I am nominating this for featured article because... "I think it meets FAC criteria". I've said this so many times! lol. I'm not a religious person but I pray to God that it passes this time. Thanks. Aaron • YouDaOne 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. All my previous concerns about prose and sourcing have been addressed. Good job. Orane(talk) 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I request clarification on a couple awkward expressions in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section. It states, "The lyrics of "S&M" revolve around sex, sadomasochism, bondage and BSDM fetishes, including the various sexual fantasies and turn-ons of its protagonist... Rihanna stated that although she acts in a non-conservative manner and implies that she is "bad", this is not the case in the bedroom, confirming that she is "good" at performing sex. After singing these lines, Rihanna confesses her love for chains and whips, chanting."
It goes from talking about a protagonist to taking about Rihanna herself. If you're still discussing the lyrics, you need to be consistent in differentiating between the protagonist/narrator and the actual artist. I'm thinking that it's the protagonist who says that she is good at sex, and not Rihanna herself (at least in the context of the lyrical interpretation). Am I being clear? Orane(talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Have changed to protagonist. Aaron • YouDaOne 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images
The Britney Spears image caption should not have end punctuation as it's not a sentence.
Everything else looks good. However, the last few references were where I found a lot of issues, so double check that area. I may update with more concerns. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The 'work' for Ref 16 should be BBC Online, BBC therefore becomes the 'publisher'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on criterion 1a, prose. I'm finding it hard to read through the first paragraph of the lead, which isn't all too positive of an indication of what is yet to come in the article. Several examples:
"with production helmed by" is a rather ungainly construction. What's wrong with "produced by"?
"It was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single, and on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single." The way the regional adjectives are used here makes the sentence needlessly difficult to digest.
"Inspired by channelling Rihanna," What does this even mean?
She was channelling Rihanna when writing the song. She was inspired by Rihanna. I don't know how else to put it simply. Aaron • YouDaOne
What does channelling mean in this context? I'm unfamiliar with it being used this way. Auree★ 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"the lyrics based on the hook which she conceived." Clause should be restrictive here
""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, whilst others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." The usage of "who" here implies that all of the critics (the ones that gave mixed reviews) criticized the lyrics (negatively), and it doesn't flow well with the contradiction in the third clause. Suggest rewording to ""S&M" received mixed reviews from music critics; some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." or something along those lines.
Although I personally don't see much need to wikilink the term, "fetishes" should be linked upon first occurrence in the lead.
"The video initiated a lawsuit" I'm not sure videos initiate lawsuits; people or organizations do. Auree★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I'm finding lots of issues in the lead alone, so I feel inclined to oppose at this time. Auree★ 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this comes down to your own personal preference of what you like and dislike. The lead follows the same style that recently pointed FAs have. Plus, it has been copyedited by people with FA experience. I can't keep on changing the lead to please just one person. Aaron • YouDaOne 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Calvin, this nomination would have a better chance of promotion if you engaged with reviewers, rather than dismissing them. Correct grammar is not a question of personal preference. For example, Hylian Auree is correct about the need for a restrictive clause – all you have to do is to agree on changing "which" to "that". And, "whilst" is archaic even in British English. FAC is not a vote and one unaddressed oppose can be enough to prevent promotion. Also, note that the reviewer has successful FA experience too! Graham Colm (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not basing this on personal whim (aside from the first two concerns, perhaps, which I have struck now); I'm basing this on FA criterion 1a: "It is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." My concerns are heightened by the fact that the lead should represent the article at its best; I am, as everyone else here, a voluntary reviewer with an opinion of my own, and as it stands I find parts of the lead to be rather ponderous. Again, this is just my opinion, and other reviewers may agree or disagree. Auree★ 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what I mean, people read things differently. Aaron • YouDaOne 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Calvin, I think you should just implement Auree's changes. To tell the truth, my support is based on a previous version of this article. At the last FA, the introduction was