Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 9 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:13, 9 March 2006 by Everyking (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

We Belong Together

A lot of work has gone into the article since it was last nominated. 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 recent nomination was successfully engraved into the article (permanently)! This time around, I am convinced that the article is ready to become a featured article. It meets all of the criteria, and objections have been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support, of course. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 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. Johnleemk | Talk 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? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:13, 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.--Bcrowell 19:55, 5 March 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 — 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. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:18, 5 March 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.--Bcrowell 20:55, 5 March 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 — 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) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 5 March 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. Geogre 04:53, 6 March 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. --Ataricodfish 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. Everyking 07:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 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. Everyking 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 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 — 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—although sub-charts indeed do exist—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 — see Cool (song) 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 (Yesterday (song), I Want to Hold Your Hand, Something) for examples on articles with almost no chart history whatsoever. The article shouldn't go into over-drive on the international chart base. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • 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. Everyking 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And let me point out that those Beatles articles are the work of User:Johnleemk, 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. Everyking 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 Request for comment/Pop music issues. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:34, 7 March 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. Everyking 04:58, 7 March 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". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:25, 7 March 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. Everyking 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. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Also, let's not jump to accusations here (User:Johnleemk and "hints of deletionism")Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 7 March 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, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think FAC is the most appropriate place to discuss this, though. Extraordinary Machine 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to Everyking, 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 — 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. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I do—it informs the reader, which is the purpose of this whole project. You have a Britannica-based conception of an encyclopedia: a collection of tidy summaries fitted onto the printed page—well, it's worth remembering that if we were doing things Britannica-style we wouldn't even have an article on this song—or on Mariah Carey herself, since from that viewpoint, the elitist viewpoint, all of it's just trivia, mindless diversions for the "ignorant masses" and such, unworthy of inclusion in a real collection of knowledge. You should think a minute about the basis of your ideas about the nature of an encyclopedia. Where does your viewpoint start, in philosophical terms, and where does it lead? Everyking 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The use of chart trajectories is a contentious point, but I think the purpose of this forum is to assess an article against established criteria. There is nothing about chart trajectories in any of the Misplaced Pages policy or guideline pages, nor in any of the project pages - if it does exist and I've missed it, please show me where it is. This should not be a forum where any of us push our own particular bias and bargain for a support/oppose vote. Push for the chart trajectories by all means, but do it in the correct forum so that when articles come up for nomination, the chart trajectory is part of the agreed requirement. What we should be deciding here, objectively and dispassionately, is : does the article meet the current established and agreed criteria for a featured article? Yes or no? How can a contributor work to create a featured article if it's going to be judged and condemned against unwritten criteria? That you have a vision for the future of the project is admirable, and possibly a lot of articles will need to be reviewed in time as they might no longer meet standards, but the article should be judged against the current standard, not the future standard that we haven't yet agreed upon. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The issue is comprehensiveness, of course, and that's as standard an objection as they come. I believe the chart trajectory is necessary to comprehensively cover the subject. Everyking 10:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, comprehensiveness is mandatory, I agree, and in general it's a standard, valid objection. Defining "comprehensiveness" is the grey area and I guess that's the point we really don't agree on; the line between comprehensiveness and excessive detail can be very fine. Rossrs 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, on one end there's a single sentence in an article on the history of music that mentions general trends in early 21st century Western popular music, and on the other end there's a whole family of lengthy articles dealing with every aspect of "We Belong Together" in delicious detail, enough to satisfy any and all readers. My real idea of what is comprehensive is the latter. But because that's years ahead of where we're generally at right now, my comprehensiveness standard in present-day practice is way less than that: I just want the inclusion of a basic chart trajectory that we already have access to and which we already know readers want. I see things in terms of movement to one end or the other of that spectrum and try to push for a goal that keeps things going in the right direction. Everyking 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you're wrong to push, but I don't think this is the right venue. We'll have to disagree about that. "Delicious detail" won't necessarily "satisfy any and all readers", in fact it will repel many of them. If it's true that "we already know readers want" trajectories, I can only wonder why none of those readers seem to be commenting here, only the ones that don't want it. You seem to be suggesting that you are speaking on behalf of a majority, and I think that's doubtful. In any case, your oppose and my support effectively cancel each other out ;-) and the finer points of this conversation really should be discussed elsewhere. Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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) Rossrs 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in a quick read-over, it passed inspection. -- user:zanimum
  • 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. Giano | talk 09:12, 7 March 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. HeyNow10029 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The writing is not supposed to contain "chutzpah". It is supposed to qualify as "brilliant prose" so that others are able to read it very clearly. None of the images are out-of-focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have to be bland for people to understand it clearly. And the images are out-of-focus, I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. HeyNow10029 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree: the writing does not have to be "exciting" as it is not listed on Misplaced Pages:What is a featured article. What images do you claim to be out of focus? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Who said anything about exciting. All the images look blurry, but specifically the first one where she's leaning against the wall. Stick by my oppose. HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Misplaced Pages:Image use policy says in part "Misplaced Pages allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available" (the bold is also from the official policy page). Crystal clear, high resolution images are not to be used. The images are to be only of sufficient quality to do the job of illustrating/demonstrating points addressed in text. This part of your objection is therefore not actionable. With regards to the writing lacking "chutzpah", it would help people understand your position if you gave examples or suggested ways of improving it. Objections must be actionable, and it's up to you to make your opinions clear so that other users have the opportunity to fix what you identify as faults. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • My objections are actionable. First, fix the pictures: the pictures are blurry which has nothing to do with the resolution. The last picture was screengrabbed at a moment when she was waving her hand, which makes her hand look blurry and the picture poor. And like I commented on before, the first image where she has her back against the wall is way too blurry. Those are my biggest concerns, the writing isn't featured article-worthy but that's a secondary concern. HeyNow10029 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is stated in the licence "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." I fail to see under this statute the justification of three pictures of the same woman at the same stage in her life and career. This is pushing the spirit of the law too far. The same woman is also illustrated on the album cover featured in the lead thus negating the need for further images of her under this licence. There is also a world of difference between "low resolution" and "out of focus" as in the final image. Giano | talk 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's odd. You and HeyNow10029 are both seeing the images as out of focus. Eternal Equinox said the images are not out of focus on his monitor, and they're not on mine either. On mine they have a "low resolution" look but they are all in focus (except for Mariah's hand in the last one). Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have consistantly on this FA, and on the previous, only complained of the last picture being out of focus, I note you agree on that. The first image is just a poor reproduction, the others I query the reasonable legality of their inclusion due to their number. Giano | talk 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, my mistake. Only HeyNow10029 said they are all out of focus. And yes, I agree the hand is out of focus. Rossrs 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also have concerns with the images, which apparently suffer from poor resolution and compression artifacts. I'm particularly unsettled by the unexplained presence of what closely resembles an NBC Olympics logo in the bottom right corner of the Radio Music Awards photo. Zoom-in analysis seems to indicate that it is superimposed on the scene, although it may be part of the backdrop curtain. What is it doing there? What does it mean? --Tsavage 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be removing that image; it is out of focus in a way and does present a logo of some sort in the bottom-right corner. I'll be replacing it with an image of better quality, in the least. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase quiet storm 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! By removing the quote I feel fine about it nowStaxringold 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Radio Music Awards image has been replaced with a clearer, logo-less image of Carey accepting an award at the 2005 Teen Choice Awards. Hope this makes everyone happy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)