Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive3

< 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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2020 [1].

Cups (song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 hit by Anna Kendrick. When it was introduced in 2012 in Pitch Perfect, every preteen and teen would play this during school. And I was part of that trend! It reached number 6 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and peaked within the top 20 outside the US. If you are American (which I am), the trend was popular again. But it wasn't cups this time. It was guns. The article has received been peer-reviewed and has also received a copyedit. Any comments are welcome! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, the non-free image use rationale for the alternative cover states "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article", but it isn't at the top of the article. Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, has been changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "minimal use" rationale still states it's being used as "a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". However, it's neither the primary identification nor dedicated to the work in question, as the article is not primarily about the mashup. Heartfox (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, I have removed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have an open peer review here. Did you forget to close it? Heartfox (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to close it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can see instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines. Heartfox (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, Done. How does the article look? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just intended to provide some preliminary comments; unfortunately I don't really have time to do an in-depth reading. I shouldn't even be on Wiki until mid-December with university lol. Good luck. Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain edit

Doing an initial read-through now. An initial query:

  • Can you explain the thought process of the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section? There seems relatively little information on composition, especially if Kendrick added any new lyrics not present in previous versions and what precisely the producers of this version brought to the table. I clicked into some other Featured song articles and most of them don't include a section interpreting the lyrics unless those lyrics were the subject of a considerable amount of critical commentary.
  • As an aside, I don't consider Holz a useful source for something like critical interpretation of the song. That's a religious web site focused on introducing their POV into popular media.

Let me know your thoughts on this section. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, I have removed the source and merged the composition and lyrical interpretation into the background. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Following on from my comments in the PR:

  • The article still doesn't introduce Anna Kendrick by providing any background about her, including how this song fitted into her career
done Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the video clip still seems much too lengthy and detailed
    Could do with trimming yet, but as the song is so sight, I think (guess) the video is more why the track became viral Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anna Kendrick first performed her version of the song as a part of the 2012 American musical comedy film Pitch Perfect" - the last sentence of the para where this appears to contradict this sentence.
  • "Kendrick said she had no idea the song would be used for Pitch Perfect." - it is still unclear what this means
  • " on the song's popularity and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloch to produce a new, longer version with new instrumentation" - this is also unclear - what does the president of the music and publishing arm do? (did he produce the single himself?)
  • "Salt Lake City radio station KZHT played it 48 times from March 4 to March 10, 2013" - seems like trivia
  • Seems to have been removed Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Nielsen BDS started tracking the song while being followed by Indianapolis station WZPL and satellite radio station Sirius XM Hits 1." - this sentence is hard to follow - why were these radio stations following Nielsen BDS?
    Claim has been removed Ceoil (talk)
  • "Republic Records and Universal Music Enterprises released a remix of Kendrick's version of "Cups", titled "Cups (When I'm Gone)", for downloading and streaming as More from Pitch Perfect's lead single on March 26, 2013, on mainstream radio.[16][17][18][19][20]" - it it was released for internet sales, how was it published on radio? The wording here doesn't work well (and does this need 5 citations?).
  • The first para of the 'Critical reception' section needs an introductory sentance
  • "He also said the song "cemented Kendrick as a leading lady and set the foundation for Pitch Perfect to become a surprisingly bankable film franchise"" - given that the song seems to have been prominent in this series of movies, it would be good to discuss this more if possible
  • "Around the same time, Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it."" - this is unclear. Did he really have much influence by saying that? (and where did he say it?). Surely the music company did stuff to encourage radio stations to play the song and promoted it online, etc, which would likely have been more effective.
  • "The song was moderately successful outside the US. "Cups (When I'm Gone)" experienced similar success in Canada," - seems contraditory
Has been sorted Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her post showed a photograph of an overturned cup in the midst of flour and dough; she tagged it with "#coveredinflour"" - trivia
Removed Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 2016, 11-year-old Cruz Beckham covered the track in an Instagram video" - relevance?
Had been Removed Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where people covering Kendrick's version of the song, or the version Kendrick was herself covering? (and how can we tell!) Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no response to my comments for 3 weeks (though I note that Ceoil has actioned some of them), I'm shifting to oppose. As the nominator hasn't been responding to comments here and has made very few edits to the article singe the nomination started, I'd suggest that this nomination be closed. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, if you might give 5 days or so will address further. The nominator seems a bit peeved and fed up, which happens to us all. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me if that happens. It looks like the nominator has abandoned this nomination after people have taken the time to review the article, which is poor form to put things mildly. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Not much to do with only a couple of images used. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: , please go ahead and close the nomination. I think this is going to be another lost cause like "Everything I Wanted". I respond to some of the editors and none of them replied. With school also going on and people who are going to oppose the nomination soon, that will take a huge toll on my mental health. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Ceoil edit

