples from the article, plus tell which FA criteria it goes against. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read my comments above. All of them - which you have failed to answer, so I am opposing. You seem to want instantaneous response from others but appear unable to give satisfactory answers yourself. I have explained in my view the article is not comprehensive, and the fair-use rationale is debatable. I do not choose to support at this time. Giano | talk 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comments. I can't seem to pick up on your thoughts on the comprehensiveness of the article. Is it that bit about an inclusion of the score? This poses two problems. The score is copyrighted (and you claim that too much copyrighted images are in thae article). Secondly, why include score? Its not like many people can read sheet music. As an encyclopedia, we have to cater to as large an audience as possible. The average reader would just look at the lines and dots and say "huh?". Two, you believe that there are two many fair use images. Thats ok. However, as E.E has explained, some are very important eg:Image:WBT2.jpg and Image:Weddingdress.jpg. I suspect that removing some will have addressed the last section of your "oppose". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am objecting because Eternal has said "I condemn the removal of any images" which I have taken to understand no images will be removed. IMO one image of one individual is fair use - two or more of the same individual is abuse - Regarding your comments on the score: I can read music perfectly - to assume others cannot is patronising (this is a music page). A few bars (transcribed to a different key if necessary) from the copyrighted original merely to demonstrate the melody would be useful and make the article more comprehensive. I have placed the page on my watchlist so lease stop arguing with me here until you have acted on my comments. I note one copyright image has been removed and four remain. Giano | talk 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I do condemn the images being removed from the article. This does not mean it is not going to happen. As a matter of fact, one image has been taken out. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Giano, you know that is not what I meant, and to take it personally is to incite the No personal attacks policy. Just because you can read music, that does not mean that the majority of people in the world can. This article is not for you, its for the general reader (This is a perfect example of the subjectivity I mentioned earlier). "[P]lease stop arguing with me here until you have acted on my comments?" You do not order me to do anything. The article is as comprehensive as is, and the lack of written music is definitely not a strong enough reason to oppose. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I will no longer be participating in this or any of the possible further FACs for the We Belong Together article. I had nominated this article because I believed that it deserved featured status; if you read between the lines, overall it is not a bad article. However, when there is a situation such as this one where three friends have objections, it isn't always easy to complete the pending suggestions. In this case, it has spiralled out of control, and several policies had to have been broken during the arguments. Remaining polite and staying civil appear to be rather difficult tasks for all of us, which is truly pitiful. What a ridiculous situation. I wish you luck with the article, my friend Journalist. You're going to need it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Its really a pitiful situation, and it has gotten out of hand. But, I have faced worse (Celine Dion). I'm not going to cast all the blame on others: I have had a huge part in it too, and I apologise. Bear in mind that the apology is not for saying the things I said: I mean them 100%. I'm convinced that the FAC system is broken, and this is a perfect example. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what I really think would be fair? If the FAC director disregarded this entire FAC, then give it a clean start. I dont know if its actionable, but it would also be best if none of us on the present FAC voted or commented (leave it to other, uninterested parties). This has gotten far too corrupt and subjective, and nothing can be accomplished in such a situation. Thank you. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The way a couple of recent contentious FAC reviews have been handled esssentially tossed into obscurity chunks of the discussion. S0, why not clear the decks here? Well, NOT, because this is the process, no, DISCUSSION...? Proper "wiki behavior" refactors, not shunts into archives... --Tsavage 07:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I should probably respond to Orane's and EE's latest posts, lest Raul thinks the objectors are in agreement about the "clean start" (even if it seems a bit remote that he would think that). I do understand that it's stressful to have one's work up on FAC and getting it criticized, but I'm still baffled by Orane's and the nominator EE's intolerance of contradiction. People are allowed to oppose, you know. To say stuff you disagree with, even. That's not "dirty", to require a "clean" start; it's kind of the point of FAC. Reviewers are also permitted to stick to their guns and explain that their objections remain in force after you tried to fix them (as I've done), no matter how outraged you are by such a stance. Oh, and reviewers are permitted to be busy with other things for days on end, as Geogre has been, to your indignation. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back before the article rolls off FAC, to take a look at what you've done to fix his objections, and either withdraw them or not. It's unpleasant to me to try to discuss the article and my objections to its style and syntax, with the resentful way you respond, and the peremptory way you insist that I must either keep on going into ever greater detail or go strike my objections. No; I'm not obliged to do either, and the law of diminishing returns set in long ago, with your mistrust of the simplest suggestion (see the "Lead sentence" debacle above, the one time I did try to go into detail and got pissed on for it). Lately you're even throwing around vague but reckless hints of collusion and corruption, and dark unexplained references to "a situation such as this one where three friends have objections".
Orane, your conclusion is that the really "fair" thing would be to have a "clean start" with a new set of reviewers. And also, you apologize, but quite emptily: "not for saying the things I said: I mean them 100%". Not, then, for your belligerence and suspiciousness of advice, or your dark hints at reviewers' bad faith and personal motives. OK. But for what, then? Bishonen | 美少年 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
No, actually, it was me who wrote "a situation such as this one where three friends have objections". Read the text more properly, please. : ) —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are allowed to oppose. But when one takes it another level, delving into downright nitpicking, it is a rather unfair and frustrating. You raised objections about prose. They were, for the most part addressed. Yet, you have said that your objections still stands because 1) I used Carey's thoughts. 2) I used a quote in which she congratulates herself, and 3)the porse is still not clean (though you have failed to tell me where. Your objection about prose are supposed to be specific: The entire article? What section? What sentences? What points do you believe to be belaboured?) I'm sure that anyone can oppose, but when they oppose on the grounds of personal stlye and preference, instead of the guidelines, policies and criteria of the FA and Wikipedia at large, then ofcourse I'm going to become perplexed. In addressing my opinions of Giano's objection. He believes that the article is not comprehensive because it does not have the music sheet included (though he vehemently opposes the inclusion of anymore copyrighted files), and if you look too, you'll notice that a large part of his objection has to do with his perception of me being authoritative. However, I told him that the music and notation will probably confuse the average reader. Moreover, there is no such thing as a perfect article: an article can always be improved on prose and comprehensiveness, but that does not mean that in its current state, "We Belong Together" isn't comprehensive enough to be promoted.
