Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) edit

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2013 by Gimmetoo (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American recording artist Beyoncé Knowles from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008). It was the album's lead single alongside "If I Were a Boy", contrasting Knowles' persona as herself and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce. Inspired by her secret marriage to Jay-Z in April 2008, the song explores men's unwillingness to commit, a topic that motivated Knowles to write "Single Ladies". It is a dance-pop song with R&B, dancehall, disco and bounce influences. According to the lyrics, the female protagonist is in a club to celebrate after a recent end to a poor relationship; her former lover is also present. The song and the repeated refrain, "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it", are directed to him. Critics praised the song for its smooth production. "Single Ladies" won three Grammy Awards, including Song of the Year. It peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. The accompanying music video was shot in black-and-white and features the J-Setting dance choreography inspired by "Mexican Breakfast", a 1969 routine choreographed by Bob Fosse. The award-winning video has been parodied and imitated around the world. (Full article...)

An alternative for Feb 14. 1 point for 1 year FA, 2 points for widely covered. At the moment, no modern music articles since The Notorious B.I.G. on December 28th. 3 points. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Suitable for the date, a good article, and a fine picture. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better choice for February 14. -- tariqabjotu 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for the obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good choice for date. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least unless something even better gets nominated, appropriate for the date in question, with a bit of humor. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: perfect choice for Valentines Day.--Chimino (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: shouldn't the blurb say something about the music video, which was immensely popular and acclaimed? (see Kanye West: "Beyonce had the best video of all time!") Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but agree with comment by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs), — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very nice alt for 14 Feb. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I am so excited about this. The video definitely needs a mention. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry again, Jivesh, I should have notified you (as FAC nominator) much earlier than I did, but I'm delighted you're happy with the nomination. Blurb reworded to include a bit about the video. (Should I be worried by the fact that I can still remember the BBC female newsreaders' version for Comic Relief a few years ago?) Bencherlite^Talk 18:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. Indeed a very good choice. (Well, we cannot blame you for that. Even Barack Obama could not resist performing the hand twirl movement in public :D ). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I agree that this would be a great choice (and an ironic one due to the title of the song) for Valentine's Day. ~~The blurb should definitely discuss the music video into more detail.~~ Upon rereading, it looks fine! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Release date in info box is NOT worldwide (as implied) and is therefore misleading and incorrect to none US readers. UK release date information in article is actually original research(WP:SYNTH) 'was not originally released as a single in the UK' is both fictional (claim is not in the source and attempts to use a doubtful tabloid source for the synthesis) and illogical as no none single can chart in the Official UK Singles Chart in this period (see Official UK Single Chart Rules for details), a link for the UK chart position is dead(this part can easily be fixed). Release date issues have been raised before on this article and on this articles FAC. Wikipedia has a widespread problem with misuse of single and release information on it's music singles articles for the download era, this article is a prime example and one that if we care about quality should get no where near the main page in it's current state. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadlinks fixed, thanks for reminding me. The "doubtful tabloid source" seems to be the one that you called a reliable source, if used correctly, in this archived discussion. The article says ""Single Ladies" was not originally released as a single in the UK, but the song became increasingly popular there and reached the top ten in the UK Singles Chart as a result of download sales." The source says "Until now, 'Single Ladies' has proved so popular, cracking the top ten on downloads from the album, that it's been granted an official release - as a download-only single. This may mean very little in practice..." I may be missing something, but the source seems to support the claim in the article. Perhaps you could raise this, and the query about the release date, on the article talk page, rather than develop your points further here? That way, there's a better chance that people with an interest in the article will see the issues. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sun's concern about "Release date in info box is NOT worldwide (as implied) and is therefore misleading and incorrect to none US readers" is replied as simple as "This field should refer to the earliest known date", it is never stated that the worldwide release must go (and in fact "Worldwide" is misleading, because not everything is released "worldwide", or even released in the same date). The problem is the community consensus not the article. This has been explained to Sun in previous times. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No obvious problems with the article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]