Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:19, 8 March 2006 editStaxringold (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,681 edits →[]: Weak support, one sentence could use a ref← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:37, 27 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(272 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
The last nominations had failed. It has been one and a half months since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Misplaced Pages project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. &mdash;] | ] 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into the article since it was ]. A sound sample has been added, a complete list of the credits and personnel has been included, and a heavy copy-edit was conducted. In my personal opinion the only thing that is missing from the article now is a chart of the U.S. and UK chart trajectories of which I have in my possession, but I can live without excess detail! Although it was not resubmitted to peer review, information at the most ] was successfully engraved into the article (permanently)! This time around, I am convinced that the article is ready to become a ]. It meets all of the criteria, and objections have been addressed. &mdash;] | ] 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

*Nominate and '''support''', of course. &mdash;] | ] 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. -''']'''] ] 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*Could we get citations for the first paragraph of Structure and music? That seems to be more opinion, IMO, so we should just cite reviews describing the song (which shouldn't be too hard to find). The last paragraph of Chart performance has no inline citations. I find the article a bit uncomfortable to read at times, mainly because it's a bit hagiographic (IMO), but since I feel I might be too biased to judge and this is one of the better pop articles I've seen, I won't object yet. ] | ] 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

**I've been searching for references concerning the structure and music paragraph but have been unsuccessful. Although it's not really the best example, would you feel more convinced if the song itself spoke for the paragraph? I'll continue searching for references, of course, but it has been difficult. Which portion of the chart performance are you referring to? Is it the part before "free downloads controversy" or the very last paragraph? &mdash;] | ] 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the personal debate to the FAC talk page. ] 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***I've gone ahead and sourced that section; it can be synthesized from the two sources.]] ] ] ] 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:(Note from FA director - The nominator waited a reasonable amount of time since the previous nomination, a has used the time to make (presumably to address previous nominations). Thus, I'm content to let this nomination go forward ] 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
***The part before the free downloads controversy. ] | ] 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

****Actually, that section has three inline citations. As the entire point is from one source (''Billboard'' itself), it was best if we placed the citations at the end of the paragraphs, and not in individual sentences. ]] ] ] ] 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. The copy of the article has not improved substantially. I see many of the actionable items from the last three nominations remain. In particular, I find the following howler disturbing:
****The Canadian, UK, Australian, and French charts have been sourced. &mdash;] | ] 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>"As Carey vocalises, rhythm and bass are elaborated into the background, which creates an understated, relaxed tempo denoted by a 4/4 time signature set in C major."</blockquote>
*'''Support'''. Having worked on this, i think it now fits the criteria. ]] ] ] ] 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. It needs a lot of copyediting (punctuation, coordination of tenses). The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration. The "structure and music" section isn't very complete, uses nonstandard musical terminology ("phases"), and doesn't even mention, for example, whether the song is in a minor key or a major key. The lead doesn't do anything to convince a read who's not a Carey fan that there's anything noteworthy or interesting about the topic; it states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site.--] 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI time signatures don't "denote" anything except maybe how to dance to the song. They're just a devise used by composers to define the beat. It's not uncommon for an R&B tune to be in 4/4 and it's unnecessary to mention it in the article as if it had any significance other than time. The text tries to be compelling, but just ends up sounding overwrought. There's a fair bit of reaching here with the vocabulary. Just speak plainly and if the subject is interesting the prose will be compelling. -- ] (] • ]) 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**A lot of copy-editing has already been conducted, and the users who wrote this article feel as though it is ready to be accepted as a featured article. All of the images are tagged properly and none are being used in the article for decorative purposes. Mariah Carey accepting an award for "We Belong Together" is not decorative &mdash; it presents the singer in an uplifting mood because of her win. The images from the music video present Carey's sheer frustration when she pleads for her lover's return and to show her wedding dress which caused much publicity. The "music and structure" is an effort placed in the article based on research; it does not require proper "music terminology"; it needs to be communicated so that non-musicians understand the language. We could not find a reference or which key it is in, therefore it was not included in the article. If the lead doesn't convince you that the song was a commercial success, well then there's nothing we can do about it: we're here to summarize the facts, not convince a