Finally, you said that I said "...situation such as this one where three friends have objections". Read my above comments; I have said nothing of the sort. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Read mine, the both of you. It's addressed to you both: see how it starts "I should probably respond to Orane's and EE's latest posts"? I quote Orane and I quote EE. Is that a problem? Orane, yoou set forth your ever more irreconcilable demands on me very clearly above: if I criticize the article's prose in general terms, I'm failing to be "specific"; if I go into details, I'm "nitpicking". Bishonen | 美少年 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Don't confuse youself. Look at this logic: You said the prose wasnt up to par. However, when I say "support you claim with specific", you set forth some minor, subjective examples like "self congratulatory quote", which, in my humble opinion, fails miserably at supporting your claim of poor writing. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Objection remains: I've now re-read the article from start to last. First, you should be aware that I am not in the habit of debating and interlining comments with people on an FAC, as I think such things are shabby at best. It is not a debate. Second, after I object to something I like to give the authors a chance to do some work to see if the objection can be lifted, which is my goal as well as theirs. Third, an objection is not a checklist. I can and will mention some examples that decided for me that the objection was still valid, but it is not a case of "correct this and this, and then there are no objections." Such a thing may happen with a procedural or formatting objection, but not with a writing objection. That all said, let me congratulate the authors on improving the article's early sections enormously in the intervening time. The first sentence is still begging for attention ("partly co-written" is not logical; remove the "partially" or "partly"). However, after a number of people have commented on the prose in the early parts, we're now left with decaying prose quality as the article goes on. In the sections on the video, we have some strained sentence structures with passives that simply don't make sense, cumbersome wording, and incomplete comparisons. The article has improved, and so I have to say that the second part of my first entry is also valid: I really think this article would benefit most by having dispassionate hands working on it. If Peer Review isn't generating sufficient input, then perhaps the authors would consider asking someone who has no particular interest in the subject to give the writing a hard look. The writing here is not among the best Wikipedia has to offer, so it is not FA quality. Geogre 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and for the rest of this...folderol...it is truly immature. "Research" reveals that Bishonen and I are friends -- such as reading either of our user pages, where we say, in the first screen, that we are real life friends. 'It was changed the way I said' -- please: either read what I wrote or what it says, for the change was an improvement but left a logical inconsistency. 'I haven't been back to answer for myself' -- well, that's sort of a good thing, as I was trying to avoid bickering, small minded, foot stomping, "says you" argument and let you guys take my criticisms in the spirit they were intended and find some disinterested parties to do some editing. Finally, though, Bishonen raised exceptionally acute objections about how poorly sourced the article is, and the authors didn't even make an effort at addressing that. Frankly, leaving my objection as merely stetim is as much as anyone should hope for. Geogre 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose my comments can stand the test of time, especially now. Anyway, in regard to the opening sentence concerning "partly" or "partially", it has been changed to "primarily" (and has been like this for several days now). The prose is not brilliant, but it does not fail in any way. As this appears to be your only objection (other than the information you requested that be removed which I must admit seemed rather peculiar), and if I feel in the mood to correct the prose sometime soon, you may be obliged to change your vote, which is, evidently, a good thing! However, if the article rolls off FAC, I'll be taking some time before renominating it since I am not really in the mood to rewrite the entire 10-some kilobytes. Anyway, thanks for your comments and suggestions. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are calling an article that is supported by USA Today, Universal Music Group, Fox News, Billboard, New York Times and RIAA among others as "poorly sourced"? I'm not even gonna comment on that any further. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you in that category. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second nomination

A lot of work has gone into the article since it was last nominated. A sound sample has been added, a complete list of the credits and personnel has been included, and a heavy copy-edit was conducted. In my personal opinion the only thing that is missing from the article now is a chart of the U.S. and UK chart trajectories of which I have in my possession, but I can live without excess detail! Although it was not resubmitted to peer review, information at the most recent nomination was successfully engraved into the article (permanently)! This time around, I am convinced that the article is ready to become a featured article. It meets all of the criteria, and objections have been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support, of course. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we get citations for the first paragraph of Structure and music? That seems to be more opinion, IMO, so we should just cite reviews describing the song (which shouldn't be too hard to find). The last paragraph of Chart performance has no inline citations. I find the article a bit uncomfortable to read at times, mainly because it's a bit hagiographic (IMO), but since I feel I might be too biased to judge and this is one of the better pop articles I've seen, I won't object yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been searching for references concerning the structure and music paragraph but have been unsuccessful. Although it's not really the best example, would you feel more convinced if the song itself spoke for the paragraph? I'll continue searching for references, of course, but it has been difficult. Which portion of the chart performance are you referring to? Is it the part before "free downloads controversy" or the very last paragraph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and sourced that section; it can be synthesized from the two sources.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The part before the free downloads controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, that section has three inline citations. As the entire point is from one source (Billboard itself), it was best if we placed the citations at the end of the paragraphs, and not in individual sentences. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The Canadian, UK, Australian, and French charts have been sourced. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Having worked on this, i think it now fits the criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It needs a lot of copyediting (punctuation, coordination of tenses). The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration. The "structure and music" section isn't very complete, uses nonstandard musical terminology ("phases"), and doesn't even mention, for example, whether the song is in a minor key or a major key. The lead doesn't do anything to convince a read who's not a Carey fan that there's anything noteworthy or interesting about the topic; it states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site.--Bcrowell 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that this user is no longer actively contributing to WP, so he is unable to reassess his oppose vote. The editors however, have addressed (or have attempted to address) the objection. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't want to reassess my vote. I stand by my oppose vote. Please don't put words in my mouth.--Bcrowell
      • I have no intention of reassessing my vote, because the minor improvements have not been enough. I have already responded to this comment by saying that I'm still following this discussion, but someone deleted my comment. The fact that such a lousy article could be considered seriously for FA was one of the things that made me decide to quit WP and intentionally mung my password. Since orane feels the need to shout by boldfacing his/her comment, I've done the same in my reply. Note, however, that I would not sink so low as to delete orane's comment, as was done to my comment. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe me when I say that I'm really bcrowell, in which case it was sneaky and dishonest to delete my comment; or I'm you don't, in which case you can feel free to count this as an additional vote to oppose.--Bcrowell
      • Eternal equinox has deleted the above comment. This is the second time it has been deleted. Eternal equinox's comment on the second deletion was "Removed possible vandalism; if Bcrowell would like to make comments, he should do so from his own account." But of course the content of the comment makes it clear that I cannot make comments from my own account, because I've intentionally disabled my account. Also as explained in the comment, the supporters of this article can't have it both ways: either I'm who I claim to be, in which case it's dishonest and despicable to delete my comments, or I'm not who I claim to be, in which case this should be counted as a second vote against the article.--Bcrowell
      • Let me intervene (sorry EE). I have done some copyediting, and have replaced "phase" with the correct musical term — "section". I've also mentioned the key the song was in etc. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • A lot of copy-editing has already been conducted, and the users who wrote this article feel as though it is ready to be accepted as a featured article. All of the images are tagged properly and none are being used in the article for decorative purposes. Mariah Carey accepting an award for "We Belong Together" is not decorative — it presents the singer in an uplifting mood because of her win. The images from the music video present Carey's sheer frustration when she pleads for her lover's return and to show her wedding dress which caused much publicity. The "music and structure" is an effort placed in the article based on research; it does not require proper "music terminology"; it needs to be communicated so that non-musicians understand the language. We could not find a reference or which key it is in, therefore it was not included in the article. If the lead doesn't convince you that the song was a commercial success, well then there's nothing we can do about it: we're here to summarize the facts, not convince a reader that it was a hit or a failure. There are links in the "Critical reception" portion of the article stating the positive and negative reviews it received, which makes the article stable instead of purely provided teeter-totter POV on either the good or bad side. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If you can't find out whether the song is in a major or minor key, maybe you simply don't have enough sources of information to write an FA-quality article. It seems implausible to me, however, that you couldn't track down information of that kind. Why not just walk into a music shop, find the sheet music on the shelf, and look at the key signature, chords, and melody? It seems odd to me that you don't think standard musical terminology should be used in an article on a musical topic. If this was an article on geometry, we'd expect words like "line" and "angle" to be used correctly, rather than ad hoc, idiosyncratic terms like "straight thingy" and "wedgy bit." Someone who has a deep knowledge of a subject can often get across the relevant ideas while finding creative methods to avoid an excess of obscure terminology; but the impression I get here is that the people who wrote this section simply don't have the relevant musical knowledge. The lead does convince me that the song was a commercial success, but it does not convince me that it was a critical success, nor does the mixture of positive and negative reviews later in the article convince me of that. The biggest issue IMO is simply that if the article was well written, it would do something in the lead to capture the interest of someone who wasn't already a Carey fan. It simply didn't do that for me.