This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rihanna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rihanna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RihannaWikipedia:WikiProject RihannaTemplate:WikiProject RihannaRihanna articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Reviewer:1111tomica (talk·contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Another reviewer is need because the current one is also a part Wikiproject Rihanna and could be bias.[reply]
I'm not particularly knowledgeably about this good girl gone bad, (the lead of this article already has new info), but I'll give it a shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Quick fail for stability (as shown by this major expansion). Try again in a month or so. (Nice read though). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The writers are in correct for this song. Ester Dean did not write this song. Quintin Amey p.k.a King Epiq wrote the lyrics of this song. [1] Check info on Itunes for the song and it will tell you that. The song had the wrong credits for the first shipments of the album and then they went on to correct that afterwards. Some websites even have the correct writers listed besides wikipedia if you search google. Rodgerdat (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Composition/Critical reception
Is there any possible way that we can break up these two sections? To flesh out the article more? Would anyone be opposed to me attempting to do that?--mikomangomwa! 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think separating them will result in two paragraphs looking weak, which is why I consolidated the info into one section. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Good
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
"Musically, the song samples Irish instrumentalist and singer-songwriter Enya's "One by One", from her album A Day Without Rain (2000)," -- everything after "One by One" is not pertinent enough to the song for the lead.
""Fading" charted at number 187 on the UK Singles Chart due to strong digital download sales upon the release of Loud in the United Kingdom in November 2010." -- Any way to avoid having UK/United Kingdom twice in the same sentence? Perhaps something like "After Loud had strong digital download sales in the United Kingdom, "Fading" charted at number 187 on that country's singles chart."
"The song received mixed reviews from music critics, who praised da Don's production but criticized Rihanna for copying herself and failing to create something different and also compared it to one of Rihanna's previous singles, "Take A Bow"" -- A bit of a run-on sentence. Any way to tidy that up a bit?
"Fading" is about the female protagonist leaving her boyfriend in a fading and distant relationship." -- Is there more encyclopedic wording?
I would have said this is? It's better than saying "The woman in the song leaves her her boyfriend because they don't really like each other anymore". Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Reply made of win I'm more concerned about "fading and distant". Perhaps "Fading" is about the female protagonist leaving her boyfriend because she feels that they have become distant and their relationship has faded."
"The lyrics of the song feature Rihanna adopting a vocal style which urges her boyfriend to leave and walk away from the relationship, "Go on, be gone/Bye bye so long/Can't you see we're fading away"." -- Is that a vocal style? That's more diction, in my opinion.
"Emily Mackay of NME wrote extensively about the song as part of a song-by-song review of the album," -- Don't think that "extensively about the song as part of a song-by-song review of the album" is necessary
I think it is, because this is not a single. But I have re-worded it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
How about cutting "extensively", at the very least. I myself don't consider the write-up that extensive, especially compared to the AllMusic writeup for "Do Right Woman, Do Right Man" or similar songs.
"writing that Rihanna is skilled at putting out songs about being the woman in a relationship who leaves the man" -- It would be preferable to keep this in relation to the song; does he use "Fading" and "Take a Bow" as proof of this statement?
"and added that "maybe the good girl gone bad is getting better?", in reference to Rihanna's third studio album title, Good Girl Gone Bad (2007)." -- GGGB's release year isn't too pertinent and should probably be cut
You're mean't to write the year in brackets the first time you mention an album. Look at any GA. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Good point, double checked on WP Albums. This is fine
"which could be found on some compositions on Rihanna's previous album, Rated R (2009)" -- Same as above. Also, on some compositions on... any way to avoid the repetition?
Scratch the year comment. Prefer a way to avoid on and on.
Live performances
"'a rainbow colored feathered coat, denim bra and short shorts'" -- I doubt this needs to be in quotes
Done I always quote it anyway in case someone says I have plagiarize. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
I doubt it could be considered a copyvio as there are extremely limited ways to say that.
Background
"Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010, and continued for six months, overlapping with her Last Girl on Earth Tour and filming during her debut feature film, Battleship (2012)." -- Filming and film (repetition), the year of Battleship's release is not all the pertinent to the song, as well as comma use; Rihanna should be referred to by name at first mention as well. Perhaps "Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010 and continued for six months, overlapping with Rihanna's Last Girl on Earth Tour and the filming of her debut, Battleship."
I've changed to what you suggest, but "and the filming of her debut, Battleship" I think just doesn't sound right at all. So I've changed it to "and during production of her debut feature film, Battleship".
Good point, wrong number. Okay, I've been unable to find it.
3B
In the background section, there is too much information on "California King Bed" and "Man Down". "The most popular choice would have its video filmed at the end of March 2011.[3] On March 12, 2011, it was confirmed that fans had selected "California King Bed" as the next single to be released from the album in the United States.[4] Although internationally, it served as the fourth single, as announced,[5][6] in the United States, "Man Down" ended up being sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[7] In August 2011, a remix of the song produced by da Don was released onto the internet and was rumored to be the lead single from the re-release of Loud,[8] which was subsequently cancelled when Rihanna announced that the re-release had been scrapped and that her sixth studio album, Talk That Talk, would be released in November 2011.[9]" The way it is phrased makes it appear that the entirety of this blurb is about CKB and MD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does, it reads fine to me. It makes the point clearly. It only seems more repetitive because the name of the song is quite long. You probably wouldn't notice if it was talking about Skin. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Taking "Although internationally, it served as the fourth single, as announced,[5][6] in the United States, "Man Down" ended up being sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[7]" as an example. 'It' reads as "Man Down", not "Fading"
This is not your fault, but the Ester Dean image seems to be a copyright violation of this image from Redzone Entertainment. I will be nominating it for deletion, and it should be removed from the article. A clip from the song would be nice to have, with the correct FUR and length; an image of Rihanna would of course work great too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I will ask someone to upload an audio file, and I have added a picture. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
this does not have anything related to vocal style, yet it is used to back the vocal style statement
I have used that source already, and already quoted some of it. That is where I got it from in the first place. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Other references checked are fine.
Summary: Hold, pending the fix / clarification of issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, there are some replies/comments though. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looking pretty good. Just a few minor comments still pending Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done everything. I surprised you didn't notice that two different types of date formatting had been used in references. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have introduced that. I've double checked the MOS and YYYY-MM-DD formats are allowed for references, so that's fine. Still not sure that the information on CKB is all that important to the background section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the YYYY-MM-DD is allowed, as all articles I write have it, but I mean't that some sections were, for example, 2011-10-31, whilst other's were October 31, 2011. I changed them all to YYYY-MM-DD, though I could have sworn that they were like that in the first place. Anything else that needs to be done? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just that background section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Still not sure that the information on CKB is all that important to the background section." -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! I have no more comments. A little short, but for a (fairly) minor song it seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). Well yeah, it wasn't a single. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ester Dean.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Ester Dean.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.