In case this is archived. Ceoil (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, just to let you know that this is up and running again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I have been reading through and intend to review in next few days. Sorry for delay! Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, working through a copy edit and leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kyle Peake edit

The article does mostly look to be in proper shape months after my GA review, though it is not following the MOS:TABLECAPTION guidelines. Summary should be retitled to synopsis, plus composition would be better having its own section entitled composition and lyrics even if that is only one para since background covers over three paras currently. Also, how about adding another image since there is only one right now outside of the cover art? --K. Peake 13:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33 edit

I supported this article once before and I still think it is ready for FA. You have a support from me! LOVI33 15:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia edit

I engaged at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1, so my comments here may be abbreviated. The article is considerably improved from the last FAC. Reviewing this version from 9 Dec:

  • On the MOS-y and prose things I usually check first for overall preparedness, image caption punc is good, use of dashes/hyphens is good, no MOS:SANDWICH, you can keep your dates consistent with this script, I don't spot any MOS:LQ issues, there is no scourge of however, subsequently, overall, in total and that ilk, but please review the uses of also, as some may be redundant (see User:Tony1 writing exercises for help). Citations look now to be consistently formatted and complete, and reliable, but the detailed source check by someone else will look at each one more closely. In other words, the article appears at first glance to be well-prepared for presentation at FAC.
  • External links: to the best of my knowledge (which is incomplete), because this link does not have the Youtube "official" blue checkmark by it, we can't link to it, because we do not know it's copyright status. (Someone else might doublecheck if I have this right.) See, for example, the blue mark beside the uploader on the Vanity Fair Youtube, which indicates it is an official Youtube channel, similar to the Anna Kendrick video.
  • The vid has 6.4M views. I think we're ok. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain if there is a WikiProject guideline that impacts article organization, but it seems odd to find "Critical reception" placed so early in the article. I am unsure how the article might be differently organized or if there is a guideline somewhere, so please ignore me if I'm off track :)
  • The difference vs most song or album articles is that this is essentially an article about a video. I'm mostly ok with the structure, although there is no clear description of the song available from the TOC (considering that most articles are not read from top to bottom, but rather search for the area they are curious about). Thinking this through...which may take some aching and time :) Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On "Critical reception", a bit more of what is recommended at WP:RECEPTION might be employed. That is, rather than seeing the section start off with what one critic said, we should see themes in the paragraphs. For example, as the third paragraph starts off with a theme (Many music critics preferred the film version of the song over the remix), the other could as well.
Prose
  • This could start off with some way that doesn't require the nested parentheses: "Cups" (officially titled "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone")") is a song ... perhaps ...
    "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone")", also known by the simpler "Cups", is a song ...

I'll stop here for now; the article looks well prepared for FAC, but I would hope to hear from Ceoil on the organizational structure before I continue, and wonder where things stand on Nick-D's comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Although the article has seen vast improvements since the last FAC, I regret to say I am leaning oppose, based on prose issues

  • The lead introduces Kendrick as a singer and actress, while she is better known as an actress
  • but instead of using percussion, incorporates a cup game in this case, the cups are the percussion; "but" is incorrect
  • The song was incorporated into a mash-up titled "Freedom! '90 x Cups" released on November 21, 2017. It includes verses from George Michael's "Freedom! '90" and "Cups (When I'm Gone)". A full-length collaborative video for the mash-up was released on the same day. These three sentences can be merged into one brief sentence
  • The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the single triple platinum and it reached the top 20 in Canada and the Netherlands Kinda awkward; probably mention the RIAA certification along with the previous mention of the US?

And that's from the lead only... I haven't thoroughly examined the prose, but some issues that I picked from random sectinos:

  • "When I'm Gone" was soon referred to as "The Cup Song" by whom?
  • The quote of Kendrick's interview with Vanity Fair basically just reiterates what's already mentioned in the previous paragraph
Sorted Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Background and composition" section is too sprawling; the last two penultimate paragraphs can be separated into a single "Release" section, for example
  • Single-word quotations in the Critical reception section are not useful in adding critique (i.e. Allie Fasanella of Teen Vogue labeled Kendrick's version of the song "amazing".)
  • less-enthusiastic
  • Certain sources such as HollywoodLife, Teen Vogue, E! Online are not professional music sources (as opposed to i.e. Billboard, AllMusic)
Sorted Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No improvements in the Commercial performance ("Sales") section since I last raised my concern regarding WP:CHARTTRAJ

The editors can call me ruthless, but I have to say I am not confident that this article is ready for FA. It may be ready after an intensive copyedit, but not in this current state. I am open to discussion on prose issues, nonetheless. HĐ (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless is good in FAc terms HĐ; all nominators should have dealing sources of fear as a primary motivation. Ceoil (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination edit

HĐ and Nick-D, I don't want to fight. I am sick of fighting if everyone on this site. If you are certain this is not ready for FA, and are going to oppose it. I'll go ahead and asked for the nomination to be closed. This has done nothing but affect me mentally and physically. After two months of editing the articles, and spending hours on end improving the article and editors still opposing. That makes me very very depressed. I do want to thank Ceoil a lot for helping improve the article. There is not point in improving the article for FA because it was a lost cause from the start. This song has given me so many memories. I wanted to get it to FA status to honor it, but it looks like that is not going to happen.

After these experiences. I am going to retire from Wikipedia and focus on school and my music career. @FAC coordinators: , please close this. Thank you. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ultimate Boss: Guess that's better for you. FAC is not a place where you can get a wishlist of which articles you want to promote. As I said, FAC is a ruthless place, but for the betterment of the encyclopedia and certainly not for the sense of one's personal fulfillment. Good luck with your personal life, HĐ (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ:, Yes. I am a dumbass who knows nothing about FA. You are right! I have been here for over 2 years and no nothing! I nominated “Cups” to for FA to better the encyclopedia in the place first. Just to let you know. I’m not a child. I was taught to hit back to those who are jerks. 👊 The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I believe we could not proceed with this behavior. Please go ahead and archive the nomination, HĐ (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to give latitude here on the grounds of the nom's apparent age, that the article is so close, the vast improvement they implemented since this and last FAC, and, eh, that I'm invested in the article now. Yes there is attitude here, but its not malicious, it's more end of tether, given there was two quick succession opposes this night, after both myself and Sandy saw light at the end of the tunnel this morning. Who wouldn't be a bit angsty at that? HĐ, for what's its worth, your review so far has been most helpful, more guidance please; if you are willing to continue to help, am listening. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, given that this is the nominator's second request I think that I am going to have to archive the nom. Nevertheless I do so reluctantly and I agree with your analysis. Would it be possible to continue working on this off-FAC, albeit in a low key way? The Ultimate Boss, for what it is worth, I believe that you have done exceedingly well with this article, and you are not the first to find the FAC process frustrating. (My last FAC discussion ran to 20,000 words, and that was on the back of 30 consecutive successful FACs. I was ready to chew nails by the end.) Nevertheless I believe that while tough, it is fair. Good luck with school and your music and my best wishes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, its your call and am inclined to trust your judgement. Anyway, agree; maybe archiving for now is for the best hard as it may be for the OP. There is a lot of good advice to work from re Nick and HĐ's feedback. If Ultimate Boss is still willing, I think, even within a few weeks, we can comeback with an offering that should have a much smoother path. I appreciate you mentioning that even old hands can sometimes have difficult FACs - UB, thats why earning the star is of value, nothing good ever came easy. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work, Ceoil; Ultimate Boss, good luck with school and your music, and should you come back to this later, we are happy to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 13 December 2020 (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/Cups_(song)/archive3&oldid=994074707"