Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/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 SandyGeorgia 00:17, 21 March 2010 [1].

Give It 2 Me edit

Give It 2 Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this is a complete article on a song, including its background story, its music composition, the critial reviews, the commercial acceptance, promotional tools, charts etc. A complete and comprehensive article on a song, and it is in accordance with WP:FAC also. The article passed its GAR long back, and has been updated much from that point. Hence I am nominating the article, hoping that it would pass its FAC. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links, alt text good. Ucucha 13:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 5 images. 2 Fair Use, 3 free use. 4 images. 2 Fair Use, 2 free use. File:Give_it_2_me-Madonna_Lola.jpg, while marked as a Flickr-transfer on Commons, has not been verified by a Commons admin. File:Give it 2 me.jpg, while verified by OTRS, still has a copyright watermark on it. Those two images are also almost identical, so from an editorial standpoint I don't see why the article needs both. The fair use ones are the album cover and a scene from the music video, which is briefly mentioned in the text, though I'm not seeing the "backgrounds" or her clothing which is discussed, so I think the image could be replaced with a better one from the video if possible. --PresN 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Give it 2 me-Madonna Lola.jpg has been passed. File:Give it 2 me.jpg ofcourse has the copyright watermark on it, if you read the Ticket. The ticket claims that the owner's or rather the photographer's name is acknowledged in the images. As for identicality, that can be resolved by removing it which is done. As for the music video image, it is clearly described regarding the retro-chic look that Madonna took on in the dressing style and the photoshoot. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns taken care of. That image should, per the tag on it, have the copyright stamp cropped out or colored out, but as it is no longer in the article it is no concern of this FAC. Thanks! --PresN 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but the article could have pass through a peer review before the nomination, the attention to details is quite poor, for example in the lead it said "Madonna's thirty-ninth number one single", and the same line in the chart performance have it with a hyphen, then some of the information in the lead are not in the article: the cowbells, the Grammy nomination. The music terminology is also incorrect, the flat symbol must be "♭" not the letter, and the sharp symbol must be "♯", not the number sign. The references from Amazon and itunes, don't know if they are allowed to be used, other are in other languages:German, Czech, French. I think it should be mentioned, also I believe the publisher parameter in the template is for the company not the person, so Jann Wanner should be replaced in the Rolling Stone reference, the same with the PopMatters reference. Some of the wikilinks are incorrect for example the Dutch Top 40 have its own article, why does it links to the MegaCharts, the same with the key of the song, it go to the letter G, why is that wikilink helpfull. Like I said before, despite the fact that is not a requierement, this article should go to a peer review first.190.234.198.27 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cowbell information is definitely present in the article, please see the Boston Globe review. And what are you talking about? Where is the wikilink taking you to G? And publisher is generally the owner of the company, in case of Rolling Stone its Jann Wenner, hence that is used. And it is perfectly logical to to use MegaCharts in place of Dutch Top 40, both article are unsourced anyways. References from Amazon and iTunes are reliable and have been discussed at [WP:RSN]]. Please make yourself familiar with such matters before making baseless comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. The article is very well written, sourced and formatted (great job Legolas!). but, just nitpicking here, maybe could the photos used throughout the article be a bit more bigger, and, similar to 4 Minutes (Madonna song) (FA), could the quote pertaining to the songs inspiration be a block quote? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely :) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Writing and inspiration
  • The title of the song was initially decided by Madonna, to be used as the main title, for the then unnamed album. This reads a bit odd. How about something along the lines of: Initially, Madonna had decided that the title of the song was to be used for her then-unnamed album.
Critical reception
  • ...[the] West-African inspired percussion bridge–airdropped onto the album and randomly landing at this point—completely disrupts the song’s full potential. This probably shouldn't bother me because this is what the review used, but shouldn't the text in bold be separated by an em dash (—) as opposed by an en dash (–)?
    • Initially I had thought so, but then the quote uses an en-dash in between. Neverthelekss, changed it to em-dash as it looks much better. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chart performance
  • ...becoming the highest debut, but dropped off the chart the following week. Madonna's highest debut? Highest debut of that week? This should be clarified.
  • This debut was due to digital sales only, and it debuted on the... Gets a bit repetitive with "debut".
  • ...but could not top its debut peak of eight.' Maybe change "could" to "did"?
  • In August, "Give It 2 Me" debuted at number...' In August of what year?
Music video
  • The beat was compared to her 1984 song "Like a Virgin", while the... This reads as if it were speaking of the music beat. If so, it's in the wrong section. If not, this needs to be clarified. — ξxplicit 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything seems to be in order now. — ξxplicit 19:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ipodnano05

Everything seems to be in order, except a few minor prose errors. I will be listing my comments: *Maybe the second and third paragraph in the lead should be merged into one paragraph.

