Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive1

We Belong Together

This article has gone through a lot of edit warring, fan-cruft, various chart and music-single tables, and non-stop rivalry between style and format. Finally, I believe that the article has been met with a gift: references, citations, and the whole entire package! Therefore, I nominate it to become a featured article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*Strong support. Great song, great article. Having worked on it with two great editors (Eternal Equinox and Extraordinary Machine), I think it's now ready; it meets all the FA criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Personally, I'd like to see some paper references, but the article looks solid to me. Circeus 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I moved your support to the front of your comment so that it is easier to locate. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Erm, if you've worked on it is it a good idea to vote? Mikker ^... 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is it? I'm not sure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a problem; or I've never heard of any objections being raised about it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be on the safe side, I've removed my support. As the nominator, I think that E.E's support vote isn't a problem (thought it's a given that if you are nominating an article, you'll most likely support it.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, FAC is not a vote in that if 51% of ppl oppose/support it fails/succeeds so voting may not be a problem (Raul could just ignore your vote). On the other hand, it seems slightly bad form to me... Mikker ^... 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object A couple things I'd like to see sourced before this makes it through the FAC process. Also, the third suggestion I made during peer review [[1]] wasn't looked at, although I found the RIAA source and put it in the article myself. The RIAA site is great for information on Gold, Platinum, etc. singles, and might be a valuable source for future music articles, as I know you all have a history of bring them to FAC status.

• I think that sources are needed for the Nielsen chart impressions (in Chart performance), the Launch's most watched video with 7.5 performances (Music Video) and for "Bronson also stated..." (Free Downloads Controversy).
• A very minor detail (and you can yell at me if you want for being so minor!), but do you need to source song lyrics? I don't know if there's a Wiki policy or not, but I won't lose sleep over this issue.
• Finally, just a Comment; is the song still in the Billboard 100 (I saw on Billboard.com it wasn't in the Top 50)? I personally don't think it should reach FA if it is, as it might be miscontrued as an advertisement if it reaches the front page (I know that's not your intention, but I can see the arguments already if it makes it while still in the Top 100). However, if it's not in the Billboard 100 and the objections above are addressed, I don't see any major problems. All in all, a decent overview of the single.
• I wish you the best,--Ataricodfish 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Bronson statement is sourced; the citiation is at the end of the paragraph. As the points are from same source, I thought it best to place the citation at the end of the entire statement. The "7.5 performances" are pending. I've just added another source. Also, the fact that the song is in the top fifty (or not) should not affect the article's promotion whatsoever. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Orane, that's why I placed the current chart performance was placed as a "comment" and not an "objection". I'll withdraw my objection if the other issues are resolved even if it's still in the Top 100. I'm just saying that I won't personally support it unless it falls out of the Top 100, just my personal opinion, and other voters might feel differently. --Ataricodfish 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Understood. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've been looking for several "7.5 streamed performances" citations as well, but I have been unsuccessful. Journalist, do you know if there are any on the internet? Does Launch have a magazine that we could perhaps retrieve a print source from? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• The 7.5 thing is on the internet; I'm sure that Ive seen it somewhere. I dont know of any magazines that could help. I'll keep looking, but I have some schoolwork I gotta finish, so this may have to wait. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Heres the link. http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=16367. I'm really busy, so I cant include it in the article right now. E.E, would you do me the honor :) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Orane, I found the reference you meant for Bronson, but it came at the end of the paragraph before the quote I referenced, which is why I didn't notice it. I struck that and the Launch data, as well as my inquiry regarding lyrics since I see a link at the bottom of the page. Nielsen ratings will still need a link. Another Comment that came to mind; I noted most new FAC articles regarding musicians have an audio sample (see Wikipedia:Featured Music Project). I think a 30 second clip would be appropriate, if you could get one.--Ataricodfish 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Done. There are now about 22+ sources in the article (5 in the section that you pointed out)