--Bcrowell 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I found a source that says that the song is in C Major, but another editor told me to remove it as it was not note worthy; C Major is considered "home key". I can replace it if you wish. "Phases" could be changed to "verses" or something similar. I think that the images are appropriate (though I have my doubt about the last one at "awards"; its not particularly vital). The lead tells that the song is her comeback and signature song; and the article itself expands on this. I think that this is convincing and interesting enough. "It states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site". I think that theres a litte confusion here. The bit about the song achieving huge commercial success is not sourced at all — the bit about it becoming her comeback is the point that is sourced, and in any case, none leads to a fansite. Lastly, I recognise the verb/tense shift. Its use here is correct in that, while discussing the song's success and recording preccess, it's appropriate to use past tense, but when discussing the plot and the lyrics, you should use present tense (a common rule in literature that applies to songs, poems, novels, etc) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that it was not a notable thing where it was, and it wasn't (it was in a sentence that said that it was composed on a piano in C major; on a piano, C major is a natural 'home position,' while on a guitar that would be an unusual key). I.e. "on a piano in C major" is no biggie. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the music, though, as music, then it makes sense to use the proper terminology, to talk about the key, etc. My larger point was that the music wasn't very unusual, that the song isn't very unusual, that the whole song is rather run of the mill, and I felt like discussing the music was padding. This song isn't "Satisfaction" or "My Generation." It's a fairly standard R&B ballad. Geogre 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All of my issues from the prior FAC, which I initially opposed, have been addressed. Changes and sources have been added, noted a song sample has been included, and song is no longer a "current event", as it has dropped off the Billboard 100 and most other charts. --Ataricodfish 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that the article is well written. Khalif 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A concise, well-written song article. If only every song article could be so to-the-point. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with regret, due to acknowledged omission of chart info, which is essential. But, aside from that, I do find this nom to be very pleasing. Would happily support if chart info was included. Everyking 07:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll also note that I'd be even happier if the chart info was not included in this article, but a subarticle dealing with all chart info in detail was created. That's really what we need here, especially considering how much chart info there is to talk about. But in the short term, I think it would suffice to have a trajectory table of at least the U.S. Everyking 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I disagree and believe that the article includes a well-balanced portion of the single's chart performance. Much of the information is focused on the U.S. market because that is where its success was most overwhelmed — the Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. chart performances are not as in-depth as the former because of the lack of sub-charts. Since the U.S. chooses to display over twenty charts on Billboard.com, we are capable of writing a vast outlook of the "We Belong Together" trajectory and what-not. The other nations do not have sub-charts that are displayed on the official websites—although sub-charts indeed do exist—and therefore it is not as simple to expand upon international appeal. There is a large amount of U.S. information included, beginning with the single's Hot 100 and Airplay success and its performance on the contemporary charts. I don't think that excess information should be added to the article — see Cool (song) for a recent single that reached featured article status: there is not much talk on its chart performance but more so on the writing and inspiration. You may want to see various Beatles' songs (Yesterday (song), I Want to Hold Your Hand, Something) for examples on articles with almost no chart history whatsoever. The article shouldn't go into over-drive on the international chart base. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say you had to write it. Anyway, my vote stands. The chart information is important. Either include the trajectory or create a subarticle. I see disturbing hints of deletionism here. Everyking 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And let me point out that those Beatles articles are the work of User:Johnleemk, a deletionist who has destroyed at least as much music-related content on WP as he has created. Those articles are hardly good examples to point to. If they are weak on chart info they should lose FA status. Everyking 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • A sub article just for the purpose of showing the chart performance of a pop ballad? Is it that notable? The chart performance is lengthy enough already (in fact, it is the longest section of the article). Oh, and you may also want to check out Request for comment/Pop music issues. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course it's notable. Why are we limiting ourselves, and placing restrictions on our readers? I think we should have all the chart information on this song that there is to write. Everyking 04:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                • We are placing restrictions on our readers because an encyclopedia is a general source that is supposed to summarize the most notable points of an entry. We are limiting readers becase "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are limiting readers because noone except a bonafied fan will read an article that stretches for 40 kilobites on a pop ballad. And finally, we are limiting our readers because the FA criteria states that the piece must be tightly focussed without delving into unnecessary info. Frankly, if fans of Carey need to know more, they can look at the external links of the article etc. And if you look closely, there is additional chart info in the "see also" section at "sales and chart achievement". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, you said I was jumping to accusations, but it looks like I was 100% correct: that's classic deletionist talk right there, right out of the textbook. Some people, I think, don't look at FA with enough theoretical grounding. I've been guilty of this myself before. If something looks nice, and obviously a lot of work went into it, the temptation is to support. You can see that up and down this page. "Oh, looks good, support." But being an FA is much more important than that. Look at how EE pointed to the Beatles articles as examples to bolster his position. FAs set examples, precedents, and collectively they shape the whole idea of what Wikipedia content is supposed to be about. So I refuse to let my guard down and support a deletionist-oriented article just because it looks nice and tidy and referenced. It's evident to me that wrongheaded thinking has been at work on the article, and unless I see some change in that respect I will continue to oppose. Everyking 05:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that you are taking this too personally. Secondly, while being a FA doesnt mean that it should look nice and well-referenced, it sure does not mean that the writers should plaster the article with every bit of information that they can find. What would be the focus there? I see that you have commented on EE's examples, but you havent commented on my quotes of the policies and conventions that everyone here seems to follow. And its funny how you think that you are the one who is right. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Also, let's not jump to accusations here (User:Johnleemk and "hints of deletionism")Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally, I don't really see how mentioning every single weekly chart position of any single or album is useful in the context of an encyclopedia. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think FAC is the most appropriate place to discuss this, though. Extraordinary Machine 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to Everyking, the Beatles articles are absolutely fantastic when looking at musical-related aspects of a song, which I had been attempting to note in my last edit toward your objection. I am not bolstering my position by selecting them because they lack the information you would like to see within them — I chose them because they are well-written, do not contain fan-cruft-related activity, and concentrate on what a song is principally about (which I have just noted): the music and lyrics. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I do—it informs the reader, which is the purpose of this whole project. You have a Britannica-based conception of an encyclopedia: a collection of tidy summaries fitted onto the printed page—well, it's worth remembering that if we were doing things Britannica-style we wouldn't even have an article on this song—or on Mariah Carey herself, since from that viewpoint, the elitist viewpoint, all of it's just trivia, mindless diversions for the "ignorant masses" and such, unworthy of inclusion in a real collection of knowledge. You should think a minute about the basis of your ideas about the nature of an encyclopedia. Where does your viewpoint start, in philosophical terms, and where does it lead? Everyking 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The use of chart trajectories is a contentious point, but I think the purpose of this forum is to assess an article against established criteria. There is nothing about chart trajectories in any of the Wikipedia policy or guideline pages, nor in any of the project pages - if it does exist and I've missed it, please show me where it is. This should not be a forum where any of us push our own particular bias and bargain for a support/oppose vote. Push for the chart trajectories by all means, but do it in the correct forum so that when articles come up for nomination, the chart trajectory is part of the agreed requirement. What we should be deciding here, objectively and dispassionately, is : does the article meet the current established and agreed criteria for a featured article? Yes or no? How can a contributor work to create a featured article if it's going to be judged and condemned against unwritten criteria? That you have a vision for the future of the project is admirable, and possibly a lot of articles will need to be reviewed in time as they might no longer meet standards, but the article should be judged against the current standard, not the future standard that we haven't yet agreed upon. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The issue is comprehensiveness, of course, and that's as standard an objection as they come. I believe the chart trajectory is necessary to comprehensively cover the subject. Everyking 10:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, comprehensiveness is mandatory, I agree, and in general it's a standard, valid objection. Defining "comprehensiveness" is the grey area and I guess that's the point we really don't agree on; the line between comprehensiveness and excessive detail can be very fine. Rossrs 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, on one end there's a single sentence in an article on the history of music that mentions general trends in early 21st century Western popular music, and on the other end there's a whole family of lengthy articles dealing with every aspect of "We Belong Together" in delicious detail, enough to satisfy any and all readers. My real idea of what is comprehensive is the latter. But because that's years ahead of where we're generally at right now, my comprehensiveness standard in present-day practice is way less than that: I just want the inclusion of a basic chart trajectory that we already have access to and which we already know readers want. I see things in terms of movement to one end or the other of that spectrum and try to push for a goal that keeps things going in the right direction. Everyking 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you're wrong to push, but I don't think this is the right venue. We'll have to disagree about that. "Delicious detail" won't necessarily "satisfy any and all readers", in fact it will repel many of them. If it's true that "we already know readers want" trajectories, I can only wonder why none of those readers seem to be commenting here, only the ones that don't want it. You seem to be suggesting that you are speaking on behalf of a majority, and I think that's doubtful. In any case, your oppose and my support effectively cancel each other out ;-) and the finer points of this conversation really should be discussed elsewhere. Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to support because of the addition of the chart. Everyking 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it's well written, well referenced, as good as or better than other song related featured articles. Fair use images are well chosen and used sparingly - fair use rationales seem to be good. Comprehensive without delving into the mindless trivia that populates so many pop-culture articles - I like that it's thorough without being exhaustive - well done. In your nomination you said that it's missing chart trajectories and although I know the trajectories have their supporters, I think they clutter up articles with exactly the type of mindless trivia you've cleverly avoided. My opinion only, and I won't change my vote if you add them (but I hope you don't) Rossrs 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in a quick read-over, it passed inspection. -- user:zanimum