    • Umm, then it would not really encompass the article as per WP:LEAD. At present the three paras encompas the six sections in the article, 2 on each para. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link music video in the lead.
  • In "Writing and inspiration", the sentence "According to her, "['Give It 2 Me'] is basically you know I'm not you know, give me all you got, so it's quite a sort of tough stance" is horribly written. I don't even understand what it's saying.
    • Rephrased. It basically meant that the song did not mean Madonna is a "give all your things" kind of person. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Composition", who of The Sun and all the other magazines. For The Sun in particular, could you put the The Sun newspaper. It would be better.
  • In "Live performances", instead of saying "during the performance of 'Hung Up'", can you just say "during the last performance".
  • Also, the pictures are extremely small. Sometimes, you cant even see Madonna. Can you enlarge them? Maybe up to 230px.

That's pretty much it. The article is well written and has all the foundations and requirements to become a Featured Article in Wikipedia. If these comments are dealt with, then there should be no problem in listing it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please add year end charts. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Year-end charts are not available for "Give It 2 Me". The single performed moderately everywhere. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, since top tens are usually on year-end charts but its perfectly reasonable. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Give It 2 Me" did reach top-ten, but frankly, did not have any longetivity on the charts. Hence the absence from year-end charts. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Now that all my comments were addressed I support for this article to become an FA in Wikipedia. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • The Grammy nomination is still unsourced. It is mentioned on the lead section, but I cannot find it on the article.
    • It is sourced in the LEAD. Hence not required in the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* On the 'procession and succession' there are "Türkiye Top 20" and "Romanian Top 100", but both are not mentioned on the charts table. Can this be clarified? Remove them or add to the chart table.

Overall, I think it is a very nice article. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bluesatellite (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are those chart succession boxes necessary? I know WP:ALBUM says you can include them, but what purpose do they serve? Also, they are uncited. Is "self-manifesto" a regular English term?—indopug (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they are necessary as per discussion at WP:CHARTS. Self-manifesto is sourced to New York Times. A google search gives self-manifesto as a term used by many, icnluding scholars. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sources look OK, except... when did the tradition start for writing things about the song based on looking at the sheet music? I keep seeing it in song articles, and not once has the editor got it right. In this case, I can't verify because I can't find the sheet music on the site given. All I can find are band arrangements, which you certainly couldn't use. So, this item fails WP:V for now. I'm not saying you got it wrong, I'm just saying that no one has yet gotten it right, so I've gotten used to checking. Also, we don't say "set in a time signature of common time"; we would just say the song is "in common time". Need to verify tempo and key. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since 2007. "Hollaback Girl", "Just Like Heaven", "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Irreplaceable". Frcm1988 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was decided in a discussion at WP:RSN that Musicnotes.com is reliable, but should be used as a treelink, ie the url should not be given in the link, but proper attribution is given to the publisher of the sheet music. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's cool. But I still can't find the sheet music. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its there as a sheet music book. You need to buy it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that. I've already mentioned this sheet music is for concert band, meaning it is an arrangement. You cannot use it to source facts about the song. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Disagree. "Give It 2 Me" was already used in a concert, the Sticky & Sweet Tour, by Madonna herself. Such an arrangement can definitely be used for the composition. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, a concert band arrangement is used for when a school band wants to play the song. They don't necessarily use the same key or tempo of the original song. This wouldn't be the arrangement her stage band uses. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)You cannot assume that they are using a different key just because its the stage band arrangement. Also, the product itself states Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. presents "Give It 2 Me, As performed by Madonna on the album Hard Candy". This product contains music composed by Pharrell Williams. I see no reason to not use it. Thank you. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can you assume they are not using a different key. We'll have to agree to disagree. There's no way I'm going to accept a concert band arrangement of a song as a source for facts about the album recording of the song. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. It's not my assumption that I am using. Musicnotes.com is reliable and cite Warner and Alfred Publishing, hence I will go with them, rather what you think. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Well written and sourced article, on par with previous FA, "4 Minutes". --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note to FAC delegate: The above support was canvassed by the nominator. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had asked the suporter for comments, but since you feel like I am canvassing, I have striked out that support. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noted. Legolas, please take care to word your requests for review neutrally, without asking for support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • "although appears to be about dance and sex" - should be "although it appears to be about dance and sex"
  • "spanning for three decades" should be just "spanning three decades"
    • Corrected
  • "while it attained top-ten positions on the charts of the rest of the European nations" - it did not achieve a top ten position in literally every other European country, so "while it attained top-ten positions on the charts of many other European nations" would be better
    • Corrected
  • "However, she criticised the "Get stupid" interlude" - this implies that readers will know what this "interlude" is, but it has not been mentioned/described in the article. What is it.....?
    • Already present.
  • "Pete Paphides of The Times noted how differential Madonna sounded" - "differential" should simply be "different"
    • Corrected.
  • "The video was shot during Madonna's photo shoot with Elle magazine, for its May Cover Girl issue" - "cover girl" is not capitalised in the lead, please be consistent in how you write it
    • Corrected.
  • "The video concludes, with an exhausted Madonna" - no need for the comma after "concludes"
  • "Bill Lamb of About.com, complimented on" - no need for comma after About.com, and no need for the word "on", you don't compliment on something, you just compliment it
  • "while putting up their hands in the air" => "while putting their hands up in the air"