reader that it was a hit or a failure. There are links in the "Critical reception" portion of the article stating the positive and negative reviews it received, which makes the article stable instead of purely provided teeter-totter POV on either the good or bad side. &mdash;] | ] 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm a bit confused at your objection. Could you explain why the blockquote sounds disturbing? If it is because of the content, there is a reference that can be verified. If this is not the case, then I'm confused. &mdash;] | ] 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*** If you can't find out whether the song is in a major or minor key, maybe you simply don't have enough sources of information to write an FA-quality article. It seems implausible to me, however, that you couldn't track down information of that kind. Why not just walk into a music shop, find the sheet music on the shelf, and look at the key signature, chords, and melody? It seems odd to me that you don't think standard musical terminology should be used in an article on a musical topic. If this was an article on geometry, we'd expect words like "line" and "angle" to be used correctly, rather than ad hoc, idiosyncratic terms like "straight thingy" and "wedgy bit." Someone who has a deep knowledge of a subject can often get across the relevant ideas while finding creative methods to avoid an excess of obscure terminology; but the impression I get here is that the people who wrote this section simply don't have the relevant musical knowledge. The lead does convince me that the song was a commercial success, but it does not convince me that it was a critical success, nor does the mixture of positive and negative reviews later in the article convince me of that. The biggest issue IMO is simply that if the article was well written, it would do something in the lead to capture the interest of someone who wasn't already a Carey fan. It simply didn't do that for me.--] 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, it is not uncommon for any song to be conducted in 4/4 time, so you're right, I will remove the redundancy. &mdash;] | ] 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::*Actually, I found a source that says that the song is in C Major, but another editor told me to remove it as it was not note worthy; C Major is considered "home key". I can replace it if you wish. "Phases" could be changed to "verses" or something similar. I think that the images are appropriate (though I have my doubt about the last one at "awards"; its not particularly ''vital''). The lead tells that the song is her comeback and signature song; and the article itself expands on this. I think that this is convincing and interesting enough. "It states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site". I think that theres a litte confusion here. The bit about the song achieving huge commercial success is not sourced at all &mdash; the bit about it becoming her comeback is the point that is sourced, and in any case, none leads to a fansite. Lastly, I recognise the verb/tense shift. Its use here is correct in that, while discussing the song's success and recording preccess, it's appropriate to use past tense, but when discussing the plot and the lyrics, you should use present tense (a common rule in literature that applies to songs, poems, novels, etc) ]] ] ] ] 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
:I've removed the 4/4 time signature indication and corrected the blockquote which you found to be disturbing. Is there any prose in particular that you don't find to be brilliant? &mdash;] | ] 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::What I said was that it was not a notable thing where it was, and it wasn't (it was in a sentence that said that it was composed on a piano in C major; on a piano, C major is a natural 'home position,' while on a guitar that would be an unusual key). I.e. "on a piano in C major" is no biggie. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the music, though, as music, then it makes sense to use the proper terminology, to talk about the key, etc. My larger point was that the music ''wasn't'' very unusual, that the song isn't very unusual, that the whole song is rather run of the mill, and I felt like discussing the music was padding. This song isn't "Satisfaction" or "My Generation." It's a fairly standard R&B ballad. ] 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
::Now it's even worse. "...relaxed tempo composed in C major."??? A tempo is not a key! There are similar bad phrasing that makes the prose inflated. If you want to copy edit this, here's a start: remove every superfluous adjective. Please do not post to my talk page on this. My oppose will stand. This needs a major re-write. -- ] (] • ]) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. All of my issues from the prior FAC, which I initially opposed, have been addressed. Changes and sources have been added, noted a song sample has been included, and song is no longer a "current event", as it has dropped off the Billboard 100 and most other charts. --] 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I think that the article is well written. ] 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :::Please try and remain ]. I will continue to copy-edit the article. &mdash;] | ] 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' A concise, well-written song article. If only every song article could be so to-the-point. ] 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
'''Object'''—2a. Needs a thorough copy-edit.
*'''Oppose''', with regret, due to acknowledged omission of chart info, which is essential. But, aside from that, I do find this nom to be very pleasing. Would happily support if chart info was included. ] 07:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
**Second sentence: "The song was primarily composed and written by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin (though as many as ten songwriters are credited)". You say "primarily", so "though" is inappropriate, because it doesn't contradict the preceding information. Can you remove "as many as" and, later in the sentence, "initially"? Remove "it" from the next sentence. Remove "numerous" (or state how many).
**I'll also note that I'd be even happier if the chart info was not included in ''this'' article, but a subarticle dealing with all chart info in detail was created. That's really what we need here, especially considering how ''much'' chart info there is to talk about. But in the short term, I think it would suffice to have a trajectory table of at least the U.S. ] 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
**What's a "singing approach"? More precise language is required.
***I'm afraid that I disagree and believe that the article includes a well-balanced portion of the single's chart performance. Much of the information is focused on the U.S. market because that is where its success was most overwhelmed &mdash; the Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. chart performances are not as in-depth as the former because of the lack of sub-charts. Since the U.S. chooses to display over twenty charts on ''Billboard''.com, we are capable of writing a vast outlook of the "We Belong Together" trajectory and what-not. The other nations do not have sub-charts that are displayed on the official websites&mdash;although sub-charts indeed ''do'' exist&mdash;and therefore it is not as simple to expand upon international appeal. There is a large amount of U.S. information included, beginning with the single's Hot 100 and Airplay success and its performance on the contemporary charts. I don't think that excess information should be added to the article &mdash; see ] for a recent single that reached featured article status: there is not much talk on its chart performance but more so on the writing and inspiration. You may want to see various Beatles' songs (], ], ]) for examples on articles with almost no chart history whatsoever. The article shouldn't go into over-drive on the international chart base. &mdash;] | ] 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
**"It was also a worldwide success, where it peaked at number-one"—what place do you mean by "where"? (Fuzzy grammar.)
****I didn't say ''you'' had to write it. Anyway, my vote stands. The chart information is important. Either include the trajectory or create a subarticle. I see disturbing hints of deletionism here. ] 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
**"Carey had finished recording The Emancipation of Mimi by as early as November 2004"—it's unclear to the readers why you've marked the date ("as early as"); either explain in the context that this was unexpected or unusual, or replace by "in".
****And let me point out that those Beatles articles are the work of ], a deletionist who has destroyed at least as much music-related content on WP as he has created. Those articles are hardly good examples to point to. If they are weak on chart info they should lose FA status. ] 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

*****A sub article just for the purpose of showing the chart performance of a pop ballad? Is it ''that'' notable? The chart performance is lengthy enough already (in fact, it is the longest section of the article). Oh, and you may also want to check out ]. ]] ] ] ] 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's just the lead. The density of problems indicates that the entire article suffers from substandard prose. Please get someone to fix it—one to two hours' work by a good copy-editor. ] 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*******Of course it's notable. Why are we limiting ourselves, and placing restrictions on our readers? I think we should have all the chart information on this song that there is to write. ] 04:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Could you provide one or two more examples? I have read-through this article so much that my eyes tend to just jump from sentence to sentence without really observing the text. In addition, I have copy-edited the article so much that I cannot locate anymore content &mdash; to me anyway &mdash; that requires further editing. &mdash;] | ] 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
********We are placing restrictions on our readers because an encyclopedia is a general source that is supposed to summarize the most notable points of an entry. We are limiting readers becase "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are limiting readers because noone except a bonafied fan will read an article that stretches for 40 kilobites on a pop ballad. And finally, we are limiting our readers because the FA criteria states that the piece must be tightly focussed without delving into unnecessary info. Frankly, if fans of Carey need to know more, they can look at the external links of the article etc. And if you look closely, there is additional chart info in the "see also" section at "sales and chart achievement". ]] ] ] ] 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
::That's why you need "strategic distance" from the text (see, for example, ]). Can you find another editor to do it? ] 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*********Well, you said I was jumping to accusations, but it looks like I was 100% correct: that's classic deletionist talk right there, right out of the textbook. Some people, I think, don't look at FA with enough theoretical grounding. I've been guilty of this myself before. If something looks nice, and obviously a lot of work went into it, the temptation is to support. You can see that up and down this page. "Oh, looks good, support." But being an FA is much more important than that. Look at how EE pointed to the Beatles articles as examples to bolster his position. FAs set examples, precedents, and collectively they shape the whole idea of what Misplaced Pages content is supposed to be about. So I refuse to let my guard down and support a deletionist-oriented article just because it looks nice and tidy and referenced. It's evident to me that wrongheaded thinking has been at work on the article, and unless I see some change in that respect I will continue to oppose. ] 05:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that you are taking this too personally. Secondly, while being a FA doesnt mean that it should look nice and well-referenced, it sure does not mean that the writers should plaster the article with every bit of information that they can find. What would be the focus there? I see that you have commented on EE's examples, but you havent commented on my quotes of the policies and conventions that everyone here seems to follow. And its funny how you think that you are the one who is right. ]] ] ] ] 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
All right, I've tidied a lot of the prose. Comments? &mdash;] | ] 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)<br />
**Also, let's not jump to accusations here (] and "hints of deletionism")]] ] ] ] 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've conducted another major copy-edit. What do you think? &mdash;] | ] 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***Personally, I don't really see how mentioning every single weekly chart position of any single or album is useful in the context of an encyclopedia. Also, ] an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think FAC is the most appropriate place to discuss this, though. ] 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

****In response to ], the Beatles articles are absolutely fantastic when looking at musical-related aspects of a song, which I had been attempting to note in my last edit toward your objection. I am not bolstering my position by selecting them because they lack the information you would like to see within them &mdash; I chose them because they are well-written, do not contain fan-cruft-related activity, and concentrate on what a song is principally about (which I have just noted): the music and lyrics. &mdash;] | ] 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Keep working at it, and try to find one or more collaborators. To pick up where I left off, let's look at the very next sentence.
