Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broken-Hearted Girl/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [1].

Broken-Hearted Girl edit

Broken-Hearted Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like the song and I have worked a lot on the article. It has also been copy-edited by another editor and I am very thankful to him. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. Your help and suggestions are most welcome. With the essential being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Jivesh boodhun. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is not my area of expertise, but at the nominator's request I ran an eye over the prose, and found nothing to grumble at. As far as I can see, this article is comprehensive, well-balanced, and the nominator's enthusiasm for the performer has not led him into gush. It seems to me to meet FAC criteria. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent AmE style compliance, I couldn't find anything significant to comment on in the lead. Some nitpicks:

  • I don't think it's all too necessary to wikilink production here
    • Completely re-worded sentence due to concern raised below. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gain some perspective" Anything in particular the perspective was to be gained on?
    • I didn't find anything related to this in the body of the article so this part of the sentence was removed all together. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will read through soon. Auree ★★ 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done reading through. I made a light copy-edit, please review. The article is generally well written, but I have some concerns:

  • "I suppose many of our songs are in minor keys. We probably lean towards more a moody, melodic expression. It's what comes most natural[ly] for us." Has the quoted text here really been modified for reader convenience, or has it been corrected? If the latter, consider using [sic] instead.
    • I removed the "[ly]". However, I did not add a [sic] because I didn't think it is a very obvious error that will intrigue an average reader and I think we can get away with it because it is an interview. I can add the sic if needed anyway, though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of Writing and production, there are three consecutive sentences with the same inline citation; citing only the last sentence would suffice.
  • Is it correct to address the music video protagonist by "Knowles"?
    • I've copy edited the section. Instances of "Knowles" and "the singer" have been replaced with "the protagonist", "the woman" and "Knowles' character". Let me know if this is confusing. I'll be happy to re-work it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, although a few "she"s here and there wouldn't hurt either
  • Replaced one instance with "she". I tried not to overdo it due to repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she is desirous of spending" Tighten to "she wants to spend"?
  • "produced a new version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" to be marketed in European territories." Slightly awkward
    • Re-worded to "... produced a different version of "Broken-Hearted Girl" that was released in Europe." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "maxi single"?
  • We read ""Broken-Hearted Girl" received a favorable response from most music critics, who appreciated Knowles' vocals and the piano backing, but were unimpressed with the production", but quite frankly, the following doesn't quite tell us in what ways they were unimpressed with the production. What exactly is meant to be said here?
    • Good observation. I only found one review which dismissed the arrangement. I re-worded it to a more neutral "... who commented the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." I did a similar thing in the lead. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nissim concluded that "the emotion-filled vocals offer yet more proof that [Knowles] is one of the finest pop singers of her generation", but "Broken-Hearted Girl" is unfortunately not as catchy as her best work" The latter part with "unfortunately" is unquoted, but reads like editorial opinion. Either include that part in the quote or remove "unfortunately".
    • I added an "although" before the quotation and removed "but unfortunately". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repetition of "on which it" in the Chart performance section gets a bit tedious after a while. Can we add some variety here?
    • Added variety with re-structuring. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, check throughout for stubby, closely related sentences that could be combined (e.g. "In Australia, "Broken-Hearted Girl" debuted at number twenty-eight on the ARIA Singles Chart on September 21, 2009.[55] The following week, it ascended to number fifteen.[55]" and "On October 5, 2009, the song reached its peak position at number fourteen, and remained there for an additional week.[55] It lasted for nine consecutive weeks on the chart.") Again, watch out for duplicate consecutive inline citations.
    • Have thoroughly checked and combined sentences and checked for repeated redundant citations. Any citation that was consecutively placed three or more times was fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any notable negative reception of her music video? Auree ★★ 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I did a search and found nothing from highly trusted reliable sources. I'll see if Jivesh finds anything.
      A huge thanks for a great review and copy edit. I think your suggestions have helped a lot for the article's best. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, all of your changes look good and have much improved the prose. I'll be happy to support in due time, although I would like to see some input from other reviewers before doing so. Good luck! Auree ★★ 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing negative about the video. Seems like Beyonce won the critics with her panda eyes. :) And thanks Auree. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be worth noting that some of the refs require having iTunes to access
  • May I know which ones Nikki? I don't think there are ones like that. All of them work irrespective of having or not having iTunes. I don't have iTunes, yet they work for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to open FNs 33 and 34, to see why they looked exactly the same. 34 loaded normally as a website, but for 33 I got a message saying it was trying to connect to iTunes. There are several other pairs of iTunes refs that look the same - I just tried 35 and 36, and 36 opened my iTunes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found FNs 34 and 36 to require iTunes so I put "iTunes required" in the format parameter. But I'm not sure if these coincide with references that you found to be connecting to iTunes. If that's the case, would you suggest a "may require iTunes" for all iTunes references? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more - do we know who the authors are, what the site editorial policies are? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For both? I thought I was clear enough for the second. It should not be regarded differently just because it is not a website based in the US or the UK. I can remove the first nevertheless. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I have removed the first one. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments

(Resolved comments from Two Hearted River moved to talk page)

  • I have strong reservations about the utility of reference [11] – it seems to be riffing on general themes in Knowles' music and not describing this song specficially
  • It describes the song and her music in general. Well, I won't doubt someone having written for BBC for ages. What you think about an established writer does not matter. Let alone the time you claimed what an established filmmaker said about "Single Ladies" was false. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion of this writer, I'm only considering his words. The only indication this article is about BHG is the title. And in the first sentence he says he's going to "plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative", and then he does it. We don't know what parts are about this song particularly without original research. You should not use this reference. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not removing. I suggest you read the ENTIRE article again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is it possible, do you suppose, to plot out the arc of an entire relationship using just Beyoncé and Destiny's Child songs as narrative? To the extent where you could make a film of it, without any dialogue, just songs, and it would all make sense? ... [This song will] take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong. ... He'll be out, doing her wrong, and she'll be at home, curled into a photogenic corner..." – This song's video only shows her in a car and on a beach, so apparently the writer plucked that image from another song. Which parts of the article describe this song specifically? Without original research, we don't know. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For heaven's sake, he is talking about the song itself. Not the video. He only put a link to the video. Nearly, all critics do that. At least, he only left a link to it while others post the video itself in their review. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if he never watched the video, I don't believe we know without original research that only BHG is being described. Anyway, you can leave as is and when we've finished going through the entire article I will restate my concern for the FA director/delegate to consider. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if he never watched the video - where is the relation? And I won't believe what you believe is right. I will only go by what the critic said. And he clearly wrote this sentence, This song, thankfully, won't be part of that hour. No, it'll take place shortly after things have really started to go wrong, but before they go really REALLY wrong ... and then started to describe the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(More resolved comments from Two Hearted River moved to talk page. This review is not yet complete – need to scrutinize a few more sections...)

Next round:

  • The first three sentences suggest that each concert on the tour was virtually identical, but the references only describe individual shows. How do we know nothing different happened at the other hundred shows?
  • If anything different or notable happened, it would have received coverage. There may be hundred shows but there are more than hundred newspapers around the world. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reader supposed to take away from the fact that she was wearing a white dress? And why do we care what she changed into for the next song?
  • What wrong in having some details? Do you want this to read like a shopping list? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of useful details doesn't mean we fill the void with fancruft. But I wish you would answer my original questions, because I am open to the possibility that this is not cruft. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outfit descriptions are to synopsize the performances. But I guess they come across as irrelevant and crufty. They can be removed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references from the second paragraph are describing specific shows, yet it reads like every performance was identical. I'd say the specific shows being described should be mentioned.
  • Because they are. The song formed part of a set list for a world tour. She will always wear the same costume, have the same band, everything will be the same. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion is original research. A band that I'm interested in, The Black Crowes, posts their setlists after every show, and they are always different. How do we know Knowles' setlists are always identical? Or that she wore the same thing for every performance of a given song? Or that a reviewer would describe each and every performance of the song the same way? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the reviews of Lamonte's performance tell us about the song?
  • The review exists because of his performance of the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but this article is about the song. The reader can infer from the mention of the cover that this song has made something of an impression on people. Solid info, there. But you go one step further to tell us what a reviewer thought of the performance, and I don't know what the reader is supposed to take away (about the song itself and not Lamonte) from that tidbit. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kyung-lim's radio program is...based in South Korea?
  • Some credit tweaks I'll suggest: "vocals recorder" -> "recording engineer (vocals)"; "mixer" -> "mixing engineer"; "mixer assistant" -> "assistant mixing engineer"

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind changing that oppose to comments? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what happens with these last few sections. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments - Sorry Jivesh but the prose is below FA standard. I made a few edits in an attempt to reduce redundancy and overlinking [2], but I think your contribution stills needs a lot more work. The prose seems to me clunky and rushed. I know English is an evolving language, but I think colloquialisms and the jargon of the music business should be avoided when possible. The article lacks that final polish that "exemplifies our best work". Jivesh, I hate to ruin you day but, after so long at FAC and so little support, it is clear to me that more work is required. Graham Colm (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect I owe to you, you have added a few words I don't even know. I had to open my dictionary. And Graham, most of what you have done here is finding synonyms. I am NOT saying this article is perfect. But I did not understand why we needed other forms of the same word with same meaning. And the links you removed were ones I was told to link. Read the above comments please. I cannot do something for one editor and something else for another. We will never reach a consensus this way. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my oppose – the article is improving. Graham Colm (talk)
  • This sentence from the Lead tells the reader little, "The ballad received a mixed reception from music critics, who commented on the vocal performance, lyrics, and arrangement." What else would music critics comment on? The production I suppose, but as it stands the sentence seems pointless. The Critical Reception section is good, please try to summarise it a little better.
  • You are so right here but again I had to change it what it is now because of a reviewer here. Anyway, I am adding back my original sentence and I am happy to do that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a better expression for "love interest"? It's coy, colloquial and unencyclopaedic.
  • I think lover is even more unencyclopaedic. What about romantic interest? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. Graham Colm (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced the X-Factor stuff is relevant. Likewise, the fact that someone sang a cover version on the radio in South Korea. It's a weak way of concluding the article. Whereas ending with the quote from Barbara Ellen, writing in The Observer, would be strong. Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am removing everything but note that they were notable covers. One was on X-Factor and the other is a famous Korean girl group. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Broken-Hearted_Girl/archive1&oldid=1140156113"