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Plus too many copyrighted images to be reasonable, and the final image is out of focus and has little to do with the song itself. We have already got the message as to what she looks like. Giano | talk 09:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are not too many copyrighted images. Each image does not have to directly relate to the song itself — that would be unusual and would leave us with two images from the music video, which are both in the same section. The rest of the article would become full of text, and uncolourful. The image is not out of focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK no problem! I'll stick with oppose. Giano | talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It should be noted that this user has already voted and that they have bolded two "oppose" votes. Also, Giano, please refrain from making such comments as "hollow". Please see Wikipedia:Civility. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Also, the writing is too rigid, it lacks chutzpah. My biggest concern is that the images in the article all look blurry and out-of-focus. HeyNow10029 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • HeyNow10029 has been asked several times to reanalyze her vote but has simply ignored both Journalist and myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The writing is not supposed to contain "chutzpah". It is supposed to qualify as "brilliant prose" so that others are able to read it very clearly. None of the images are out-of-focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have to be bland for people to understand it clearly. And the images are out-of-focus, I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. HeyNow10029 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree: the writing does not have to be "exciting" as it is not listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article. What images do you claim to be out of focus? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Who said anything about exciting. All the images look blurry, but specifically the first one where she's leaning against the wall. Stick by my oppose. HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Image use policy says in part "Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available" (the bold is also from the official policy page). Crystal clear, high resolution images are not to be used. The images are to be only of sufficient quality to do the job of illustrating/demonstrating points addressed in text. This part of your objection is therefore not actionable. With regards to the writing lacking "chutzpah", it would help people understand your position if you gave examples or suggested ways of improving it. Objections must be actionable, and it's up to you to make your opinions clear so that other users have the opportunity to fix what you identify as faults. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • My objections are actionable. First, fix the pictures: the pictures are blurry which has nothing to do with the resolution. The last picture was screengrabbed at a moment when she was waving her hand, which makes her hand look blurry and the picture poor. And like I commented on before, the first image where she has her back against the wall is way too blurry. Those are my biggest concerns, the writing isn't featured article-worthy but that's a secondary concern. HeyNow10029 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is stated in the licence "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." I fail to see under this statute the justification of three pictures of the same woman at the same stage in her life and career. This is pushing the spirit of the law too far. The same woman is also illustrated on the album cover featured in the lead thus negating the need for further images of her under this licence. There is also a world of difference between "low resolution" and "out of focus" as in the final image. Giano | talk 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's odd. You and HeyNow10029 are both seeing the images as out of focus. Eternal Equinox said the images are not out of focus on his monitor, and they're not on mine either. On mine they have a "low resolution" look but they are all in focus (except for Mariah's hand in the last one). Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have consistantly on this FA, and on the previous, only complained of the last picture being out of focus, I note you agree on that. The first image is just a poor reproduction, the others I query the reasonable legality of their inclusion due to their number. Giano | talk 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, my mistake. Only HeyNow10029 said they are all out of focus. And yes, I agree the hand is out of focus. Rossrs 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also have concerns with the images, which apparently suffer from poor resolution and compression artifacts. I'm particularly unsettled by the unexplained presence of what closely resembles an NBC Olympics logo in the bottom right corner of the Radio Music Awards photo. Zoom-in analysis seems to indicate that it is superimposed on the scene, although it may be part of the backdrop curtain. What is it doing there? What does it mean? --Tsavage 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be removing that image; it is out of focus in a way and does present a logo of some sort in the bottom-right corner. I'll be replacing it with an image of better quality, in the least. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase quiet storm is used twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the structure section. The structure line is fine, as it is sourced to Yahoo Music summarizing it as quiet storm (among other things). The lead, however, has a supposed direct quote from a critic, ""We Belong Together" has been noted by critics for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocal delivery." that I would really love to see cited. I think it's a great article for a song! By removing the quote I feel fine about it nowStaxringold 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been cited. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While I thank you for that, neither of the two sources you cited it with use the phrase "quiet storm ambience", or even just "quiet storm" anywhere in themselves. That still needs citing, or it shouldn't be a quote (and it would probably be POV in that case). Staxringold 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Radio Music Awards image has been replaced with a clearer, logo-less image of Carey accepting an award at the 2005 Teen Choice Awards. Hope this makes everyone happy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not shout at us in "red". You are not a teacher shouting at pupils in school are you? Giano | talk 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not shouting. Some users (not intentionally) miss out on important information and therefore, I chose to make it obvious. And no, actually, I am one of those pupils. Why do you want to know about my professors? Please respond on my talk page since this is unrelated to the FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I have no interest in your professors at all - merely a figure of speech. For some reason, I thought you were a teacher. I don't like the new picture, why is she standing next to a thing like a surf board, is that relevant? Giano | talk 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The surfboard is the award, as noted by the writing on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a funny thing to give somebody for singing a song, is there a connection that should be in the page? Giano | talk 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe so, as far as I'm aware. It is, after all, just an award, regardless if it's a statuette, moon-man or surfboard. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Eternal Equinox, that latest picture, did you screengrab it yourself? HeyNow10029 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well then you should check with whomever claims they screengrabbed it. Because the picture you uploaded with a screenshot tag is an almost exact copy of this picture: [1], which is not a screenshot but a photo released by the Reuters organization. A simple Google image search and you would have found that photo on the first page. If the picture is actually a copy of the one above, which I think it is, then Reuters would own the copyright not the network that aired the program. Furthermore, on the image's page, under summary, you credit: Copyright of the image is owned by MTV and related distributing networks. Do you have any proof that MTV owns the rights to the Teen Choice Awards. The 2005 Teen Choice Awards were aired on FOX, which is a subsidiary of News Corp., MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Two totally different groups that I'm sure wouldn't appreciate someone getting mixed up. Please address my concerns, which -considering this is up for FA status- are pressing.HeyNow10029 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it did not come from that location, but from a UK media release. You are right about the copyright, however, and I have corrected the original distributer, who is indeed Reuters. The violation notice has been removed as the appropriate licensing was appointed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hold on, not so fast. If it came from Reuters, it's obviously not a screenshot, and if it's not a screenshot you should change the screenshot licensing and fair use rationale that all refer to the image as a screenshot. And have you received permission from Reuters to use this image? If I'm correct Reuters is a subscription service that charges fees for the use of their images, I don't think Reuters licenses their images under a free license and I don't think their images are public domain. Plus, there's no link to where the image was copied from. You should really double-check all this before you upload an image on to an article. Eternal_Equinox. HeyNow10029 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And please don't remove the tag, Eternal. It's good that you corrected the mistake you made in crediting the distrubuter, but the issue still stands as to whether or not the use of that image is a copyright violation. Until the issue is resolved the tag needs to stay on the image.HeyNow10029 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Support. Worthy of FA status. Gflores Talk 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many images, article looks cluttered. 3 copyrighted images for one single is definately stretching fair use, and the graph at the bottom is uneccesary. -AKMask 19:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a policy that dictates the number of images that are to be used? I'm simply asking because some people say its enough, then others oppose on that ground. My knowledge of the policy is that the images are acceptable if they are used sparingly and are important to the article and adds to its content— the images in the article do add significantly to the content. Again, with conflicting views: Everyking opposed until the graph was put in the article, but here another editor is opposing because of it's inclusion. Can both of you discuss it further so the editors can decide which action to take? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • At one level, it's simply a personal taste. a FA has to look good, and many feel too many images results in a cluttered page. It's a perfectly reasonable objection. On a completely different level, copyrighted images are utilized under the standard of 'fair use', which means we are legally allowed to use such images, generally in a non-perfect form (web-resolution and small in wikipedias case) just to the point of critiqueing and getting our point across. An album cover is fine. 3 fair use images for a single is pushing it too far, the points been made with one. Not a FA point, mind you, but fair use is the minimum to get the point out, not to make the point look pretty. cut the images from 3 to 2, only the cover being fair use, and dump the graph, and I'll support. -AKMask 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering Everyking suggested the inclusion of the chart, and changed his vote to support, I'm very reluctant on doing so. If it is removed, we still have take out another to receive your vote. That wouldn't work in favour of the FAC. The first image is supposed to indicate Carey's sheer frustration that is mentioned throughout the writing of the song. The second is supposed to present her wedding dress that was speculated as a publicity stunt; it also shows others that participated in the filming of the video such as Eric Roberts. The final image is of Carey accepting an award, which is appropriate for the section it is included in. "Article looks cluttered" is by far personal taste as I believe you have noted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Up to you, but as of now, you're either at the 'no consensus' level or one more oppose vote away, depending on the closing admins favored percentage level. -AKMask 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, only User:Raul654 is responsible for promoting articles, where (I think) he looks at the object votes and judges if they are actionable, valid, reasonable or just plain trivial, then he promotes it (or not). It's not done by percentage. Therefore, an article can probably receive 10 supports and 5 opposes, where the opposers nitpick and oppose on some really trivial, subjective and inactionable grounds, but still be promoted. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You may wish to review wikipedia policy. Yes, Objections must be actionable, but all currently are. The goal is to reach a community consensus, which is generally felt to lie somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of the views expressed. -AKMask 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you have misunderstood me: I wasn't implying that the objections here aren't actionable; they are. You, however, might want to review the policies, as you are wrong; its not, nor was it ever, about the percentage of support votes that an article received (you seem to have confused this with the RFA process). If you still have doubts, go to the FA director himself— or anyone else who has knowledge of the FAC process. Anyway, here isn't the place to discuss it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Images have been removed. All that remains are two from the video and the single cover. The single cover is important (obviously) and so is Image:WBT2.jpg, which depicts the singer's frustration that is mention and commented on in the article. Image:Weddingdress.jpg at music video is also vital— afterall I think that you will agree that we need a screencapture of the video if we are to discuss it at length. I hope that some of the objections here have been addressed. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Not confused, I just throw that percentage out because it is whats most reffered to as consensus, since we dont go for a straight up or down vote. Alas, the graph is still there, which is fine from a copyright view, but I fail to see how it does anything but clutter the page. High points in the charts and overall sales are all that is needed. And while im still wary of 3 fair use images, it is a 25% drop that you did with little objection, so im fine with that. Find a way to dump the graph, and you have my vote -AKMask 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. However, can't we come to a compromise? If we remove the graph, we will have another oppose on our hands. The thing is, you can choose not to support, but still strike out your oppose vote i.e abstain. Does the graph really lessen its quality and makes it unworthy of FA status? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The awards image has been removed. Now only two images from the music video and the one image of the chart trajectories remain. I would appreciate it if the objectors reanalyzed their votes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could the users who voted object please reanalyze their votes? The image at the awards ceremony is long gone now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This just isn't really Featured-quality writing. The prose is uncompelling and there's really a dearth of encyclopedic information about the subject. Featured Articles on songs / singles like Layla, Get Back (song), or Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) present a vast amount of information on songwriting, recording, historical impact, and so forth, with nearly no divergence into (arguably) trivial stuff like describing the plot of a song's music video or listing its positions on the Top-Whatever charts. This article, however, gives us a couple of hundred words on those topics, some direct copy-and-paste quotations from various reviewers, and then the music-video rundown and charts data. When looking for Featured Articles, we must ask "what makes this particular article special among other articles on the same subject?"; the answer, in this case, is "absolutely nothing", and I cannot support it. --keepsleeping slack off! 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, your concern about the "historical impact" of the song is going to have to be overlooked mainly because it has only been public for eleven months. There is information in the article regarding recording and songwriting, it just is not very expandable. What is it that you would like us to accomplish? Perhaps search out for more information on the writing process? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is, you have given examples of the few songs where "songwriting", "recording", and "historical impact" are the strong points and the composers are known for their artistry (like the Beatles, or Temptations ). "We Belong Together" (like "Cool") is a contemporary pop song, where these things are not emphasized as much. ie, nothing was special about it as to merit lengthy discussion. You have to admit that today, there is bearly any real artistry behind pop songs— people just sit and write anything, then they make a good video to ensure its success. You can't use the examples of 70s songs to dictate what info is to be included on a 2005-06 pop song as 1)people's expectation of what info to look for has changed, 2)Unlike the 70s where no one cared about music videos and ficussed solely on music, music videos have now come to the forefront of any pop song, and 3)Chart placements dictate the commercial success of the single. However, I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not equally easy to write an FA-quality article about any topic. Although, for example, shoe polish made it to FA, if they had wanted an easy topic for an FA, that wouldn't have been it. Orane, my main complaint about the article has always been that it wasn't sufficiently well written to interest a reader who wasn't already a Carey fan, and that the lead, in particular, didn't explain what was noteworthy about the topic in a convincing way. The article on shoe polish didn't have to convince me to become a big fan of shoe polish; it merely had to convince me that it would tell me something noteworthy and interesting about the topic -- and it did. It seems as though you're saying now that the song is without artistic merit, and therefore there's no need to discuss the actual music in the article in any depth. If that's the case, then I'm more perplexed than ever as to what the article is claiming is noteworthy about the topic. It seems odd to me to state a POV value judgment about the artistic merits of the song -- one that the lead appears to contradict -- and use it to justify the article's lack of any musically literate discussion.--Bcrowell 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand. I'm now working on including the recording and songwriting, though there's little information to go on (online or off) with such a recent pop song. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The article has gone under some long and drastic changes. I've added info on the recording, inspiration, writing, studio sessions etc. Bcrowell, I've also changed the intro. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job, exceedingly well sourced and comprehensive, everything I would want to know if I liked that song :) Judgesurreal777 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "music and recording" section has undergone a complete rewrite and an image of the opening notes from the song has been added. Could the users who objected please check their votes over to see if anything remains relevant? As it currently stands, I'm almost positive that a few objections have been addressed and are no longer applicable to this debate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The article is too long for a single. Too many fair use screen shots of the video that don't really have anything to do with the song. Also, I strongly object to the image of the sheet music. This fails the fair use test because the subject of the article is the esthetic aspect of the song and its notability as a successful pop single, not a critical interpretation of its musciality. On this basis, the song is not very notable. The scant critical interpretation of this song is merely that it is in the key of C (a highly dubious statement in itself because most piano sheet music transposes to a key that is easy for a novice or intermediate player). Sheet music falls under the publishing license of copyright. The sound recording falls under the mechanical license. The article is about the sound recording and thus any argument of fair use of the publishing licence is moot. Furthermore, the image is taken from a site that sells sheet music. It is unclear if the uploader even purchesed the product or simply copied the image from the site. To paraphrase Tolkien, an administrator should know better. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you mean that the article is too long? Is there a set limit for a single? It does not go over the 32 kb limit. Furthermore, all the information presented in it are notable for a pop song in this day and age. In order to make your oppose actionable, I (very kindly) ask that you take the time to go through the article and give examples of what section needs trimming.
Yes, the site sells the sheet, but they offer that small section (the first few notes and first two words of the song) for public viewing. I don't think its copyright infringement to use that single page in an article — it falls under one of the blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, how can you say that two images of the music video are too many? The first image (Image:WBT2.jpg), as explained earlier, is vital as it is used to identify and comment on the songs progression and the emotional states of the protagonist, which is discussed at length in the "music and structure" section. The other image Image:Weddingdress.jpg is used at the music video section to show the state of the protagonist, and it represents the theme and central plot of the song, which is also commented on in "music video". How are they meaningless to the article? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A music video is a work of art separate from the song. I wouldn't object to a FU image in a section describing a video based on the song, but a screenshot tells the average reader nothing about the quality of a song. I'm referring to Image:WBT2.jpg which is in a section titled "Music and structure." The argument that the fair use of this copyrighted image provides information about the musical structure of the song is equivocal.