*'''Support''' - it's well written, well referenced, as good as or better than other song related featured articles. Fair use images are well chosen and used sparingly - fair use rationales seem to be good. Comprehensive without delving into the mindless trivia that populates so many pop-culture articles - I like that it's thorough without being exhaustive - well done. In your nomination you said that it's missing chart trajectories and although I know the trajectories have their supporters, I think they clutter up articles with exactly the type of mindless trivia you've cleverly avoided. My opinion only, and I won't change my vote if you add them (but I hope you don't) ] 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
**"However, at that point, "It's Like That", "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" (which would eventually become the album's most successful records) were yet to be conceived." Why not remove "at that point"?
* '''Support''', in a quick read-over, it passed inspection. -- ]
***Fixed. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per Bcrowell. Plus too many copyrighted images to be reasonable, and the final image is out of focus and has little to do with the song itself. We have already got the message as to what she looks like. ] | ] 09:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
**My US dictionary says that hip hop is hyphenated.
**There are not too many copyrighted images. Each image does not have to directly relate to the song itself &mdash; that would be unusual and would leave us with two images from the music video, which are both in the same section. The rest of the article would become full of text, and uncolourful. The image is not out of focus on my monitor. &mdash;] | ] 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
*** OK no problem! I'll stick with '''oppose'''. ] | ] 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ***See below. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**In a music article, we need to describe the music/performance in a way that is accessible to the non-expert (see ]). Music is my area of expertise, yet I've no idea what you mean by "facile, verbose approach" as a contrast with her signature "melismatic" style. There's a lot of in-house talk all at once ("phrase-splitting"?), which is not going to help in conveying a useful idea of the music to readers at large. We need to back up such technical terms with links or brief explanations within parentheses, or in a separate sentence. I'm unsure how to do it—you know the topic ....
****<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #900;">It should be noted that this user has already voted and that they have bolded two "oppose" votes. </span> Also, ], please refrain from making such comments as "hollow". Please see ]. &mdash;] | ] 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
***I've attempted to correct this to the best of my ability. &mdash;] | ] 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per Bcrowell. Also, the writing is too rigid, it lacks chutzpah. My biggest concern is that the images in the article all look blurry and out-of-focus. ] 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
**Jadakiss&ndash;Styles: should that really be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
*'''Weak support''' This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase ] is used twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the structure section. The structure line is fine, as it is sourced to Yahoo Music summarizing it as quiet storm (among other things). The lead, however, has a supposed direct quote from a critic, ''""We Belong Together" has been noted by critics for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocal delivery."'' that I would really love to see cited. I think it's a great article for a song!] 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
***Fixed. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**"Following the reference of Womack's song, she then sings:" Which word is redundant? There's another one of them shortly after this.
***Fixed. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**The tempo was composed in C major?
***Didn't catch that, but I've fixed it. &mdash;] | ] 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**"As tension raises, the hip hop prominence on Carey's vocal delivery increases"—raises what? "on"?