not like this ("on February 11, 2011, as the third European, Oceanic and South American single" etc). So, just go ahead with the changes, and invite the reviewer to read the full article, which, in my opinion, is markedly better than the prose in the intro. Orane(talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Orane, I have no problem with reading through the rest. It just struck me as unusual to find so many prose errors in the lead. Auree★ 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay I've done the last thing now. Aaron • YouDaOne 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've read till the Remixes and release section, and I must say that Orane was right in what he said. The sections only need a light copy-edit as far as I can tell, which I will make soon. One thing that struck me as odd is the repetition of the years in dates throughout the Remixes and release section. I would only keep the first ones in each paragraph (January 17, 2011, and January 23, 2011). Auree★ 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the repetition of "2011" in every date is necessary, as there's no other year mentioned in the section (e.g. "April 11, 2011" could just be "April 11"). Auree★ 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your assessment, Auree. Also, I just trimmed and rearranged the first paragraph of the intro just a little bit. Will do another light copy-edit of the entire article soon. Thanks also for your part in copyediting it. Orane(talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I must say that your changes make a world of difference. The first paragraph of the lead is now engaging and introductory, which is how it is supposed to be. I will strike my oppose but will refrain from supporting for now. I'll try to read the rest of the article by tomorrow. Auree★ 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: "S&M" became Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the Hot 100 chart, and Spears' fifth. -> "Spears'" should be "Spears's". Till I Go Home (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There isn't an accepted rule that governs the possessive of singular nouns that end in s. It depends on how the word is pronounced; do we want to hear "Spears" or "Spearseez"? I prefer the former based on euphony. Graham Colm (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that, just checked other FAs and a second 's' is not imposed. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I know, and see here about euphony . Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Jivesh
Prose that seem awkward
An uptempo dance-pop and eurodance song that samples the synthesizer line from Depeche Mode's 1984 hit "Master and Servant", the song's instrumentation comprises synthesizers, bass beats, a keyboard and guitars.
American singer and songwriter Ester Dean received additional writing credits.
Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)", which was produced by Stargate. - I think you can let the reader know that both songs were produced by Stargate? Did the critics mention this while comparing both songs? If no remove , which was produced by Stargate
Rihanna's vocal range spans one octave from B3 to B4 on the song - You can let readers know that those two are musical notes.
Dean, who served as co-writer, also provided backing vocals. - What makes that a necessary mention for the second time?
was criticized by Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine as a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." - What is this piece of criticism doing in composition?
the singer ... the song's protagonist - make a choice, I think it is necessary. Anyway, I don't think Rihanna ios playing a protagonist here because she overtly talked about her (dirty) fantasies to a magazine.
An official remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on January 17, 2011. - Did Rihanna confirm it was official? Or her label? Released? Where? I don't think it was available for paid download.
contemporary hit radio and rhythmic radio station - Will you use station for all or not use it at all?
Jake Conway of Q wrote that its lyrics showed that "Rihanna proves why she remains one of the most provocative artists in pop music," and "turns the tables on abusive ex-lover Chris Brown."
Nick Levine of Digital Spy gave the song four out of five stars- Care to mention it is in fact a rating
Meg Sullivan of The Music Magazine gave a mixed review, noting that it is a "catchy" song, but does not make an impression or provide memorability, writing that the hook "Na, na, na, c'mon" is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write." Sullivan continued to write that the lyrics were purposely written to shock and offend, but noted "In all honesty, these days I'd be more shocked if her next single WASN'T [sic] about her sexual desires."- Allow me to say that this is very verbose prose and it is very bad when read aloud.
Chris Ryan of MTV described the song as being about "Dirty, naughty, illicit bedroom activities". - I think it should be a small "[d]..."
James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the appeal Rated R's "chart-friendly moments" had. Skinner criticized the use of overtly suggestive lyrics that he said were not synonymous with the flirtatious appeal that Rihanna was trying to create. With regard to Rihanna's vocals, Skinner described her delivery of the line as "forced", criticizing her for not projecting a "daring" or convincing sound.- Here you said too much in per unit line and you are again using a very verbose prose.