• Objection withdrawn, and I currently Abstain. As I mentioned previously, I don't think a Top 100 song should be promoted to FA only because its a current event and, if it makes it to the main page, it could be seen as commercial despite the intentions of the authors. Should I verify that the single is no longer a Billboard Hot 100 (which, admittingly, I haven't had a chance to verify), and if an audio sample of the song is added, I will change my vote to support. Thanks for addressing my concerns. I'm glad to see a song article which also features sales and awards and not just the "easy stuff" of what's in a video. More song articles should have this much information. --Ataricodfish 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I should mention that I did do some work on this. 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reluctant object, I'm afraid. I have just noticed that the references section includes two Wikipedia articles, but we should never use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Extraordinary Machine 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ive removed them. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But now there's a problem concerning the material in the article previously supported by those two references now being uncited. Extraordinary Machine 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've repleced them with better, outside sources. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I now change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The writing is dreadful. First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. It isn't as though the love ballad is a particularly complex form, nor that this one offers any innovations on it, and yet the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times. Secondly, there is horrendous redundancy throughout, but one example alone would be how the song's music is described (starts with a piano in C major ... not exactly an unusual piano key, there, so not really something that would deserve much note, and then 4/4 in quarter notes... 4/4 with quarter notes? is 4/4 frequently performed in some other way?). Next, we get a critic's sampler where the criticism is cherry picked to say generally self-evident things that the article has already stated three times (it's her anthem! we like it! it's a good song!). If one puts in a note, one does not generally need to go through and repeat the note's text over and over again. Essentially, there are stretch marks all over this article, as the informational content of two paragraphs has been stretched to fill two screens. I'm sorry that Peer Review didn't pick the prose clean, but I'd have to refer it back to Peer Review and another (non-fan would be good) editor. Geogre 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.I'm not sure that I understand your objection. "First, it has excessive explication of self-evident lyrics. You are objecting because the writer(s) explain the lyrics of the song without providing innovations? Isnt that necessary in an article like this? Why should I provide innovation? The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to add to knowledge, it is to summarize existing knowledge.. Hence its nature as a general source. "the article explains these lyrics not once, but three times." What three times? Do you mean the introduction and the relevant section that deals with "lyrics and themes"? Isnt that where its supposed to be? Is something wrong here? You are objecting because the article states that the song starts in C major like may other songs? What if it was in G major like "A Hard Day's Night (song)" etc, would you have objected to it then? We need to make note of the obvious, unless you want me to find some secret in the song and explain it in the article. I really dont understand what you are saying here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article explains what is going on in the lyrics, the story they tell, three times. Once would be more than enough, especially when it would take merely a single sentence to do the job, and not "it's this and then this and then this and then this." Indeed, a G major would be more unusual. There are natural keys for piano, natural keys for guitar, natural keys for woodwinds, etc. These keys are "home position" and require the least stretching to get all the notes in the scale. For a piano, C, B, and B flat are naturals. (Find a song in B, and you'll find one probably composed on piano -- e.g. Johnny B. Goode.) So note the usual features, the things that make it interesting, notable, worthy of discussion. There's not much point in saying, "Gosh, this piano song is in C!" Of course it's in C. If it were in D-minor, it would be weird. If it were in E, it would be weirder. The point is that unremarkable things are remarked upon, and then a few sentences later restated, and then things that cannot be otherwise (4/4 being 4 quarter notes per measure) being explained. Repetition and redundancy are valid objections in the writing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• In order to deal with the music section of the article (fulfilling its comprehensiveness), then the writer has to talk about the basic and fundamental characteristics of the song, including the time signature/beat, instruments and the key in which the song is set, whether or not people will find it weird or redundant. You are assuming that everyone knows the song is in C major and we do not need to mention it, but that is just your (very subjective) opinion. Secondly, the mention of 4/4 etc is just a statement. There is no lengthy explanation as you imply, just a summary of the fundamentals. If Im describing the music, I have to describe the music, whether or not my description will shock the reader; if there is nothing strange, am I to just omit it like it does not exist? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• What makes you assume that two fans edited the peer review Geogre? I am not a fan of Mariah Carey at all. The only reason I helped edit the article is because I thought the song was notable since it broke numerous airplay records. If I'm not mistaken, I also pointed out that the prose was awkward in a few places. It should be corrected, yes, not all of it could be considered "brilliant". The comments about the lyrics being "self-evident" is unclear. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes me think that is that the article has a fannish tone. A non-fan might well spot the repetition, if that non-fan is an active reader. A non-fan might also see the song in a wider context, if that editor is knowledgeable. The article has been submitted for FAC when it is not ready, when it still shows the flaws inherent in group editing. Geogre 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that the article is ready though, which is why I nominated it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• The song lyrics do not need to be sourced, however, there is a link to them in the external links portion of the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the link now, thanks. --Ataricodfish 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Siva1979 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Writing is awkward. Now, I agree with the above, that every topic in the article should be there, all the discussions and so forth are a good idea and contribute to the article in a positive manner. What it lacks is flowing prose. Each paragraph seems to be a series of unconnected sentences on tangentally related, leading to a very stilted reading experience. This problem is pandemic throughout the article, so the example I'm about to display (and correct) is not sufficient to change my vote to support. It may take a lot of work to get this fixed.

Former lead section:

"We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. It was released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), and was both a critical and commercial success. The song is an R&B ballad and has been noted for its quiet storm ambience, laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. Its protagonist declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together". The song has now become Carey's signature song. After winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, it is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.