***Silly mistakes. Fixed. &mdash;] | ] 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still finding problems in just about every sentence. Tuf-Kat is an expert in this general area and has established a system of quality control for articles such as this. Have you asked him for assistance? Perhaps he could suggest copy-editors. ] 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Problems in ''every'' sentence? Oh dear. I don't quite understand this, but I will request that Tuf-Kat locate some copy-editors since at this point, unfortunately, I believe there is not much more that I can do regarding text and content-editing. I will search for him immediately. &mdash;] | ] 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:My Canadian dictionary does not have a hyphen in the word "hip hop" and neither does the main article ]. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*Message received. I'm an expert though, at least formally - no education beyond high school. Anyway, I had a few comments in PR, of which not all were addressed. I agree that the Music and structure section needs some copyediting. I'll see what I can do now.
**It's not clear to me what "heavy" means exactly.
**Not clear what the bit after the semicolon has to do with "The hip hop influence is further exhibited in Carey's vocal delivery" -- don't write something like that unless the "hip hop influence" in vocals is clearly expounded on.
**Also not sure exactly what "effusive" means here.
*I only got about halfway through that section, but now I've got to go. ] 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**Hello, thank you for the response and thank you for tidying the portions of the music and strucutre section which did not quite make sense. "Effusive" and "heavy" could be described as irrelevant to the section now that it has been copyedited; from what the new material that I've read, it seems to make more sense without the use of these words. I apologize for not correcting all of your concerns at the peer review (I had become rather lazy, I must admit), but your knowledge has helped enhance the vocabulary! Excellent work! Are there any other parts that you think may require rewriting? &mdash;] | ] 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', impressive article. &mdash;]]] ] 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', one of the best articles about a song I've seen on Misplaced Pages. --] 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #900;">The prose of the article has been improved upon and I would appreciate it if the editors who voted "object" reanalyzed their vote and commented further. Thank you.&mdash;] | ] 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)</span>
*'''Object'''. Per Malber and Tony. The page needs to be condensed and re-written. The banal prose uses twenty words when five will do. ] 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
**Please be more specific. What do you mean by "boring"? &mdash;] | ] 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #900;">A few collaborators helped to trim and tidy the prose excessively. The material remains the same but is summarized significantly. I feel that the writing has greatly advanced, so please comment. &mdash;] | ] 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)</span>
:*Please read my comment--I didn't say the article was boring. How could anything concerning Mariah Carey be boring? I said it was banal (almost juvenile). The vocabulary and phraseology are limited and the prose doesn't flow. In some places it's verbose, in others it's monotonous, hampered, and lumpy. ] 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:**I think I've cleared a lot of the lumpiness. Is there a specific section that requires rewriting? &mdash;] | ] 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*I have repeatedly edited sections to exemplify that which needs changing. I look forward to changing my vote when you have fully addressed my concerns with your prose and text. I am capable of following your edits. Please do not trouble me again on my talk page. I shall be watching with interest. ] 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
**I highly doubt that I have been troubling you at all. Anyway, ] has not responded to the matter regarding copy-editors along with ] and ]. I don't believe there is anymore clunky writing, but I'll continue to copy-edit. &mdash;] | ] 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I did not have the time to listen to the samples, but is it right to put two 30-second samples (1 minute) for a 3 minutes and 20 seconds song? ] 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
**I think it is all right because the user who uploaded the files has the appropriate knowledge regarding music-samples. This was ]. &mdash;] | ] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
*I think the sections should be expanded. Especially the download controversy section, which is only one paragraph long. ] 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose -- Just the first paragraph is enough to make me want to burn my wife's Mariah Carey Greatest Hits CD.
**"We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song performed by singer '''''do you really need to point out that she's a singer? think of thew audience that might search for this article''''' Mariah Carey. The song '''''yes, let's restate that it's a song''''' was primarily '''''who else was involved?''''' composed and written ''''' as a musician, the diference between compose and write eludes me''''' by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin ''''' the rest of this paragraph is a non sequitur -- unless you mean during''''' through additional studio sessions after Carey had initially completed her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi'''''No link?''''' (2005). '''''how can you initially complete something? Complete is an absolute -- it's either done or it isn't''''' The popularity of "We Belong Together" is often attributed to its retro-soul appeal, and the understated, rap-inspired music and vocal approach, '''''is this thing R&B, pop, retro-soul or rap?''''' which received critical praise following the reviews of Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002).'''''Are they albums? Do they have their own articles? If so, link them. Also, from whom did the song receive critical praise'''''
**Essentialy, a complete rewrite is needed. ] 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
***Just to comment on your last point, I don't think it's necessary to be specific&mdash;the sources of the praise are more properly identified later in the article. ] 04:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
****True, but a ref wouldn't hurt. In any case, the article is simply not good enough to even be considered a good article let alone be given FA status.
