Template:Did you know nominations/Let Me Love You (Until You Learn to Love Yourself)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by —Bruce1eetalk 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let Me Love You (Until You Learn to Love Yourself)[edit]

Michael Jackson

Created/expanded by Tomica (talk), Lil-unique1 (talk). Nominated by Tomica (talk) at 13:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Review clock In progress ... --PFHLai (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Article expansion is long enough and recent enough. No neutrality or BLP concerns. Random googling of various sentences indicated no concerns related to copyright violations or plagiarism in the article. Refs in proper format. However, the suggested pic is not in the article and not from the video. I don't think it's a good idea to use for DYK. Furthermore, I am not sure if the websites Rap-Up.com or PopCrush.com are considered reliable sources. Particularly, I don't think Ref.#18 is solid enough as a source for the July 18th online premiere date. Also, while Ref.#19 indeed uses the word "channel", I have a hard time accepting that this blog-ish music site is appropriate to support a statement that "channeling", which involves some communications with dead people, actually took place. (Frankly, not sure what websites would be.) I just watched the video on YouTube and would agree that the dance sequences reminded me of MJ's work, but I won't go so far as to say that there was "channeling". Does "channeling" refer to sth else? Hooks put on MainPage should be more factual. Is there another hook that we can use? --PFHLai (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I make an interjection? Rap-Up.com is considered a reliable source ... if its good enough for WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles it shouild be considered good enough for DYK. It is an industry published magazine though now it is mainly website based and has a relatively large presence in industry. Rap-Up often recieves exclusive information, has exclusive interviews and is invited to album release parties. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT 1 - ... that when speaking of his song "Let Me Love You (Until You Learn to Love Yourself)", Ne-Yo said "if taken care of the right way, [it] could help the world!"
Thank you, Lil-unique No.1, for joining the discussion. While Rap-Up the publication itself is a reliable source, I am not sure if Ref.18 is used appropriately, at least as a reliable source in support for the release date. All dates on the webpage are, as far as I can see, date&time-stamps for posted comments. And about ALT1, I must confess that I really don't understand what Ne-Yo was talking about. --PFHLai (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Just noticed that Tomica had never gotten a talk-page notification about these various issues. I'm inserting one now. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for notifying me. I really don't see the problem with using Rap-Up cause the Wikipedia policy recognized it as a reliable source. I have used it the featured article "Rehab" that I wrote, and nobody complaint about it on its FAC. — Tomica (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The question is not Rap-Up, but rather what the particular citation (now ref 19) is being used to support. The article claims that the video was released on July 18, and cites that reffed post there as proof. But the post says nothing about the release date of the video, it merely includes the video in a post dated July 18. The video could have been released the day before, several days before, that day, or some other circumstance: we don't know, and the short squib doesn't say. This is PFLai's point, and you need to address it directly. There were also concerns about PopCrush, which I've found to print rumors as fact on occasion, but as a description of a video that's included in the post, it may be overwritten (for example, "possessed"), but I think it's an okay source. The use of the word "acknowledged" in the article, however, is not: please use something neutral, like "wrote", or better yet, recast the sentence. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the "channel" issue, I took it to have a different meaning, which I've confirmed at dictionary.com under the Collins World Dictionary definitions: "to exhibit the traits of (another person) in one’s actions". That person frequently isn't dead: I've heard of actors channeling characterizations, and not merely in parodies or impersonations/mimics. It can be attitude, movement, expression... but it's more like trying to be the person, almost emulation but from the inside out. (At least, that's the sense I've gotten from its usage.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I reply a little bit late. I think I resolved the issues that were present in the first paragraph. You can check in the history. Btw, for "channeling" I added the word in quotes, cause actually that's what the reviewer from PopCrush wrote. Is it fine now? — Tomica (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svgGlad to have BlueMoonset helping to keep the process going. The new footnote using the Vevo page itself as ref for the release date is good. The footnote for the RapUp.com page is still there, but I have moved it up a bit to support the first half of the same sentence. For DYK purposes, I am happy with the rest of the article. There is a bit of over-linking, but this should not be a show-stopper. About the hook, I must say I didn't know that the word "channel" can be used this way in formal English. To me, it's a little slangy/chatty. If it's good enough for BlueMoonset and it's what the dictionary says, I am not going to (I cannot, really) stand in the way. I would give the green tick to the original hook with a minor revision:
Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Looks great. Reconfirming that ALT2 is fine (although it shouldn't be necessary since the alterations to the original hook are so minor to make ALT2), and striking the earlier, unapproved hooks to avoid confusion. Thanks, everyone! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)