As for being too long here are some examples: Carey and Dupri decided to include portions of what they considered classic R&B singles in an attempt to make "We Belong together" special. How? Where is a citation for how this is special? The section then goes on to paraphrase the lyrics of the song. It is somewhat notable that the song references other songs and borrows lyrics, but it's not entirely unusual. This section could be shortened to The song references and uses lyics from Two songs, Bobby Womack's "If You Think You're Lonely Now" (1981) and The Deele's "Two Occasions" (1987, featuring Babyface as lead vocalist). We can't conclude the meaning of the inclcusion of the references to these songs without a citation of a critical review pointing out the relevance. Carey transitions into the third and final section by raising her voice an octave, which is meant to emphasize the sheer frustration and desperation of the protagonist as she gives one last plea for her former lover to return. I find this statement questionable. How do we get into the composer's mind that going up an octave relates an emotion? I can't check the references at my location, but I hope that they include a critical review that states this. I always question the inclusion of chart performance because I doubt this will be useful information ten or twenty years from now, but that's a debate for another forum. However the inclusion of this material is one of the things contributing to the article being over-long. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
First, your above post requires that I go into detail to explain the point about the reference of other songs, not tweak it. And, yes there's a source for that section, which I will cite momentarily. The lyrics are notable enough to be included — all other featured articles have them, and no one has objection on its inclusion until now. Does it lessen the article's quality as a potential featured article? I really doubt it. I believe that the point about the octave shift is, in fact, sourced. No, its not a critical review, but an article from an interview with Carey herself. Yes, the source says the exact same thing —I could even quote it if you wish. Come to think of it, I do have a critical review that says the same thing; I could cite the two. Charts are important, and if we remove it, we risk being opposed by EveryKing. (See above discussion.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your objection, the sheet image has been removed, as it is too risky. However, I really think that its inclusion was harmless. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, I don't believe that the sheet of music should be removed — it is perfectly acceptable in a music-single article. See various Beatles song articles for other examples. I'm not so sure if many of Malber's objections are actionable, especially considering the broken wikilink they have provided us with. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night (song) contains a piece of sheet music and this article has featured article status. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Even though the sheet music from A Hard Day's Night (song) is public domain, it still boasts fair use rationale, and therefore, makes the situation similar to this one. Just because they are public domain, it doesn't make the image special (but it does make them free!). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night is NOT public domain and that image is certainly non-free (I've clarified the conflicting templates on the image descrption page). However, because the article discusses in detail the melodic structure of the song, the lead sheet qualifies as fair use. The We Belong Together article does not go into this deep of musical interpretation. Furthermore, the image of the sheet music not only infringes on the copyright of the composer, it infringes on the arranger of the sheet music as it is undoubtably an arrangement of the song, not the actual score. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You're speaking nonsense; one sheet of paper attempting to present the first four lines of a song does not infringe any copyright holder and does not distort the article in any way. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use because you're currently overdoing this procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of work has gone into this article, including much activity to meet FAC objections. A fair amount of information is present, however, I still find serious problems with many FA criteria. The actionable specifics (below) also add up in this case to a larger, separate, and quite disturbing problem: a relatively small amount of core material has been torturously fashioned into an overlong article that seems to be striving, painfully at some points, for a "scholarly" and "fully explored" feel. This fails, because of poor writing quality and ultimately, lack of substantial information. Some specific examples:

  • Inflated lead In describing the song, a third of the lead features redundancy and statements of the obvious. Phrases like "a blend of hip hop, soul and quiet storm ambience" are so vague (and oddly worded, how do you blend broad genres with an "ambience") and "classic sensibility" are near meaningless generalities that could be used to describe quite different-sounding songs. They don't put the reader further in the ballpark than would simply succinctly getting to the point with something like "R&B ballad", "hip hop-influenced ballad", "ballad", there are many easy picks... (The sources cited also don't seem to have been well-mined. The NY Times article referenced for these bland conclusions also notes, far more interestingly, "It's the most melancholy song to rule the summer in years." and traces Carey's "pioneering" of the "thug-love" duet, through rap-styled vocal and lyrical approaches, to "We Belong..."'s vocal style.) The lead then goes on to "analyze" the lyrics by quoting such emotionally evocative (?) words as "stupid", "foolish" and reminding us, despite the TITLE OF THE SONG, that she believes that they "belong together".
  • The lyrics are quoted because that is the way the protagonist feels in the song. I'm not sure what other may to put it. "She believes that they 'belong together'" is included because this is another emotion the protagonist expresses. We are not going to leave it out because the song is titled "We Belong Together"; it is important that all of the information is summarized and that we clearly communicate the message. It should not be vague or even misleading. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You've responded to only one of three specific examples, which may be summarized as 1) music description vague and inflated with ambiguous descriptive phrases, 2) relevant material from cited source not included, 3) analysis of lyrics vague and inflated with unnecessary, literal detail. Your reply to 3) doesn't address the central point of the objection, "inflation" (aka padding). FA concerns include writing style and summary. If this is a song about recriminations and regrets after a breakup, that or many other straightforward, succinct phrases are available to clearly convey the point. Particularly in a LEAD, drilling down to the point of quoting individual words the lyrics is absolutely unnecessary, and obscures the overall description of the song and its real-world context. And the other examples remain unaddressed. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comprehensiveness Even within the "quoting and echoing pop media" style, an examination of some of the sources shows that more interesting conclusions have simply been ignored. For instance, in addition to the NY Times above, the VH1 Road To The Grammys: The Story Behind Mariah Carey's 'We Belong Together', cited four times, presents a much clearer and compelling pop account to the song's creation, in one-third the words (and, although much of that material is included here, the cohesive reading experience of a light entertainment article is missing). The same potential goldmine of a NY Times article notes that, despite the simple sound, "the liner notes credit no fewer than 3 producers and 10 songwriters", and this is nowhere mentioned. The lead fails to mention that this was a "summer hit", when such a thing is a well-recognized, at least in harsher climates, and the article doesn't develop this simple fact, except for a cuople of mentions in critics' quotes). And so on...
  • I'm afraid that I don't understand this portion of your objection. One reviewer noted the song as a "summer hit", not all of them, so I don't see why this should be included in the lead section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, you've selected only one of several examples. I clearly explained that I examined the source material and found information there that would seem to belong here. A "summer hit" is a common phenomenon, at least, in certain areas of the world like the US where this had its biggest success: a pervasive track that huge numbers of people will associate with the summer season of a particular year. This is interesting and relevant, and belongs at least in the lead, and developed more than in critics quotes. Then, that a song described as musically simple, stripped down, vocal-oriented still involved 3 producers and 10 songwriters is also interesting and notable. There are other examples. The selection of information included is questionable, and so comprehensiveness (and here from readily available, cited sources) is in doubt.
  • Awkward musical discussion (writing quality) While it's great to include a discussion of the music itself, here the language is often odd and stilted. "in an effort to attract attention to Carey's vocals", "A piano playing the melody of the refrain opens the song, and at once establishes its melody and harmonic structure., "she employs a state of vocal restraint, phrases several words per note, and occasionally sings counter to the rhythm", is an uncompelling and literal way to dissect music that doesn't read well.
  • What I gather from this objection is that you don't want the information to be literal. I'm going to correct some of the text, nonetheless. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not simply "literal", but, awkwardly written. "Literal" was part of an attempt to describe the nature of the awkwardness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overemphasis of chart positions There is far too much detail of what, with the passing of time (like, a few months), becomes extraneous, trivial data. Four paragraphs of chart performance could be collapsed into one (the first para, with a sentence from the third). The article confuses the prevalence of chart chatter in pop music media and marketing (with countdown shows, radio patter about the current hits, and so forth), with what is of any lasting importance. Listing "weeks on", and what passed what is entirely meaningless in a general historical record. There may be a future use for trainspotting type recording of every detail of every music release, but an encyclopedia article isn't it. The Billboard et al archives are a good source for that source of thing.
  • See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not an indiscriminate collection of facts applies here. 70% of the chart material is of no importance or use to the vast majority of general encyclopedia readers. How do I "know": common sense plays a part, as I can't conjure up a situtation where anyone but a hardcore fan or chart fanatic would want to know such specifics about a single song. For that audience, there are other sources (e.g. Billboard books and back issues). WP, or any general encyclopedia, is not a repository for all facts or even a majority of them, SUMMARY is the goal. An encyclopedia is essentially a shortcut and starting point to learning about many areas and topics, not a place to pack in lots of trivial detail. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that. It should be a starting position to give broad overview without leaving important information out. Encyclopedia is not an almanac or trivia book, that's for sure, even though I have a feeling that students (or other people) are going to start using wikipedia as primary source for their homeworks, which is sad. Temporary account 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No coverage of remixes As critical components of a modern pop song release, remixes are as important as music video. What about the DJ Clue remix — featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., and the Reconstruction radio and club mixes?
  • See my comments below. Mention of remixes are not incredibly notable, and one has been cited within the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In modern pop music, remixes ARE as integral a part of the story of a song as music videos. Remixes, which may bear little immediate resemblance to the album version, are used to reach different market segments, and may be responsible for breaking a song (e.g. a remix in a certain dance genre may cause a media buzz that leads to wider interest and so forth). World-class independent producers, DJs and artists work on essentially parallel versions of the release track. Remixes are as significant to the marketing effort and the cultural impact, as a music video. Whether a remix or the "primary" version (album track or edits thereof) had most impact for a particular release doesn't diminish the importance of covering the remixes; their substance, production, and impact should be noted for song coverage comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary emphasis of "Free download controversy" As digital methods collide with traditional practices, these wrinkles occur. From the account, "We Belong..." happened into one of them. A sentence or two should suffice to sort it out, instead of a subsection that essentially retries the case.
  • See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See my comment in answer to the comment about "chart positions". SUMMARY is the goal here. Balancing the relative importance of the various events and facts, and relaying them in a clear, concise, contextually cohesive manner is the goal. An overly long section 1) taxes the reader unduly with extra reading, 2) puts undue relative importance on an aspect of the whole topic, and thus, misrepresents. The download controversy did not impact the song itself, or its massive airplay and market penetration, and the resolution was routine. As described in the article, this is a notable minor event, given unnecessary prominence. And I'm not quibbling about a word or two, by word count this is around 10% of the main text, with its own subheading title. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Confusing, pointless sheetmusic image I imagine it will go before this is over, but it's there now. What is it meant to illustrate. Are we to equate the opening notes of "We Belong..." with the opening notes of, say, Beethoven's Fifth? Is it intended to add stature and depth (although what sheet music is a symbol of, I'm not sure, "culture", "serious music"?)? What does this image do for the aritcle? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is featured to demonstrate the music explained in the article (time signature, quarter notes, rests, etc.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How many general readers are likely to want or even have the skills to examine sheet music to learn important details about a recorded pop song? People who want to play the song buy a songbook, not look it up in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of images applies as it does to facts. And is the actual score used in the recording, or a transcription of the music as recorded—what direct relationship does it bear to the recording in question, as the article is specifically about a recorded instance of a song? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Forcing the reviewer to reply in excruciating detail to back up objections does a disservice to common sense. This can't be the place for such things. But, given the FAC Director's apparently at times quite cursory way of evaluating objections, it seems necessary, if a review is to be "bothered with" at all, to follow up, lest any reply be seen as sign that an objection was "fixed". --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't have a problem with the topic, which seems quite notable as far as the category of current pop songs goes, and there is enough material here to do something with, but the way this article is assembled is not comprehensive, not summary, and far from a compelling read. As noted above, I got much of the info here in a more entertaining read, from one source that is a third this length. I'm not the "punisher": being blunt and...detailed seems to be the only way to even attempt to critique articles where counter-argument is a main support tactic. --Tsavage 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an FAC without the backlash from Tsavage. Anyway, most of your objections confuse me. Do we need to include coverage of all Carey's remixes? By the way, in case you missed it, the DJ Clue remix is included in the article, though only briefly. I personally don't believe that the "Free downloads controversy" should be removed because it was a critical part of the song reaching number one on the U.S. Hot 100 and there were many accusations of Carey manipulating the charts. Your concern of the in-depth look at the chart performance also confuses me; Wikipedia is here to summarize the facts. If somebody wants to know what position it reached on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay or the German Singles Chart, they should feel the need to access this website because we have the information. It's not a matter of what won't be relevant in six months or ten years. The rest of your objection—at least to me—appears personal and rather trivial. The piece of sheet music is supposed to illustrate the opening bars and melody of the song, the time signature, etc., which is included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, from what I've gathered, you've not been satisfied enough with any FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not attack the reviewer along with, or even instead of, the review... I've still posted clear, actionable points against the criteria, and I'll conscientiously follow up if they're addressed for a reasonable length of time (let's say, up to a month). And it'll maybe be thumbs up, maybe thumbs down from the FAC Director. And all will be hunky dory in FAC... (Do you think I'm out of my mind and making up these objections from another dimension? And if you're so concerned with my overall FAC reviews, take a look...the archives are all there.) --Tsavage 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not attack you, it was merely a figure of speech. I still believe that most of your objections are trivial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I guess it's nice to be missed. Hope the "non-trivial" objections help... --Tsavage 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey no kidding. I just found out that you (Eternal) supported the Ford Taurus FAC, and even said it is "good work." That FAC has clearly serious problem in prose and grammar, and why you supported or didn't mention a single word about the grammar is TOTALLY beyond me. This seems to confirm my stance that people have double standards or are not critical enough (or reasonably critical), as I have said on the infamous Bulba FAC. Anyways, don't take this as personal attack. Temporary account
And by the way, you (eternal) supported Philosophy of Mind, which I think also is good, but haven't finished reading. And you said that "writing could be improved at times." For a good article, you are pretty picky, but for Ford Taurus, you give unconditional support. Just boggles my mind. Temporary account 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your rambling about a topic irrelevant to this FAC boggles my mind. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping quiet about this FAC for a while because I don't really care whether this article becomes featured or not, but I should note that Tsavage provided a lot of helpful feedback on Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I know he and Monicasdude (talk · contribs) tend to be abrasive (and more than occasionally stubbornly pedantic) on FAC, but I found their objections a lot more helpful than the supports. (YMMV, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we just quit the quibbling? Aren't we all adults here? Please behave in this manner, and let's not get distracted here. I'm goint to get to work and try to address Tsavage's lenthly, but very helpful and detailed comments. Give me a couple days though. School is back in session :). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I concur with most of what Tsavage (talk · contribs) has said. In my original comment I stated that the article was over-long. I believe Tsavage states it better that it's bloated without providing additional detail. For example, take a look at the referenced NY Times article. It concisely states that the song borrows from earlier R&B songs without resorting to quoting the material itself. Tsavage also re-iterates what I stated about the unnecessary and copyright infringing sheet music. Eternal Equinox: you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the FAC process. For every actionable item in this discussion, you have come back with a rationalization of why the edit should not be made. Tsavage has given you a gold mine here and you fail to recognize it. The FAC process is not supposed to be a popularity contest where you justify the article, it's supposed to be a crucible. You should welcome oppose votes as they are here to help you make the article better. You may want to step back, take a break, and try to look at things objectively. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just went through the figures only, and it seems where's the source of that chart position graph? Did somebody just draw it? I am not familiar with the music industry, but is "chart trajectories" a proper way to title it? Temporary account 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are provided under "References". Yes, "chart trajectory" (or chart run, whatever your preference) is the correct title for the graph. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on misconduct by Eternal Equinox. There is a problem here with Eternal Equinox deleting people's comments. The edit history for this page shows both me and Tsavage complaining that Eternal Equinox has deleted our comments. As explained in my comments, I've intentionally disabled my original WP account (Bcrowell) because, after several years of participation and thousands of edits, I feel that WP is now headed in the wrong direction, due to fundamental flaws in its design. I had been responding to Eternal Equinox's deletions as an anon, appending the string "--Bcrowell". However, Eternal Equinox has been deleting everything I say, with transparently dishonest comments in the edit history. Therefore, I've created a Bcrowell2 account. I'm aware that this could be interpreted as a sockpuppet account, but since Eternal Equinox seems to feel free to delete anything I post without logging in, I don't seem to have any choice than to create a new account. I feel that Bcrowell2 does not really qualify as a sockpuppet account because (a) I'm being completely upfront with everyone about being the same person as Bcrowell; (b) I'm not attempting to vote as Bcrowell2, but merely to point out Eternal Equinox's misconduct; and (c) I'm in the same position as many other users who have forgotten their passwords and simply created a new account.--Bcrowell2 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is not the way to get an article past FAC Eternal Equinox. As noted earlier, embrace the oppose votes and the discussion. They aren't here to fling crap on the candidate, they're there to tell you how to make it even better. This ones not gonna go through, looks pretty no concensus to me, but learn. The articles almost there. Most of your oppose votes are on formatting and images, not on content. Spend a couple weeks making it look pretty, resolve any last little copyright issues and you're there. So come on. Sit back. Deep Breath. We're just here to help. -Mask 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Previous commentors have up a number of legitimate issues with this article. Since these issues have not been dealt with, the article should not be promoted to FA status.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third nomination

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.

Raul654 had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support because: the chart trajectory image should be a scatterplot, to be accurate. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't own Microsoft Excel and had to ask another to create the graph. Does this scatterplot feature come with the same program? Or perhaps another? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that Microsoft Excel, Quattro Pro, etc. can do it. I'm not sure though. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I do not possess access to any of these programs. Your input is appreciated, of course, and I thank you for your support, however weak or strong it may be. :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- too many nominations too fast, also fancruft. -- Gnetwerker 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Too many nominations too fast is not an objectionable ground, and may be ignored. However, what do you believe contains fancruft? I will try and remove all of the content that you believe is classified as this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe I removed the fancruft. Could you comment? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per the grounds I used on the previous three nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That is actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -Mask 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. joturner 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The image is gone. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The actionable items (especially the ones listed by User:Tsavage) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too hollow. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, people don't have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections weren't addressed in the first place. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is not to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature Tsavage, since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save you reading them? Please be more reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
        • You need to stop bothering me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -Mask 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, Bishonen... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Where are the nomination archives? I see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1, but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? joturner 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There are two previous FACs, both of which are both in one archive. The third one was removed altogether because it was delisted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

  • Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
  • Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
  • Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.
  • I believe this has been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
  • Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.
  • This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.
  • Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.
  • Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.
  • Object For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. HeyNow10029 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson.
      Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • What are you suggesting, Eternal? HeyNow10029 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson. HeyNow10029 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I would appreciate it if you borught to my attention what you think is not brilliant writing. I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Excuse me? What discussion are you talking about that happened "last time" that makes you believe I voted oppose on any grounds other then the quality of the article? I don't like where you're going with this Eternal. I don't care what your intuition tells you but should keep it to yourself because those are some heavy allegations you're throwing around. You're being very rude and frankly, I don't appreciate it. HeyNow10029 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
                • All right, if it is not based on our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, please provide a few sentences which you believe are not featured article writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • Please refrain from making allegations about people, Eternal_Equinox. And as per my objection, see my previous post in the last candidacy page, I'm not going to go back and fish it out, that's your job. HeyNow10029 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • They were not allegations, so please refrain from making me look like I did something wrong. Intution is not shameful. Anyway, I did fish out your previous objections, and the ones concerning the images has been taken care of, since they are no longer here. However, your other objection is: "the writing lacks flavour, kathputz" (I'm not sure what you exactly wrote, but it was something like that). One problem: "kathputz" is not written at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Therefore, I don't believe from my opinion that this vote is any longer objectionable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                      • This is your M.O. on the FAC, you pick and pick at people who object until they give in and change their vote. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I don't think the writing in the article is featured article worthy. I'm done with responding to you because this has gotten way too personal and out of hand. (Like most things to, when you're involved.) And please don't quote me unless you plan on actually re-writing my quote, word for word. You misspelled chutzpah and I don't spell flavor with a u. . HeyNow10029 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • I did not intend to quote you word-for-word. Anyway, I can't improve the writing further if you believe it is lacking chutzpah because no such guideline is written at WP:WIAFA?. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes. What should be removed/added? Please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Well done --darkliight[πalk] 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, poor quality of scholarship. For instance, one of the broadest claims in the article, that WBT has become Carey's signture song, is referenced to 411hype.com, which is simply not an acceptable source for this sort of claim. It is not a reputable source of music scholarship. Similarly, the genre tags at Yahoo Music are not an acceptable source for a list of genres and music styles that the song employs. Yahoo Music is not a reputable source of music scholarship. The fact that the nomination has been relisted without any genuine attempt to remedy the previously addressed problems is also a mark against the nominator's integrity. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from making such comments as "genuine attempt" because it is POV. How do you know this? Can you read my mind? I am doing my best to address all concerns. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Some of the writing is just plain weird and reads like someone resorting to a thesaurus to try to find more "intelligent" sounding words instead of just stating what they mean. For example: "an elongated discussion," "solicited to radio" and other such phrasing that has me going, "huh?" Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't acquiesce more exceedingly. Those are the words I paramountly wanted to emancipate from my computer keyboard, but I was having vexation conveying them. HeyNow10029 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "Solicited to radio" is a term frequently used when a song is sent to radio. The other sentence I have changed. You could have said it yourself, HeyNow, but I see that you didn't. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Is it a frequently used phrase? There's only 10 distinct (of 50 total) Google hits for that phrase (and 4 for "Solicit to radio") and most, if not all, seem to be mirrors of this and another Wikipedia article you worked on. It certainly does not seem to be a commonly used phrase. I appreciate the effort you are making but sections of the writing are just too bizarre for me to support it as a FAC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The writing is a bit patchy in spots, but holds overall. RyanGerbil10 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't use words like summer (for obvious reasons), even though it says it spent the summer at the top of the US charts, be more specific. Cvene64 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused. What do you mean? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Cvene is suggesting you shouldn't use seasons to specify a period of time because they are ambiguous. The period of summer is different in different countries, so you should try to be more specific. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Object I've been reading this page for months, I find it interesting to see what people see as the qualities a feature article needs. This article is good but not well written enough per users above. Also, the user that keeps putting this article up for nomination has got to be one of the most annoying on wikipedia. He actually tried to get posters to switch their votes, saying Please reconsider voting "object". Once people have objected, let it stand. I really don't like the aggressive aproach about these articles. It's just wikipedia and it's not worth making yourself look like an idiot and alienating half of the users, especially good ones like Bishonen who has done great work here. But all these discussions are pretty entertaining I will give you that, EE. Bremen 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So... besides insulting me, is there anything besides the writing that you find needs improvement? And no, I am becoming rather irritated with all of the ganging up on me. I am trying my best here, and it appears that everybody else finds Bishonen did something right; she's merely ganging up on myself as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the writing is the main problem. But I did say it was a good article...just not ready yet. I still think you're pushy but you are trying hard that's for sure. By the way it looks like there isn't enough support for featured status yet. If I were you I'd take the next month to work on it or so and see what happens. Bremen 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support. I have concerns about this article (mainly that I wish it was longer, and some parts are too weak on referencing), but ultimately I feel like I have to vote to support it simply to counter the horrible reasons given by some of the objectors here ("fancruft", nominating too soon, nominator "aggressive" or "annoying", and worst of all the notion that previous objections—which are essential but shall not be repeated!—were not addressed: I have encountered that old trick before, and it is one of the most obnoxious tactics people use in this whole process). Everyking 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Noting Everyking's comments above - How often do people have to keep stating their objections before this sinks in. The page is not good enough. Sarah Ewart makes some erudite objections, as does HeyNow10029 and Christopher Parham. I objected in the original nomination too. This user is attempting to have this page FAd not by significantly improving it, but by browbeating and wearing down the opposition. I for one am sick to death of seeing this page here, throw it out, and lets never see or hear of it again. Giano | talk 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence at all that the user is trying to wear down the opposition. On the contrary, the user is always engaging the opposition and making concessions, some of which I believe are in fact harmful. And moreover it is absurd to say that FAC efforts on an article should cease just because you are tired of seeing it here. Everyking 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes way beyond what I've seen from other nominators...really pushing people to see things his way. Bremen 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a perfectly sound argument, written rather politely. Everyking 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well we see things differently. By the way I didn't mean to object to the article because the nominator is annoying, I did because of other reasons which I stated. I just felt I had to mention what I felt were bad tactics and rude behaviour. Bremen 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more frustrated with each user who is consistently blaming and/or insulting me for bringing this page back to FAC every few weeks. I believe that it is ready, and I am absolutely not attempting to sway users to change their votes. I have addressed nearly all of Tsavage's complaints to the best of my ability and myself and Journalist and have our best to improve the writing as well as we could! Everyone should read up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility; as it stands, I did not insult people or refer to them as "annoying" or Bishonen as a good user for whatever reason it may be. The writing is supposed to be incredibly good in an article, and at this point, I believe as per my opinion that everyone is expecting perfection. I will not edit this article any further following this FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the following objections: the fancruft (to the best of my ability), the graph which is now a scatterplot, a good majority of Tsavage's complaints, and a few other nit-picky edits. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)