Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive9

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 GrahamColm 20:33, 20 January 2013 [1].

S&M (song) edit

Nominator(s): AARON• ^TALK 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's FA worthy. Running out of ways to say why, this is the 9th time lol. AARON• ^TALK 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what "composed" and "co-wrote" means? Who wrote the lyrics, the melody, the chords? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Composed is the melody and chords, wrote is the lyrics. AARON• ^TALK 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify that in "Production and recording", I mean? And does it really take four people to write the chords? I'm just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to "composed of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen" ? AARON• ^TALK 18:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically - ""S&M" was co-written, co-produced and co-arranged by Sandy Vee (credited as Sandy Wilhelm) and the Norwegian production duo Stargate, composed of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen. Ester Dean also co-wrote the song." That seems like a lot of people involved, but the article doesn't say what they did. I should clarify that I'm a musician, so I look for these things in a music article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the album booklet. Four people involved with the writing and arranging of the song is not a lot at all. "Can't Breathe"'s by Leona Lewis lyrics was written by eight people for example. If you're a musician, then you would know that Stargate and Sandy were the song's producers, arrangers and writers, and that Ester Dean also co-wrote the song too. I don't really see what is confusing about this? All songs have writers, producers, arrangers, mixers etc. AARON• ^TALK 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just used to Lennon-McCartney then :P So there's no way of knowing who did what? How they came up with the key (was it to fit Rihanna's voice?), the progression, the structure? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That information is rarely published in the music industry these days, unless you can catch someone talking about it in an interview somewhere. --Laser brain (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on grounds of 1a, regretfully. From the first five paragraphs:

Common terms like critics, music video and instrumentation do not need to be linked. We know what these mean.
Bad contrast: "Some critics called it one of the best tracks from Loud; others criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics."
"However" in the lead is unhelpful and a poor transition. Cut it.
"Also" too is unhelpful and is just extra words.
Is a "remixed version" any different from a "remix"? If not, then "remix" is sufficient.
"attained top-five positions" can be tightened and simplified to "reached the top five".
Apply rules of nonrestrictive clauses here: "Melina Matsoukas directed the song's music video which was, in part, Rihanna's response to disparaging critics."
Redundancy: "Critics complimented the ~~use of~~ vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality."
The "co" prefix doesn't seem necessary here: "'S&M' was co-written, co-produced and co-arranged by Sandy Vee (credited as Sandy Wilhelm) and the Norwegian production duo Stargate, composed of Mikkel S. Eriksen and Tor Erik Hermansen." Also, the name under which Sandy Vee was credited seems irrelevant.
"The musical instrumentation for the song was recorded by Eriksen and Miles Walker at Roc the Mic Studios and Westlake Recording Studios and by Vee at The Bunker Studios." – why musical instrumentation? Is there such a thing as lyrical insturmentation too?
"Helm" is an ugly word. "Done" seems fine to me. Likewise but to a lesser extent, "carry out".
The Production and recording section is repetitious. This was done by these people in this studio, but this was done by these poeple in these studios. It was slightly painful to read.
Similarly, the conception and theme section reads like a collection of interview excerpts. Not very fun to read for me.