My changes:

"We Belong Together" is the title of a pop–R&B song co-written and co-produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey. Released in 2005 as the second single from her ninth studio album The Emancipation of Mimi (see 2005 in music), it was both a critical and commercial success, and has been noted for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals. The protagonist of the song declares herself "stupid" and "foolish" for ending a relationship on the wrong terms, and she wants her former lover to return as she feels that they "belong together".

This song has now become Carey's signature song, and after winning two Grammy Awards and breaking many chart and airplay records on the U.S. Billboard charts, and is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). "We Belong Together" was also a success outside of the U.S.; apart from peaking at number one in countries including Australia and France, it was named the "song of the year" at the 2005 World Music Awards ceremony.

Basically, by beginning each sentence with the article "It" or "The song", it appears to declare each sentence the topic sentence of what should be its own new paragraph. By rewording and rephrasing, it adds coherance to each paragraph, for better ease of reading, and making for more "brilliant prose".

The information I see here is fine for a FA, but the writting could use some work. Hope this helps to bring the article up to standard. Fieari 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that had set my teeth on edge was the lead, which begins with the "co-written by Mariah Carey." No one person can co-write anything. It was co-written by her and someone. The other authors are invisible until paragraph 5. It's that kind of thing that set the tone when I was reading it and made my hackles rise. Geogre 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with saying "co-written by Mariah Carey and ..." is the fact that there are so many bloody co-writters for that song! Look at the list in the infobox! I'd rather not mention who it was written by at all than include all those names in the lead. Mariah Carey did sing it, however, so I think it's noteworthy enough to mention that she was involved in the process of writing and producing it. Perhaps the sentence could be re-written to include this information without using the words "co-written" or "co-produced"? Fieari 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem could be solved with "written by Mariah Carey and several of her album's producers" or "written by Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." In either of those cases, you'd indicate that hers was one hand among many and yet not have the incomplete phrase of "co-written by" and then a single name. The idea is that you at least mention that she was only one and yet that you're not obligated to mention them all; this avoids the sneakiness of listing only her (and thereby seemingly making her most important) and the messiness of listing all composers. Geogre 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How's this? Fieari 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's great. Ive made some changes myself. Is the article any better? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• The writing has improved, which is a positive for the article. Good job! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, but is saying "the title of" really necessary? Extraordinary Machine 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I agree, and have scratched my objection above. Good work. Fieari 02:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Appreciate the effort put into the piece, but the temptation to misconstrue the article as a piece of indirect marketing in very strong indeed. We may well be validating more than just a piece of pop ephemera by holding such themes up as good practice. HasBeen 11:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The users who edited We Belong Together are not attempting to market the single in any way whatsoever. If the article is promoted to a featured article, it does not necessarily have to appear on the main page. The candidacy it is currently going through is a process whereby the best articles on Wikipedia are noted and recognized for their content. I hope you choose to give the article a read-through and place a vote. If you support, then your effort will be appreciated. If you object, then your criticisms will hopefully be met. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• CommentI agree with EE. No one is trying to promote the single. Let me finalise everything: the song has fallen off the Hot 100 chart (its now number two on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Recurrent chart, according to http://www.mariahdaily.com/newsdesk.shtml). With that said, I'd also like to point out that it's over and done, and no amount of promotion (especially by Wikipedia) can propel the single back to number one. Call me defensive (thought that's not my intention) but I'd just like to point out that songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release, and no one brought up the discussion of "wikipedia promoting singles". I say, if the article's well written and meets all the FA criteria, then it deserves to be featured. Period. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See, this is where we disagree then, as I fully agree with HasBeen on this issue. The point isn't that you personally are promoting a Mariah Carey single currently on the market -- it's that if we allow currently promoted singles on the front page of Wikipedia (which all FA's can become), then we are creating an opening for others, such as marketers, to slip through onto the main page. As well, if a song is a current single, it's no different than a "current event", for the same reason that, say, Dick Cheney hunting incident would likely be disqualified if it were nominated today.

You have made reference to "songs like "Cool" was featured within a month or two of its release". As the ol' business maxim goes, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Roy Orbison also made the front page recently, too, but we don't advocate using that as a model for a current music article. Old FA's used to not need references, either, but you won't get far today without them. The criteria for becoming a FA should get tougher as time goes by, and it has gotten tougher in the last few months alone. Personally, I don't think Cool should have made the front page so quickly after the song release, but I wasn't an active part of the Wiki community at the time and didn't put my vote one way or another.

