Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4

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)
    • I've gone ahead and sourced that section; it can be synthesized from the two sources.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The part before the free downloads controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, that section has three inline citations. As the entire point is from one source (Billboard itself), it was best if we placed the citations at the end of the paragraphs, and not in individual sentences. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The Canadian, UK, Australian, and French charts have been sourced. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Having worked on this, i think it now fits the criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It needs a lot of copyediting (punctuation, coordination of tenses). The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration. The "structure and music" section isn't very complete, uses nonstandard musical terminology ("phases"), and doesn't even mention, for example, whether the song is in a minor key or a major key. The lead doesn't do anything to convince a read who's not a Carey fan that there's anything noteworthy or interesting about the topic; it states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site.--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)
• Support. I think that the article is well written. Khalif 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A concise, well-written song article. If only every song article could be so to-the-point. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 6 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 Wikipedia 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)
• 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)
  • There are not too many copyrighted images. Each image does not have to directly relate to the song itself — that would be unusual and would leave us with two images from the music video, which are both in the same section. The rest of the article would become full of text, and uncolourful. The image is not out of focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • OK no problem! I'll stick with oppose. Giano | talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that this user has already voted and that they have bolded two "oppose" votes. Also, Giano, please refrain from making such comments as "hollow". Please see Wikipedia:Civility. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:21, 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)