*'''Object'''. Agree with the others above; the writing is simply not up to scratch for a FA. ] (]) 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. Redundancy in the lead section (when talking about the critics) and an expansion could be done. Fair prose but not brilliant. ] 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:37, 27 February 2023

We Belong Together

The last nominations had failed. It has been one and a half months since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Misplaced Pages project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. -M 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the personal debate to the FAC talk page. Tony 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note from FA director - The nominator waited a reasonable amount of time since the previous nomination, a has used the time to make substantial changes (presumably to address previous nominations). Thus, I'm content to let this nomination go forward Raul654 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose. The copy of the article has not improved substantially. I see many of the actionable items from the last three nominations remain. In particular, I find the following howler disturbing:

"As Carey vocalises, rhythm and bass are elaborated into the background, which creates an understated, relaxed tempo denoted by a 4/4 time signature set in C major."

FYI time signatures don't "denote" anything except maybe how to dance to the song. They're just a devise used by composers to define the beat. It's not uncommon for an R&B tune to be in 4/4 and it's unnecessary to mention it in the article as if it had any significance other than time. The text tries to be compelling, but just ends up sounding overwrought. There's a fair bit of reaching here with the vocabulary. Just speak plainly and if the subject is interesting the prose will be compelling. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused at your objection. Could you explain why the blockquote sounds disturbing? If it is because of the content, there is a reference that can be verified. If this is not the case, then I'm confused. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is not uncommon for any song to be conducted in 4/4 time, so you're right, I will remove the redundancy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the 4/4 time signature indication and corrected the blockquote which you found to be disturbing. Is there any prose in particular that you don't find to be brilliant? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it's even worse. "...relaxed tempo composed in C major."??? A tempo is not a key! There are similar bad phrasing that makes the prose inflated. If you want to copy edit this, here's a start: remove every superfluous adjective. Please do not post to my talk page on this. My oppose will stand. This needs a major re-write. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please try and remain civil. I will continue to copy-edit the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Needs a thorough copy-edit.

    • Second sentence: "The song was primarily composed and written by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin (though as many as ten songwriters are credited)". You say "primarily", so "though" is inappropriate, because it doesn't contradict the preceding information. Can you remove "as many as" and, later in the sentence, "initially"? Remove "it" from the next sentence. Remove "numerous" (or state how many).
    • What's a "singing approach"? More precise language is required.
    • "It was also a worldwide success, where it peaked at number-one"—what place do you mean by "where"? (Fuzzy grammar.)
    • "Carey had finished recording The Emancipation of Mimi by as early as November 2004"—it's unclear to the readers why you've marked the date ("as early as"); either explain in the context that this was unexpected or unusual, or replace by "in".

That's just the lead. The density of problems indicates that the entire article suffers from substandard prose. Please get someone to fix it—one to two hours' work by a good copy-editor. Tony 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide one or two more examples? I have read-through this article so much that my eyes tend to just jump from sentence to sentence without really observing the text. In addition, I have copy-edited the article so much that I cannot locate anymore content — to me anyway — that requires further editing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why you need "strategic distance" from the text (see, for example, User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a). Can you find another editor to do it? Tony 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've tidied a lot of the prose. Comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've conducted another major copy-edit. What do you think? —Eternal Equinox | talk 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Keep working at it, and try to find one or more collaborators. To pick up where I left off, let's look at the very next sentence.
    • "However, at that point, "It's Like That", "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" (which would eventually become the album's most successful records) were yet to be conceived." Why not remove "at that point"?
    • My US dictionary says that hip hop is hyphenated.
    • In a music article, we need to describe the music/performance in a way that is accessible to the non-expert (see The perfect article). Music is my area of expertise, yet I've no idea what you mean by "facile, verbose approach" as a contrast with her signature "melismatic" style. There's a lot of in-house talk all at once ("phrase-splitting"?), which is not going to help in conveying a useful idea of the music to readers at large. We need to back up such technical terms with links or brief explanations within parentheses, or in a separate sentence. I'm unsure how to do it—you know the topic ....