More to come, but still the article needs more proofreading and polishing. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with most of these if it was me who had written them originally, but virtually every point you raised is what one reviewer or another has asked for it to be changed to over the past eight nominations. AARON• ^TALK 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I see my points above as valid concerns and you as the nominator should make every effort to satisfy reviewers' concerns. And when there's a disagreement, we can make a compromise. But as it stands, I still believe more work needs to be done for this to be a brilliant article. That said, it has improved over the course of its several nominations. Best regards. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I've changed these points time and time again, it becoming a circle, it just doesn't end. I have done these points anyway. AARON• ^TALK 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I'm in the middle of looking through this, but can the nominator please reply with a concise description of what has been done since the last FAC? I'm looking through the article history and I can't tell if any substantive work was done, or if you just waited a spell. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Would you be using this article for the WikiCup? According to the rules, you are required to disclose your participation as part of your FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and made some prose changes, removed some unsourced material, added info about recent live performances, and some general things like linking. My nominations last year automatically entered this for the Wikicup, but I assumed that because this article was substantially edited in 2012 that it would not be eligible for the 2013 Wikicup. Is it? AARON• ^TALK 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea—I was just wondering. Thanks for the info. I will continue my review. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, you can't count it for the WikiCup of 2013 :'( Same for me with my Homework FAC. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. 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, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As a general comment, I'd say that I agree with some of WPPenguin's comments above. However, I've spent at least a couple of hours reviewing the previous FACs and you are definitely correct in saying that you have spent a lot of time appeasing reviewers—to a fault. You aren't responsible for acting on all of the subjective requests you receive. You may end up with reviewers who refuse to strike their opposition because you didn't do everything they ask. But, many reviewers will compromise and drop it if you express a rationale for not complying with a subjective request. Stick up for yourself if someone asks for something that seems off! You can do this without being rude or uncivil. Some writing is just wrong and you should fix those requests, but some things are a matter of opinion. The delegates will take all of these situations into account. The result of your strategy is that you're just filing FAC after FAC hoping that the next one will pass, without being proactive in the slightest. You are being only reactive, a strategy which I'm afraid will leave you in this FAC cycle indefinitely. Yes, there are still problems with the article, and there likely will continue to be problems until you find an appropriate wordsmith to go over the whole thing with a fine tooth comb.

By now, the little mechanical and style hobgoblins have been worked out, owing to the sheer number of people that have looked at the text. I'm not going to oppose, nor am I going to enumerate issues, because I don't think that's what this article needs. What it needs is better, more professional writing. It employs a formula I've seen in hundreds of other song articles, but it's not fun or interesting to read. There is a real lack of cohesiveness to the text. It is clearly pieced together from sources with little thought about transitions, flow, and the overall narrative. This is good enough all day long for GA, but not FA. Fixing it will require someone new to both the text and the sources—have them read the whole article and then copyedit and rewrite to achieve the brilliant prose that FA requires. Moving a few words around won't do.

You'll probably be annoyed with my comments, but they're the most helpful ones you're liable to receive in this 9th FAC. I urge you to withdraw this and take my suggestion to proactively work with a skilled writer to get this in shape, instead of stringing together FACs with an "I hope it passes this time" attitude. --Laser brain (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stuck up for myself in every nomination. However, even when I have merely asked a question, reviewers have fired back saying I'm being rude or not grateful, as though I am supposed to do 100% what they say. I disagree that it is boring to read, especially with regard to it's controversies, something a lot of FA's do not have. I'm not annoyed with your comments, but I don't think it's fair to say that I simply renominate. The fact that I've edited this article nearly 1,000 times shows that I clearly have put a lot into this. I don't see how after nine nominations and the very high level of input from countless reviewers that the article is not FA worthy now. What else is there to be done?? The article is 100% different since the first nomination, and a lot has been cut. It doesn't matter if I withdraw or a delegate closes it, it will not be promoted either way. A six month gap is hardly a "filing after filing" notion either. AARON• ^TALK 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this would be your response. You picked out a few of my points to negate, but I did clearly state what I think there is to be done. You are free to disregard my suggestions, of course. Good luck going forward. --Laser brain (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've told me to withdraw and get someone to rewrite the article, but that's it. Who exactly am I mean't to get to do it? If most of the people who comment here are very experienced with FAC, then why are their suggestions for change being undermined and deemed as still not good enough? I don't think there is a single sentence in this article which is the same as before the first nomination. Like you said, a lot of it is down to personal opinion. As you spent hours looking at my past nominations, you'd see that I have in fact received several supports. AARON• ^TALK 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know—it's your job to find someone if you want to improve the article. I'm not undermining or criticizing anyone's feedback. I'm just offering comments and advice like any other reviewer. As I said, you are free to take or disregard my advice as you see fit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several people go through the entire article. Everyone is giving different feedback for the same things. I change something, then someone else says to change it, then the cycle repeats itself. There is barely a sentence left which is original, the entire article is a product of these 9 nominations. I don't see how this isn't FA worthy, especially compared to other "FAs" AARON• ^TALK 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Aaron, there are indeed some issues with this FAC. I believe you should print the article on paper and read it aloud to spot existing sloppy sentence structures. By experience, I know that it is difficult not to lose one's temper when reviewers have their respective different preferences and opinions. We cannot please everyone. Keep calm and you will be able to deal with the situation in a constructive way. When I am more available, I will post a few comments below to help you improve the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Two editors have kindly done copyedits. Anyone who has commented may wish to read the article again. AARON• ^TALK 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Aaron. But here's the thing and it's the reason why the many FACs have been unsuccessful: it's been a one-man band all this time. I am in no way implying that you are a poor writer because you are from from that, but what this article needs is concentrated collaborative effort. Other contributors will find problems that you will not, and vice-versa. When editors work together, an article is more solid, stronger and usually has far less errors. This results in high-quality contribution. I'm not going to say that the nominations have been rushed, but they seem rushed. There are minimal improvements between each of them, and it appears that it's only small reviewer concerns that are addressed. What needs to be looked at is the big picture: the article has interesting information, but it is not presented the best it could be.