USA Today's Steve Jones noted that Rihanna "never retreats from that sexually aggressive tone as she shakes off the dark cloud of domestic violence that veiled 2009's Rated R", and added that "Loud's pulsating opener, S&M, makes it clear from the jump where [Rihanna's] headed as she acknowledges that 'chains and whips excite me'." - Won't this fit better next to Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine, and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun Times...
My general comment on critical reception is that the prose is overly verbose at times and it could have been organized better. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
denoting sales of over 15,000 copies - certifications are based on shipments
You know now that different countries are based on sales or shipments. Aaron • YouDaOne
The song has since been certified gold in Belgium, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies, Denmark, and Sweden, and platinum in Switzerland, denoting sales of over 15,000 copies.[57 - The shipments for the others are the same?
was officially released as a single - remove officially
The song was number one on March 13, 2011, for five non-consecutive weeks - What does this sentence even mean? :S
denoting shipments of over 280,000 copies of the single - shipment should be used (singular) + of the single is repetitive next to copies. No need to say that.
In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, "S&M" sold 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100 - This sentence is very confusing. Make it clear that downloads came both form the album version and the remix.
"S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one song on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, and made Rihanna the artist with the most number one songs in the chart's nineteen-year history
denoting shipments of over two million copies - I hope you know what has to be corrected
"S&M" ranked at number 15 on Billboard magazine's best-selling top 50 Pop Songs and number two on the top 50 best-selling Dance/Clubs Songs of 2011. - WP:OR... in the US, year-end charts are not sole based on sales. So, you should not write "best-selling"
Not OR. There is a source there.
It is still OR. I just told you those two charts (in fact any year-end chart in the US) are not based on sales only. So don't write best-selling. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The music video for "S&M" was filmed in Los Angeles during the weekend of January 15, 2011. It was directed by Melina Matsoukas, the director of the music videos for "Hard", "Rude Boy" and "Rockstar 101". - Can easily be one sentence if you remove all the unnecessary details.
When I go out to make something, I kind of go out with the intention to get it banned – [well] not to get it banned, I always want my stuff played – but to make something provocative ... so when you do something that's provocative, that's usually a repercussion. It's gonna be talked about or banned or slandered in some way. But it's making an effect and people are having a dialogue about it, so, to me, that's successful - So this is supposed to be a block-quote? However, my eyes don't see it as a block-quote. Either you move those pictures (which, in my opinion, are unneeded) or you paraphrase the quote as the reception is already made of quotes and quotes.
at the 2011 BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011
2011 and 2011 again? It's very bad. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote its release as a single' - since when do we promote the release of a song? Did you mean simply "Although Rihanna had planned to perform the entire song to promote it"?
Rihanna performed "S&M" on May 27, 2011, on NBC's Today show's "Summer Concert Series", along with "Only Girl (In the World)", "What's My Name?" and "California King Bed", where she gave an interview about the album, and about her controversial performance at the Billboard Music Awards with Spears.
How? It's only linked once in the entire article. Aaron • YouDaOne
It has been linked twice. In Composition and live performances. And again, i won't write something false. I did not say where simply because you have written the article and you should be knowing where. Added to this, this is an FA review. Comments should be brief. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Some final comments (Prose that still looks sloppy);
Although Rihanna had planned to perform "S&M" in its entirety to promote its release as a single, she only sang the chorus and one verse, inserted between "Only Girl (In The World)" and "What's My Name?".