Finally, you're right, I confirmed in today's issue of Billboard that "We Belong Together" isn't in the Top 100 anymore. It's still on some of the R&B charts, though, but I'm personally satisfied that it's not a current event. However, I remain an abstain until an audio sample is added, since that seems to be the standard for music FA articles now. --Ataricodfish 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples can only be uploaded in the OGG format. Unfortunately, I am not experienced in this field. Does one know how to create such a file and release it publicly? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Poor and inexact prose throughout. I will give a few examples of misstatements and stylistic infelicities from the beginning of the article: To refer to — to mention or quote —other hits is not to "draw influence" from them. It's not "interpolation of these songs", either; that would mean the unlikely maneouver of putting the whole of the other songs in. Please remove all quaint, outdated, or facetious diction like "Said Carey, 'People ...'" or referring to the man the Carey persona of the song is in love with as a former "beau" (particularly inappropriate as the narrative is otherwise taken with great seriousness and reverence in the article). Please fix poor syntax like "It is then when she decides". Fix typos. Note, this objection can unfortunately not be taken care of by merely correcting the points mentioned. They're only examples, the whole needs a serious stylistic overhaul/rewrite. Please compare also Geogre's still standing objection above; the nominator saying "I do believe that the article is ready, though" is not exactly a responsive reply to a specific and detailed critique. Bishonen | talk 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

P. S. Also, I've thought of something that contributes to an uncritical, over-intimate tone: you should avoid telling us, as if it were incontestable truth, what Carey "felt" or "wanted". An encyclopedia doesn't know or claim to know such things. We're not in her head: tell us instead what she said or affirmed. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

Comment→I've done some extensive work on the language (not limited to the examples that you provided), and I've also tried to incorporate some of Geogre's suggestions. What do you think? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Objection stands. I'm sorry, I do acknowledge the effort, but this isn't FA style. Looking at the way it reads now, the abbreviating of some very diffuse passages is certainly an improvement, as such. I'd like to see more of that, as the "stretch marks" that Geogre speaks of come close to tautology sometimes ("sings sadly, creating a sorrowful tone": the reader can surely figure what kind of tone is created by singing sadly). Stylistically, too much remains to be done altogether, and I suggest getting some fresh eyes and merciless scissors in from outside. That would make the article shorter, no doubt, but IMO there simply isn't enough material there for the present length anyway. My advice to narrate Carey's statements rather than her supposed thoughts hasn't been successfully carried out. E. g. the revised sentence "Carey had implied that she wanted her vocals to be the main force on "We Belong Together", and decided to alter her style of singing" is merely less clear than before ("implied"?) while still claiming access to Carey's thought processes ("decided"). And so it goes. Incidentally, I'm unhappy about so much of the narrative being uncritically — fannishly — based on self-congratulatory promotional material ("People have to learn the art of subtlety... We realized that once we did it, it was an inspiration in terms of how I was singing it."). Such material is naturally the bread and butter of mtv.com (quoted here in a "behind the scenes" story), but Wikipedia needs to take some critical distance to it. I can't withdraw my opposition, sorry. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

• Strong object. The credits section omits any mention of the musicians who performed on the track. Unless Carey played piano, bass, drums, and whatever other instruments are not mentioned in the article, this would certainly seem a glaring omission. Monicasdude 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your objection, and have been looking in several places for information on the album credits. However, I've been unsuccessful and don't know if there is any other way to correct your concern. Do you know of any paperbacks or websites? Also, I'm not quite sure if one piece of criticism qualifies as "strong object" instead of "object", but it isn't much of a deal. I'll continue searching. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand the objection. However, the "strong" is a bit of a stretch, as it does not give the objection more merit. I'm assuming good faith, but I can't help but wonder...Anyway, we can do one of two things here: we can complete the personnel, or we can just omit the section altogether. I chose the former, so I'll look. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed some of the prose. I hope it attracts favourable reception. Are there any other suggestions, comments, objections, etc.? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am unhappy that so many copyrighted images are used - are they all necessary. Obviously [:Image:Webelongtogether.jpg]is justified, but are the others essential to the page. Could someone who knows more than me on this subject comment. Perhaps some limited sections of the score could be added - just a few bars, or are they like the images all copyright. Perhaps this could be overcome by transcribing a few notes into a different key from the original - just to demonstrate the melody either vocal or piano. I notice one ref. note which seems tp promise the music in fact leads to an internet shopping site - this is unlikely to be a permanent link. To download the music here involves downloading programs and licence agreements before being able to view the score. Hardly an encyclopedia arrangement. Giano | talk 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment, on the elaborate discussion of the first sentence above, and the various good suggestions made by reviewers for re-formulating it. I just noticed that the sentence doesn't follow any of them, but has instead been revised into incoherence: ""We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song partially written and produced by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey in collaboration with others." (If Carey together with "others" wrote only part of it, who wrote the rest...?") Only a detail, but symptomatic of much of the article. The laboriousness of this improvement-by-FAC procedure does suggest, as Geogre says above, that the article was nominated before being ready. Bishonen | 美少年 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC).