Talk:Fading (song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fading (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1111tomica (talk · contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Another reviewer is need because the current one is also a part Wikiproject Rihanna and could be bias.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · count) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly knowledgeably about this good girl gone bad, (the lead of this article already has new info), but I'll give it a shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No. Has had an AFD within the past two weeks. This led to major expansion which shows has not been stable during its nomination
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Quick fail for stability (as shown by this major expansion). Try again in a month or so. (Nice read though). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The writers are in correct for this song. Ester Dean did not write this song. Quintin Amey p.k.a King Epiq wrote the lyrics of this song. Check info on Itunes for the song and it will tell you that. The song had the wrong credits for the first shipments of the album and then they went on to correct that afterwards. Some websites even have the correct writers listed besides wikipedia if you search google. Rodgerdat (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Composition/Critical reception

Is there any possible way that we can break up these two sections? To flesh out the article more? Would anyone be opposed to me attempting to do that?--mikomango mwa! 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as your edits are constructive, you are most welcome. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think separating them will result in two paragraphs looking weak, which is why I consolidated the info into one section. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fading (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 04:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do this in several steps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks good
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See below Better focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable per criteria
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See below Looks better
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See below Looks better
	7. Overall assessment.

1A and 1B

Lead

• Who is Jones? Full name is missing.

  What do you mean? Jamal Jones is in the credits on Loud. His full name is Polow-Freache Jamal Fincher Jones. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• He hasn't been introduced in text yet; as such, first name would be needed Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "Musically, the song samples Irish instrumentalist and singer-songwriter Enya's "One by One", from her album A Day Without Rain (2000)," -- everything after "One by One" is not pertinent enough to the song for the lead.

   Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• ""Fading" charted at number 187 on the UK Singles Chart due to strong digital download sales upon the release of Loud in the United Kingdom in November 2010." -- Any way to avoid having UK/United Kingdom twice in the same sentence? Perhaps something like "After Loud had strong digital download sales in the United Kingdom, "Fading" charted at number 187 on that country's singles chart."

   Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "The song received mixed reviews from music critics, who praised da Don's production but criticized Rihanna for copying herself and failing to create something different and also compared it to one of Rihanna's previous singles, "Take A Bow"" -- A bit of a run-on sentence. Any way to tidy that up a bit?

   Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Music and lyrics

• "Fading" is about the female protagonist leaving her boyfriend in a fading and distant relationship." -- Is there more encyclopedic wording?

  I would have said this is? It's better than saying "The woman in the song leaves her her boyfriend because they don't really like each other anymore". Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Reply made of win I'm more concerned about "fading and distant". Perhaps "Fading" is about the female protagonist leaving her boyfriend because she feels that they have become distant and their relationship has faded."

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "The lyrics of the song feature Rihanna adopting a vocal style which urges her boyfriend to leave and walk away from the relationship, "Go on, be gone/Bye bye so long/Can't you see we're fading away"." -- Is that a vocal style? That's more diction, in my opinion.

   Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

Critical reception

• "Emily Mackay of NME wrote extensively about the song as part of a song-by-song review of the album," -- Don't think that "extensively about the song as part of a song-by-song review of the album" is necessary

  I think it is, because this is not a single. But I have re-worded it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• How about cutting "extensively", at the very least. I myself don't consider the write-up that extensive, especially compared to the AllMusic writeup for "Do Right Woman, Do Right Man" or similar songs.

• Already did that. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "writing that Rihanna is skilled at putting out songs about being the woman in a relationship who leaves the man" -- It would be preferable to keep this in relation to the song; does he use "Fading" and "Take a Bow" as proof of this statement?

  It is? Take a Bow is just before it in the sentence. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Indeed, but this clause focuses on the singer. Could it be reworded to focus on the song?

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• "and added that "maybe the good girl gone bad is getting better?", in reference to Rihanna's third studio album title, Good Girl Gone Bad (2007)." -- GGGB's release year isn't too pertinent and should probably be cut

  You're mean't to write the year in brackets the first time you mention an album. Look at any GA. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Good point, double checked on WP Albums. This is fine

• "which could be found on some compositions on Rihanna's previous album, Rated R (2009)" -- Same as above. Also, on some compositions on... any way to avoid the repetition?

  "..." Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Scratch the year comment. Prefer a way to avoid on and on.

Live performances

• "'a rainbow colored feathered coat, denim bra and short shorts'" -- I doubt this needs to be in quotes

   Done I always quote it anyway in case someone says I have plagiarize. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• I doubt it could be considered a copyvio as there are extremely limited ways to say that.

Background

• "Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010, and continued for six months, overlapping with her Last Girl on Earth Tour and filming during her debut feature film, Battleship (2012)." -- Filming and film (repetition), the year of Battleship's release is not all the pertinent to the song, as well as comma use; Rihanna should be referred to by name at first mention as well. Perhaps "Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010 and continued for six months, overlapping with Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour and the filming of her debut, Battleship."

  I've changed to what you suggest, but "and the filming of her debut, Battleship" I think just doesn't sound right at all. So I've changed it to "and during production of her debut feature film, Battleship".

• Sounds good.

3A

• When was "Fading" itself recorded?

  I don't know. Booklet doesn't say. (And what is 3B??) Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Good point, wrong number. Okay, I've been unable to find it.

3B

• In the background section, there is too much information on "California King Bed" and "Man Down". "The most popular choice would have its video filmed at the end of March 2011.[3] On March 12, 2011, it was confirmed that fans had selected "California King Bed" as the next single to be released from the album in the United States.[4] Although internationally, it served as the fourth single, as announced,[5][6] in the United States, "Man Down" ended up being sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[7] In August 2011, a remix of the song produced by da Don was released onto the internet and was rumored to be the lead single from the re-release of Loud,[8] which was subsequently cancelled when Rihanna announced that the re-release had been scrapped and that her sixth studio album, Talk That Talk, would be released in November 2011.[9]" The way it is phrased makes it appear that the entirety of this blurb is about CKB and MD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think it does, it reads fine to me. It makes the point clearly. It only seems more repetitive because the name of the song is quite long. You probably wouldn't notice if it was talking about Skin. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Taking "Although internationally, it served as the fourth single, as announced,[5][6] in the United States, "Man Down" ended up being sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[7]" as an example. 'It' reads as "Man Down", not "Fading"

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

6A and 6B

• This is not your fault, but the Ester Dean image seems to be a copyright violation of this image from Redzone Entertainment. I will be nominating it for deletion, and it should be removed from the article. A clip from the song would be nice to have, with the correct FUR and length; an image of Rihanna would of course work great too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

   Done I will ask someone to upload an audio file, and I have added a picture. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Better. No problem with waiting for the clip

Paraphrasing spotchecks

• Paraphrasing looks fine

Referencing spotchecks

• this does not have anything related to vocal style, yet it is used to back the vocal style statement

  I have used that source already, and already quoted some of it. That is where I got it from in the first place. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

• Other references checked are fine.

• Summary: Hold, pending the fix / clarification of issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done all, there are some replies/comments though. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, looking pretty good. Just a few minor comments still pending Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done everything. I surprised you didn't notice that two different types of date formatting had been used in references. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I seem to have introduced that. I've double checked the MOS and YYYY-MM-DD formats are allowed for references, so that's fine. Still not sure that the information on CKB is all that important to the background section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I know the YYYY-MM-DD is allowed, as all articles I write have it, but I mean't that some sections were, for example, 2011-10-31, whilst other's were October 31, 2011. I changed them all to YYYY-MM-DD, though I could have sworn that they were like that in the first place. Anything else that needs to be done? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just that background section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• What is there to do?? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Still not sure that the information on CKB is all that important to the background section." -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats! I have no more comments. A little short, but for a (fairly) minor song it seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks :). Well yeah, it wasn't a single. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ester Dean.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ester Dean.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this really the artwork for the song?

Here Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Of course that not. It's fan made. Rihanna never promoted the song with cover or stuff. — Tomica (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Length

What is the source for the length being 3:20? iTunes lists it as 3:27. --189.30.247.20 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done AARON• ^TALK 20:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is old, but I'm just stating that the original version was 3:20, and the version without the sample is 3:27.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Since this song is not a single or even a promotional single, I find it questionable to give this its own article. Even if charted, I'm not sure what impact/global significance it has made/achieved. It doesn't come across as notable enough to have its own article. 174.252.36.62 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry if your not satisfied, but this article has stability. 1) It charted. 2) A multiple critics commented the song. 3) Rihanna performed it live during the Loud Tour. More than enough! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fading (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321115455/http://www.nme.com:80/blog/index.php?blog=140&title=rihanna_loud_first_listen&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 to http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=140&title=rihanna_loud_first_listen&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529072229/http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/313/Rihanna-Loud-Review to http://www.4music.com/news/reviews/313/Rihanna-Loud-Review
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219094524/http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/online/download/list.gaon to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/online/download/list.gaon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219094524/http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/online/download/list.gaon to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/online/download/list.gaon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fading (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1111tomica (talk · contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Another reviewer is need because the current one is also a part Wikiproject Rihanna and could be bias.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · count) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly knowledgeably about this good girl gone bad, (the lead of this article already has new info), but I'll give it a shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No. Has had an AFD within the past two weeks. This led to major expansion which shows has not been stable during its nomination
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Quick fail for stability (as shown by this major expansion). Try again in a month or so. (Nice read though). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The writers are in correct for this song. Ester Dean did not write this song. Quintin Amey p.k.a King Epiq wrote the lyrics of this song. Check info on Itunes for the song and it will tell you that. The song had the wrong credits for the first shipments of the album and then they went on to correct that afterwards. Some websites even have the correct writers listed besides wikipedia if you search google. Rodgerdat (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Composition/Critical Reception

This song has the wrong writers listed and it violates the copyright of the song and the writers of the song. The correct list of producers and writers should be reflected. [3] Polow Da Don and William Hodge are producers and Quintin Amey is the writer who owns this body of work. This is the third request to edit this song and it is actually not a good policy to not allow changes that affect copyright violations. More research should have been done on who the writers are and updated as soon as that info was and is public now. Article will be flagged over and over again if not responded to. As the writers of this song are being violated due to copyrights. Thanks. This following cite is the ascap shares of the song which does not involve Ester Dean. Rodgerdat (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that the information that you provide should be verifiable, and taken from reliable sources. The sources that you provide aren't reliable (I could only find mention of the writers/producers on the ascap website, which is biased in the matter). Note that even there, the role of each person wasn't listed, instead just having them grouped all together. If you find a citation to a reliable, secondary source, I will be happy to look over the request again. Regards, VB00 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References