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm willing to support if you can address the prose problems, and the source problem Andy raised above, plus the other issues. Otherwise, this is not ready yet for FA status. I've included comments below. These are examples of problems, not meant to be considered an exhaustive list. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is nothing wrong with the source above pointed by Andy. He is just interpreting his own original research, which I cannot accept. I will go with a reliable source like Musicnotes.com. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Legolas, I don't believe you understand the nature of my opposition. Musicnotes.com is not a source. It's just a commercial web site selling sheet music. How is that a source? Additionally, you are attempting to glean information about the recorded arrangement of this song based on a concert band arrangement. If you knew anything about music, you would know this is impossible. Please stop incorrectly characterizing my position. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • Jargon.
      • What jargon?
    • Prose — word choices: similar named song should be similarly named song. Also, Daily Mail called the video "kinky" and felt that "[Madonna] has no plans to tone down her racy image..." Daily Mail felt? oh please, how about Daily Mail suggested, or something. Felt is soooo new age.
      • Similar named song works just fine. I changed it to similarly. Whatever works for you. Changed the word to "wrote", because they really wrote it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • verb/noun agreement. Another: At the "Get stupid" interlude, Williams is shown dragging a bag along the floor behind Madonna, thus portraying that he is stupid. I don't understand the connection. Is this someone's interpretation? How does a guy dragging a bag indicate stupidity? Another: "Give It 2 Me" also peaked within the top ten of the official charts of Austria, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia)... etc. also peaked among the top ten songs of the official charts. This suggests, doesn't it, that this song was more popular in Europe than the US?
        • Removed the first part. Not clear what is your querry in the second part. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • plurals versus singular: 1980s or 1990s era...I disagree with calling these decades "eras", (possibly decades) but regardless of the noun, it needs to be plural.
      • comma faults: yes. multiple.
      • comma faults AND verb/noun agreement: According to MTV, elements from Madonna's 2006 Confessions Tour, was included in the dance choreography..... According to MTV was included in the dance choreography? No, According to MTV, elements from Madonna's 2006 Confessions Tour WERE included in the dance choreography.
      • weak verb choices: The song was performed during the promotional tour for the Hard Candy album, and the 2008–09 Sticky & Sweet Tour; both performances were similar. In the promotional tour, "Give It 2 Me" was performed as the fifth song of the setlist. Madonna wore a shiny black dress with black tails, Adidas track pants and high-heeled, lace-up boots.[45] Every time the chorus was played, Madonna and her back-up dancers jumped up and down, while putting up their hands in the air. was performed. was played. How about played, performed? Don't know how to classify "while putting their hands in the air not even sure what it means. Do you mean raising their hands? Waving their hands? Was this synchronized, was it supposed to mean something?
        • "Was performed" is a correct form of the verb, being used as Past Perfect tense. Changed the later to just "played". According to your suggestion the line would have become "Give It 2 Me performed as the fifth song of the setlist" which frankly doesnot make any sense. And changed the later line to "waving their hands up in the air". --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • punctuation (aside from comma faults): punctuation sometimes inside, sometimes outside the quotation marks.
        • When a full quote is written, the quote marks is placed outside the full-stop. When only a part or a phrase is used, the quotes are placed before the full-stop. This is the normal way of writing. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be kind to Madonna. This quote: "['Give It 2 Me'] is basically [opposite in meaning]. I'm not [...], 'give me all you got' [kind of person], so it's quite a sort of tough stance." ... is unintelligible. What is she saying? Are you deleting the f word? If you are, then perhaps paraphrasing her quote to those of us less familiar with her to make sense of it.
    • The original line stated "According to her, ['Give It 2 Me'] is basically you know I'm not you know, give me all you got, so it's quite a sort of tough stance". She basically meant that she is not a kind of person, who will be saying 'give it to me' to somebody, hence its an opposite attitude. If you want, I can write it in prose, instead of quoting it, however, the original quote was unintelligible. I believe I improved upon it further. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • the song is set in the time signature of common time. The song is set in common time, and use a pipe link?
      • continuously repeated within the song....well you could say continuously repeated again and again, but perhaps repeated is sufficient. this whole sentence is structurally problematic, but that would be a big help. Madonna explained that a prominent theme of the Hard Candy album, was about incorporating the image of a boxer, an idea which has been continuously repeated within the song There is also a comma fault in this sentence.
        • Removed the word repeated, the comma fault has been restored. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • and so on.... I cannot support at this time. Perhaps a prose review is in order, overall? Did you have a review done in the project? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your detailed review. I hope I corrected and answered your questions. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another supporter above (ipodnano05) was canvassed; see here. This is not a request for comments—this is asking someone to come and support. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2010 (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/Give_It_2_Me/archive1&oldid=1136458712"