    • Jadakiss–Styles: should that really be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
    • "Following the reference of Womack's song, she then sings:" Which word is redundant? There's another one of them shortly after this.
    • The tempo was composed in C major?
    • "As tension raises, the hip hop prominence on Carey's vocal delivery increases"—raises what? "on"?

I'm still finding problems in just about every sentence. Tuf-Kat is an expert in this general area and has established a system of quality control for articles such as this. Have you asked him for assistance? Perhaps he could suggest copy-editors. Tony 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems in every sentence? Oh dear. I don't quite understand this, but I will request that Tuf-Kat locate some copy-editors since at this point, unfortunately, I believe there is not much more that I can do regarding text and content-editing. I will search for him immediately. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
My Canadian dictionary does not have a hyphen in the word "hip hop" and neither does the main article hip hop music. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Message received. I'm an expert though, at least formally - no education beyond high school. Anyway, I had a few comments in PR, of which not all were addressed. I agree that the Music and structure section needs some copyediting. I'll see what I can do now.
    • It's not clear to me what "heavy" means exactly.
    • Not clear what the bit after the semicolon has to do with "The hip hop influence is further exhibited in Carey's vocal delivery" -- don't write something like that unless the "hip hop influence" in vocals is clearly expounded on.
    • Also not sure exactly what "effusive" means here.
  • I only got about halfway through that section, but now I've got to go. Tuf-Kat 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, thank you for the response and thank you for tidying the portions of the music and strucutre section which did not quite make sense. "Effusive" and "heavy" could be described as irrelevant to the section now that it has been copyedited; from what the new material that I've read, it seems to make more sense without the use of these words. I apologize for not correcting all of your concerns at the peer review (I had become rather lazy, I must admit), but your knowledge has helped enhance the vocabulary! Excellent work! Are there any other parts that you think may require rewriting? —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, impressive article. —Nightstallion (?) 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the best articles about a song I've seen on Misplaced Pages. --Musicpvm 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The prose of the article has been improved upon and I would appreciate it if the editors who voted "object" reanalyzed their vote and commented further. Thank you.—Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A few collaborators helped to trim and tidy the prose excessively. The material remains the same but is summarized significantly. I feel that the writing has greatly advanced, so please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please read my comment--I didn't say the article was boring. How could anything concerning Mariah Carey be boring? I said it was banal (almost juvenile). The vocabulary and phraseology are limited and the prose doesn't flow. In some places it's verbose, in others it's monotonous, hampered, and lumpy. Aspern 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have repeatedly edited sections to exemplify that which needs changing. I look forward to changing my vote when you have fully addressed my concerns with your prose and text. I am capable of following your edits. Please do not trouble me again on my talk page. I shall be watching with interest. Aspern 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did not have the time to listen to the samples, but is it right to put two 30-second samples (1 minute) for a 3 minutes and 20 seconds song? CG 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the sections should be expanded. Especially the download controversy section, which is only one paragraph long. Everyking 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Just the first paragraph is enough to make me want to burn my wife's Mariah Carey Greatest Hits CD.
    • "We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song performed by singer do you really need to point out that she's a singer? think of thew audience that might search for this article Mariah Carey. The song yes, let's restate that it's a song was primarily who else was involved? composed and written as a musician, the diference between compose and write eludes me by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin the rest of this paragraph is a non sequitur -- unless you mean during through additional studio sessions after Carey had initially completed her ninth studio album The Emancipation of MimiNo link? (2005). how can you initially complete something? Complete is an absolute -- it's either done or it isn't The popularity of "We Belong Together" is often attributed to its retro-soul appeal, and the understated, rap-inspired music and vocal approach, is this thing R&B, pop, retro-soul or rap? which received critical praise following the reviews of Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002).Are they albums? Do they have their own articles? If so, link them. Also, from whom did the song receive critical praise
    • Essentialy, a complete rewrite is needed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to comment on your last point, I don't think it's necessary to be specific—the sources of the praise are more properly identified later in the article. Everyking 04:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • True, but a ref wouldn't hurt. In any case, the article is simply not good enough to even be considered a good article let alone be given FA status.
  • Object. Agree with the others above; the writing is simply not up to scratch for a FA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Redundancy in the lead section (when talking about the critics) and an expansion could be done. Fair prose but not brilliant. Lincher 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)