I see some repetitive use of Rihanna
She changed the performance - Is this the best way of saying this? Change would be like she did not even perform "S&M"
The main concern I have is the correct use of English. Since Rihanna is Barbadian, and Barbados is part of the Commonwealth, shouldn't this article be written in Barbadian English? Words like "conceptualized", "color", "criticized", etc. shouldn't be written in British English? The same concern with the dates. Tbhotch.™ 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that the word "Barbadian" only appears once in the entire article, that she resides in the US, that the song was produced in the US and that both the article and the single are highly US-centralized, I think American English is most applicable here. I think the lyrics of her songs are also written in AmE in her album booklets, though I'm not too sure about this last point. Auree★★ 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask to the respective MOS, considering that she is not Barbadian-American the article should have British English, in my view. Tbhotch.™ 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WT:MOS the American English should be WP:RETAINED, unless there is a consesus at S&M talkpage or WP:RIHANNA to use British English. Tbhotch.™ 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Leaning to support. Considering that this article has been reviewed multiple times, if there are no problems with references, images or spot-checks, it'll have my support. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at images and sources above. Spotchecks haven't been done though. (hint to anyone interested in doing so) —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Leaning to Oppose
Three block quotes for an article of this size is a bit excessive. The Britney Spears one I see as the most unnecessary and it adds little to nothing to the article.
... and the one that was removed is now a normal (but rather long) quotation. Paraphrase it, trim it or don't use the quotation at all. Second, I personally do not see the value in the Britney Spears block quote. "She really liked the song to begin with, but it was a different story when she had to sing it, and she really wanted to be a part of it." is the only part of the quote that adds something to the article. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Critical reception is excessively using quotations. I understand this is a place where there will be more quotations from the rest of the article, but this is too much.
"Chris Ryan of MTV Buzzworthy compared "S&M" to the production of Loud's lead single "Only Girl (In the World)"" - what aspects of these songs exactly are similar? This sentence is open to interpretation.
That's it. He just compared it their production. Aaron • YouDaOne
I just happened to notice that the source does not compare the two singles, but only says that Stargate put their signature sound on both songs. The source also says something about the "steady-rocking dance track, with ominous, snarling keyboard sounds." You could integrate that into the section too. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Nothing was done to address this concern. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An idea to get you started. "X compared the song to Y" is not enough. It's vague and leaves readers hanging. The statement isn't even supported by the source. Did you read my "suggestion"? Please fix this, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 22:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between a direct comparison between two singles and saying that a producer produced both songs. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see what was wrong with it, because it was the lead single, but I changed it anyway. Aaron • YouDaOne 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that it was a lead single does not matter. It still was not a comparison. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"Stargate, who have also put their signature sound on previous singles from Rihanna's Loud album, like "Only Girl (In The World)," He is all but explicitly comparing it. Aaron • YouDaOne 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
No the writer is not. He's only saying Stargate produced "Only Girl (In the World)" as well. That is not a direct comparison. They've put their signature sound in about fifty other songs. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"is a case of "I had nothing else decent to write."" - that's somewhat unprofessional writing
"The resolution of the lawsuit was announced on October 19, 2011, as Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." - can be tightened to "On October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money."
You've repeated the phrase in the body, but the citation you paired with it doesn't support the idea at all. Two Hearted River(paddle / fish) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"'S&M' received divided opinions..." – Something's weird about a song's receiving an opinion. Songs can receive reviews or praise or scorn, but I'm not sure about opinions. Maybe because opinions remain with you but reviews/praise/scorn transfer...?
"...some criticized the song's overtly sexual lyrics, while others called it one of the best tracks from Loud." – The second part does not necessarily contrast the first. It's not even meaningful on its own, as Loud could be the worst album of all time for all I know.
"The song was number one on the singles charts in Australia, Canada, and Poland, attaining top-five positions in Germany, France, Ireland and Spain." – This construction suggests that reaching number one in A/C/P is how a song attains a top-five position in G/F/I/S. Or maybe the other way around...
"...but photographer David LaChapelle filed a lawsuit and alleged that it incorporates ideas..." – Based on the construction, "it" refers either to "the use of vibrant colors and Rihanna's sensuality". I suspect you actually mean the video generally, so state that.
