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 21:21, 18 April 2006 editBremen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,368 editsm []← 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 
(65 intermediate revisions by 19 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)
The last ] had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a ], something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.


*'''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)
] had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. &mdash;] | ] 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I've moved the personal debate to the FAC talk page. ] 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Weak</s> support''' because: the chart trajectory image should be a ], to be accurate. -- ]]] 15:42, 17 April 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))
**I don't own Microsoft Excel and had to ask another to create the graph. Does this scatterplot feature come with the same program? Or perhaps another? &mdash;] | ] 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
***I think that ], ], etc. can do it. I'm not sure though. -- ]]] 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
****Unfortunately, I do not possess access to any of these programs. Your input is appreciated, of course, and I thank you for your support, however weak or strong it may be. :) &mdash;] | ] 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*****Changed vote to full support -- ]]] 00:19, 18 April 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:
*'''Object''' -- too many nominations too fast, also ]. -- ] 19:09, 17 April 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>
**Too many nominations too fast is not an objectionable ground, and may be ignored. However, what do you believe contains fancruft? I will try and remove all of the content that you believe is classified as this. &mdash;] | ] 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
***I believe I removed the fancruft. Could you comment? &mdash;] | ] 23:28, 17 April 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)
*'''Object''' per the grounds I used on the previous '''three''' nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That '''is''' actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. &mdash;] | ] 20:28, 17 April 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)
: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)
***I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. ]]] 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
****The image is gone. &mdash;] | ] 23:28, 17 April 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)
::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)
:::Please try and remain ]. I will continue to copy-edit the article. &mdash;] | ] 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


'''Object'''—2a. Needs a thorough copy-edit.
*'''Object''' The actionable items (especially the ones listed by ]) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too ]. -- {{user|Malber}} 21:19, 17 April 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).
**Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. &mdash;] | ] 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**What's a "singing approach"? More precise language is required.
***No, people ''don't'' have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections '''weren't addressed in the first place'''. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is ''not'' to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature ], since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save ''you'' reading them? Please be more reasonable. ] | ] 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
**"It was also a worldwide success, where it peaked at number-one"—what place do you mean by "where"? (Fuzzy grammar.)
****You need to stop bothering me. &mdash;] | ] 22:40, 17 April 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".
*****That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
******No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, ]... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. &mdash;] | ] 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Where are the nomination archives? I see ], but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? ]]] 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**There are two previous FACs, both of which are both in one archive. The third one was removed altogether because it was delisted. &mdash;] | ] 22:40, 17 April 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)
Objectionable content that must be addressed:
: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)
*Cut down the fancruft, as per the ] guidelines.
::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)
*] believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
*<s>] believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.</s>
:*I believe this has been addressed. &mdash;] | ] 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*] believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
*<s>] believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.</s>
:*This has been addressed significantly. &mdash;] | ] 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*<s>] believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.</s>
:*Completed. &mdash;] | ] 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*<s>] believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.</s>
:*Trimmed. &mdash;] | ] 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*] believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.


All right, I've tidied a lot of the prose. Comments? &mdash;] | ] 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)<br />
*'''Object''' For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. ] 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**'''It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at ].'''<br />Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? &mdash;] | ] 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I've conducted another major copy-edit. What do you think? &mdash;] | ] 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
***What are you suggesting, Eternal? ] 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
****I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. &mdash;] | ] 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*****That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? '''It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at ].''' ] 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
******Well, I would appreciate it if you borught to my attention what you think is not brilliant writing. I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. &mdash;] | ] 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*******Excuse me? What discussion are you talking about that happened "last time" that makes you believe I voted oppose on any grounds other then the quality of the article? I don't like where you're going with this Eternal. I don't care what your intuition tells you but should keep it to yourself because those are some heavy allegations you're throwing around. You're being very rude and frankly, I don't appreciate it. ] 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
********All right, if it is not based on our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, please provide a few sentences which you believe are not featured article writing. &mdash;] | ] 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*********Please refrain from making allegations about people, Eternal_Equinox. And as per my objection, see my previous post in the last candidacy page, I'm not going to go back and fish it out, that's your job. ] 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**********They were not allegations, so please refrain from making me look like I did something wrong. Intution is not shameful. Anyway, I ''did'' fish out your previous objections, and the ones concerning the images has been taken care of, since they are no longer here. However, your other objection is: "the writing lacks flavour, kathputz" (I'm not sure what you exactly wrote, but it was something like that). One problem: "kathputz" is not written at ]. Therefore, I don't believe ''from my opinion'' that this vote is any longer objectionable. &mdash;] | ] 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
***********This is your M.O. on the FAC, you pick and pick at people who object until they give in and change their vote. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I don't think the writing in the article is featured article worthy. I'm done with responding to you because this has gotten way too personal and out of hand. (Like most things to, when you're involved.) And please don't quote me unless you plan on actually re-writing my quote, word for word. You misspelled chutzpah and I don't spell flavor with a u. . ] 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**********I did not intend to quote you word-for-word. Anyway, I can't improve the writing further if you believe it is lacking chutzpah because no such guideline is written at WP:WIAFA?. &mdash;] | ] 01:18, 18 April 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.
*'''Comment by nominator''': Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. ] ] came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. &mdash;] | ] 23:03, 17 April 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"?
***Fixed. &mdash;] | ] 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**My US dictionary says that hip hop is hyphenated.
***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 ....
***I've attempted to correct this to the best of my ability. &mdash;] | ] 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
**Jadakiss&ndash;Styles: should that really be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
***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)
'''I've made changes. What should be removed/added? Please comment. &mdash;] | ] 00:03, 18 April 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.
* '''Support''': Well done --]<sup>]]</sup> 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**It's not clear to me what "heavy" means exactly.
*'''Object''', poor quality of scholarship. For instance, one of the broadest claims in the article, that WBT has become Carey's signture song, is referenced to 411hype.com, which is simply not an acceptable source for this sort of claim. It is not a reputable source of music scholarship. Similarly, the genre tags at Yahoo Music are not an acceptable source for a list of genres and music styles that the song employs. Yahoo Music is not a reputable source of music scholarship. The fact that the nomination has been relisted without any genuine attempt to remedy the previously addressed problems is also a mark against the nominator's integrity. ] ] 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**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.
**Please refrain from making such comments as "genuine attempt" because it is POV. How do you know this? Can you read my mind? I am doing my best to address all concerns. &mdash;] | ] 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**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.
*'''Object''' Some of the writing is just plain weird and reads like someone resorting to a thesaurus to try to find more "intelligent" sounding words instead of just stating what they mean. For example: "an elongated discussion," "solicited to radio" and other such phrasing that has me going, "huh?" ] (]) 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**"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'''''
**I couldn't acquiesce more exceedingly. Those are the words I paramountly wanted to emancipate from my computer keyboard, but I was having vexation conveying them. ] 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**Essentialy, a complete rewrite is needed. ] 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
***"Solicited to radio" is a term frequently used when a song is sent to radio. The other sentence I have changed. You could have said it yourself, HeyNow, but I see that you didn't. &mdash;] | ] 15:17, 18 April 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.
*'''''Weak'' Support.''' The writing is a bit patchy in spots, but holds overall. ]]] 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. Agree with the others above; the writing is simply not up to scratch for a FA. ] (]) 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Don't use words like ] (for obvious reasons), even though it says it spent the summer at the top of the '''US''' charts, be more specific. ] 04:59, 18 April 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)
**I'm a bit confused. What do you mean? &mdash;] | ] 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' and Object I've been reading this page for months, I find it interesting to see what people see as the qualities a feature article needs. This article is good but not well written enough per users above. Also, the user that keeps putting this article up for nomination has got to be one of the most annoying on wikipedia. He actually tried to get posters to switch their votes, saying Please reconsider voting "object". Once people have objected, let it stand. I really don't like the aggressive aproach about these articles. It's just wikipedia and it's not worth making yourself look like an idiot and alienating half of the users, especially good ones like Bishonen who has done great work here. But all these discussions are pretty entertaining I will give you that, EE. ] 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**So... besides insulting me, is there anything besides the writing that you find needs improvement? And no, I am becoming rather irritated with all of the ganging up on me. I am trying my best here, and it appears that everybody else finds Bishonen did something right; she's merely ganging up on myself as well. &mdash;] | ] 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
***I think the writing is the main problem. But I did say it was a good article...just not ready yet. I still think you're pushy but you are trying hard that's for sure. By the way it looks like there isn't enough support for featured status yet. If I were you I'd take the next month to work on it or so and see what happens. ] 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*Reluctantly '''support'''. I have concerns about this article (mainly that I wish it was longer, and some parts are too weak on referencing), but ultimately I feel like I have to vote to support it simply to counter the horrible reasons given by some of the objectors here ("fancruft", nominating too soon, nominator "aggressive" or "annoying", and worst of all the notion that previous objections&mdash;which are ''essential'' but shall ''not'' be repeated!&mdash;were not addressed: I have encountered that old trick before, and it is one of the most obnoxious tactics people use in this whole process). ] 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. Noting Everyking's comments above - How often do people have to keep stating their objections before this sinks in. The page is not good enough. Sarah Ewart makes some erudite objections, as does HeyNow10029 and Christopher Parham. I objected in the original nomination too. This user is attempting to have this page FAd not by significantly improving it, but by browbeating and wearing down the opposition. I for one am sick to death of seeing this page here, throw it out, and lets never see or hear of it again. ] | ] 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**I see no evidence at all that the user is trying to wear down the opposition. On the contrary, the user is always engaging the opposition and making concessions, some of which I believe are in fact harmful. And moreover it is absurd to say that FAC efforts on an article should cease just because you are tired of seeing it here. ] 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
***Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This goes way beyond what I've seen from other nominators...really pushing people to see things his way. ] 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think so. It's a perfectly sound argument, written rather politely. ] 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
::Well we see things differently. By the way I didn't mean to object to the article because the nominator is annoying, I did because of other reasons which I stated. I just felt I had to mention what I felt were bad tactics and rude behaviour. ] 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
'''I am becoming more and more frustrated with each user who is consistently blaming and/or insulting me for bringing this page back to FAC every few weeks. I ''believe'' that it is ready, and I am ''absolutely not'' attempting to sway users to change their votes. I have addressed nearly ''all of'' Tsavage's complaints to the ''best of my ability'' and myself and Journalist and have our best to improve the writing as well as we could! Everyone should read up on ] and ]; as it stands, I did not insult people or refer to them as "annoying" or Bishonen as a good user for whatever reason it may be. The writing is supposed to be incredibly good in an article, and at this point, I ''believe as per my opinion'' that everyone is expecting perfection. I will ''not'' edit this article any further following this FAC. &mdash;] | ] 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)'''
:I have addressed the following objections: the fancruft (to the best of my ability), the graph which is now a scatterplot, a good majority of ]'s complaints, and a few other nit-picky edits. &mdash;] | ] 15:23, 18 April 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)