Perhaps you should rethink the structure. The development section is one example of that. It isn't compellingly written and would benefit from a rewrite into a coherent narrative from the beginning to the end instead of an aggregation of interview comments. I usually strongly dislike referring to article's I've written as exemplars, but take a brief look at the writing and production section of Love the Way You Lie. Notice how it tells a story of how the song came to be. Using the research you've done Aaron, focus on the overall presentation now; tell us about the history of the song. Until you've done that, the article will not succeed.

There are the nitty-gritty things like prose and grammar, and that's where working with another editor is helpful. Halo (Beyonce Knowles song) is a prime example of a solid collaboration, and that's why it was almost unanimously successful. We'll do everything we can to help out, but think about the comments you've received in this FAC and what a reader should expect from a featured article, which isn't just about the prose and references. It's about the big picture. Besides, at the end of the day, it's still your nomination, and your hard work, and you'll have written the FA you've planned on doing for so long. Hope this helps, cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woahhh hang on a minute. This certainly isn't a "one man band" affair. Lots of people have been involved in editing this article. And I definitely address all points left by reviewers. Your point about the songs history has come up before in nominations: what is in the article is all that is known, and as you know, I can't fabricate material. To be honest, it doesn't matter what I do with the article, it will never be promoted. What one reviewers tells me to change, another reviewer subsequently tells me change it again. The nominations are full of reviewers opposing what other reviewers have asked to be changed. Happens every time. AARON• ^TALK 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about a once-over copy edit of words and spelling. I'm talking about multiple editors cooperating to make a featured article. Aaron, you and many others are right in that "we cannot please everyone", and I never said you don't address all concerns. I said that it's almost all that's done between FACs—addressing comments at the FAC page. I'm not asking for more info either. What we have is sufficient. But give a more impressive presentation of the information, and as Laser brain said above, work with a third-party skilled writer to reapproach this article. There's probably little sense in reviewing the nit-picky aspects of the prose until we've gotten the general flow and structure right. It's time to break the mold and rethink this. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I am not siding WP but please pay attention to his helpful words. He is only trying to help you. I fully agree with him that this article still have issues, especially the conception sections as he pointed. The lines are quite "dry". I don't see a flow to be honest. Perhaps, a narrative form could give those sections a more captivating read. Aaron, I know you can do it. Looking at a couple of other FAs could enlighten you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments - My thanks to the reviewers for their helpful insights and suggestions. Clearly, there is more work to be done before the FA criteria are met – too much that can be done in a reasonable time here. There is "a real lack of cohesiveness to the text", "it isn't compellingly written" and it is time "to break the mold and rethink this". Achieving an FA standard article is not just about "doing points" – but most often entails a collaborative effort by skilled editors who can produce an article worthy of the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.