Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We R Who We R/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 01:05, 19 March 2011 [1].

We R Who We R edit

We R Who We R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Ive worked on this article since day one, it just passed its GA nomination and i think it meets/or is close to meeting FA standards. Please leave your comments below and thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose[reply]

  • Don't use contractions
Maybe im blind, i just read the article and i cant find any other than in quotes.
"noting the video doesn't follow the same message". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
  • Spotchecks found several instances of close paraphrasing. For example: "in the wake of the news that bullying had led to the multiple suicides of gay youth" vs "in the wake of the news about bullying that has led to multiple suicides of gay youth"; "there is nothing particularly original here musically" vs "There is nothing particularly original here musically"
Done Both rewritten :)
Have you checked for other potentially problematic passages? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i did not find any other instances of this. I believe Adabow did a source check as he found a couple sourcing issues in his review, but didnt find any close paraphrasing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I did not carry out a full source/plagiarism check, as there are FAC regulars which are more experienced at this. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost spiritual sense of being subsumed and out-of-body." - since this is a direct quote, wording should be identical to the source. Check other quotes for accuracy
Done. Sentence re-written and quoting fixed.
  • The review concluded that "We R Who We R" demonstrates that [Kesha] still has mileage left in her electro-pop sound as she gears up for her next album." - where does the quote start?
Done. Fixed.
  • "Kesha uses her "signature" talk-singing vocal style" - "signature" does not appear in the cited source
Done. Re-written as i cant find the source for the direct quote either, i think that may have just been someone adding it in quotes.
Not sure what you mean, all follow same format, date, work/publisher fields.
  • Needs some copy-editing for clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would Yahoo! not be reliable? I think about.com is good too. CTJF83 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The particular Yahoo site referenced is a blog - see WP:BLOGS. As for about.com, see here among other places for relevant discussion regarding its reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That didn't really seem to clear up one way or another. I also think you're misquoting WP:BLOGS. We aren't talking about http://www.blogger.com or http://wordpress.com/ being used as references. Presumably Yahoo! has actual professional writers on their blog, just like the blog writers on LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. CTJF83 18:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yahoo is not a blog, WP:BLOG is talking about places like Blogspot, not established sub-webpages. "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." is not the case. As for About.com, that discussion is 2 almost 3 years old. Consensus can change, and it has, About.com's music review are listen in almost any music article and is becoming more and more common. Silent consensus (which happens all the time) has established that it is reliable. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As the nom quoted, not just anyone can add to Yahoo. CTJF83 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If that's the case, then it shouldn't be too hard to justify their use and demonstrate the authority of the authors. "Silent consensus" on non-FA articles is not a valid argument, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well i dont know how to explain it, its a third party established author (Bill Lamb) published and funded by the New York Times Company. What part of that in unreliable? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagreewit Nikki, this "blog" is not a blog, Yahoo! uses blog-like pages where people like you and me can post comments about their articles. Even the word "blog" is used, it does not makes it one. On the other hand, WP:EL (a similar policy about references) states that blogs have to be avoided excepting "those controlled by recognized authorities" and Yahoo! is one of those authorities. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can accept that - I've struck my query about Yahoo. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC

  • Comments
  • "It was written by Kesha, with Dr. Luke, Benny Blanco and Ammo, who also produced the song." - unclear whether Luke, Blanco and Ammo produced it or just Ammo
Done - Rewritten.
  • "Kesha's previous work, reviewers felt that the song was a strong dance-pop number that combines a good rhythm with an inspiring message filled with genuine humor." - changes tense
Done
Done
  • "Dr. Luke's production was complimented" - not stated in review
Done - Rewritten.
  • "Vena commented that though the song isn't ground breaking" - contractions outside quotes should be expanded
Done
  • The review concluded that "We R Who We R" "demonstrates that..." - reword so that you don't have two quote marks next to each other
Done changed to "the song"
  • "debuted at number one on the charts" and "atop the charts" - why plural?
Done
Done
  • The non-free screenshot adds absolutely nothing to the article
Done removed the image.
  • "the Australian X Factor" → the second season of The X Factor Australia
Done
  • You have the wrong ref for the Swedish cert in the prose. You should also mention that the cert is for Sweden, or say that it was awarded by IFPI Sweden
Done Oops.
No, it's not done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apparently for got to hit Save O_O its done now. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Not Dones (Yet)
  • Quotes in quotes should have singular quote marks (') rather than double marks (") per MOS:QUOTE
  • "Rolling Stone placed the song at 50th" - awkward
Suggestion on reword?
  • I think you should axe the "I mean, I'm not going to give away all of it, but" part of the quote
Remove if you wish im not 100% what you mean.
  • Remove or reword the last sentence of the Music video section
Again, remove if you wish not 100% sure what you mean.
  • Is there any info about performances of the song on the Get Sleazy Tour?
-sign- no there isnt, i dont even have a concert synopsis for the tour yet, nothing reliable or detailed =/
  • See also links or succession boxes should be added for where the song went to #1
I dont care for See also's, there is nothing about them in MOS (i dont think) and they just look like unneeded lists, same with succession boxes. You may add them if you wish.
  • "During the song's ninth and tenth weeks on the chart, it surpassed the two million paid downloads mark" - was it week 9 or week 10?
Done rewritten for clarification.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noticed another thing, could you add the recording location/date from the album notes (if you have 'em)? Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright i cannot find it in the album notes, i dont think it specifies. We R Who We R Credits (One of Two) and We R Who We R Credits (Two of Two). It says where it was engineered, "Conway Studios Los Angeles, CA" is that what you're looking for? O_O. And im working on the issue above, i have to basically do a complete reword. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Support Nice work! Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After some extensive changes, everything seems to be in order. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just one thing, shouldn't it be "Auto-Tune", instead of "auto-Tune"? Pancake (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the support. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources needs to be cleared up, per Nikkimaria ... what makes Bill Lamb a reliable sources, and what are the credentials of that Yahoo blogger? Please note WP:WIAFA, 1c, regarding a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources. Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i said above, i dont know how to argue sources. Sources are argued based on opinion on if they are reliable or not. What makes About.com reliable? He is an established editor published and funded by the New York Times Company. WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." About.com, third party neutral source. "Bill Lamb is a music journalist specializing in pop music. He has been covering the world of pop music on the web since 1999." Reliability of Yahoo was argued by 3 different users stating its reliable. I dont know how to explain this anymore. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Sandy, but it's the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part that bothers me, particularly as regards about.com, which IMO has a generally poor reputation in that domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write for about.com (probably yahoo as well); this has been visited many times at the RSN noticeboard, you need to establish that the author in question is an expert. Bill Lamb's bio gives nothing to establish him as an expert except that he writes on the internet (so what?, so do I), and I can't even locate a bio for the Yahoo blogger. I watchlist FACs that I query-- no need to ping my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change and has changed, Ive read those discussions many times and i dont agree, the people who have supported the article also agree (im assuming as they didnt even question them). I've read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources dozens of times and all i can give you is a checklist of the things it meets. If you want to fail the article for these sources please do because i don't know how to argue this any further. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've had this discussion over at FLC multiple times, about.com is in best case scenarios, barely reliable, and often not reliable at all. I don't see any way a case could be made, taking the entire history of it at the RSN and various FXC's that it is "high-quality", which is a stricter requirement than either RS, GAN, or FLC (though if I could slide that wording into WP:FL? I would.) Put me down as an oppose over 1c, and I could also use persuasion over the Yahoo sources, too. Courcelles 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why did you uncap someone else' resolved comments? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's recommended that you not use caps or templates unless absolutely necessary, as it increases page load time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits and drop pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (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/We_R_Who_We_R/archive1&oldid=1138475285"