Well it's obvious considering the previous sentence talks about the video, and the first part of the sentence talks about critics opinions. Aaron • YouDaOne
Indeed it's obvious, but you're here because you believe the prose is excellent and not merely sufficient to get the point across, right? Two Hearted River(paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So you agree it's obvious? What's your point then? Aaron • YouDaOne
How can a lawsuit be likened to sampling? Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This argument is very easy to comprehend. He is arguing that why should a singer be able to copy things for their music videos when they have to get permission to use another singer's song. Aaron • YouDaOne
It might be easy to understand, but it's poor prose. You have to replace it in the sentence (a pronoun, which refers to lawsuit) with whatever it actually refers to. Graham Colm (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Redundancy, exactly. Why should reviewers bother with a nomination that's already failed when minimal changes have occurred in the interim? Two Hearted River(paddle / fish) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it can't be that bad, I have 3 supports, so. Aaron • YouDaOne 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of redundant commas from the article and have also made the non-usage of the serial comma consistent; however, I came across this, which is exceedingly cumbersome: "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads, due to the release of the remix featuring Britney Spears, and replaced Katy Perry's "E.T." on the Billboard Hot 100, becoming Rihanna's tenth US number-one single on the chart." as well as this "The end of the video flashes between scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna suggestively eating bananas, strawberries and cream, and bejeweled ice cream." Please revise. Auree★★ 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: Overall, I was disappointed in this song, I didn't like it as much as some of her other stuff. But as to the article itself:
Writing and theme and Composition and lyrical interpretation look fine to me, no comments there.
"Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson." Maybe note why he mentions her specifically here? i.e. does she have a history with this kind of theme?
I made some copyedits, hopefully they are inoffensive. I'm really impressed that you are trying for a sixth time with this, I'll try to go over the rest of the article when I have more energy. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have done your comments. I think the linking of cinemax in this circumstance is fine, because I don't think it's a commonly known thing. I wouldn't have known what it was otherwise. Thanks for your c/e's. Aaron • YouDaOne 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, one more thing, it looks like you might have left out a word here: "Jake Conway of Q wrote that the lyrics of displays why the singer continues to be one of the most provocative recording artists in the music industry". Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really satisfied with the way you present whole Janet Jackson bit: you have "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that would catch the attention of Janet Jackson, due to the singer's tendency to perform S&M style performances." Cinquenmani says: "After comparing last year's Rated R to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope, Eric Henderson ended his review of the album by expressing hopes that Rihanna wouldn't follow up with something like All for You. At first glance, it appears that his fears were justified: Like Janet's last hit album, Loud is a decided step away from its über-personal, melodrama-drenched predecessor... That's not to say there aren't traces of the R-rated Rihanna here. The album opens with an ode to S&M that would make various parts of Janet's body perk up." I'd suggest something like "Cinquenmani described "S&M" as an ode to sadomasochism that compares to Janet Jackson's The Velvet Rope".
I'm not sure you represent the Daily News piece accurately here: "Lindsay Goldwert of the Daily News suggested that Rihanna's comments on the types of sexual activity that she enjoys may be part of a healing process, after she was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown in February 2009." The article never explicitly mentions healing from abuse by Chris Brown, it quotes a couple therapists who say that submissive roles can be part of a healing process of childhood abuse or a way for powerful people to get relief from responsibility. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think that was probably a good idea, it wasn't really about the song per se. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion about flow: you start the Writing and theme with statements that a. Rihanna made indicating that she like S&M sexual activity in real life, b. then talk about a co-writer, c. then a statement by Rihanna that the lyrics are metaphorical--rather than about actual S&M sexual activity, d. then mention another co-writer. I'd move c. right after a., maybe add a "however" or something to note the contrast. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, but then the lyrics are being spoken about before we find out who wrote them? Surely it's best to keep it as who wrote them first and then what they are about. Aaron • YouDaOne 17:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're saying here, but is there a way to keep Rihanna's comments and the lists of co-writers together? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine as it is to be honest. Aaron • YouDaOne 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple more prose comments:
"various explicit acts with the singer with a feather boa and a top with the word "censored" across it are displayed." Maybe rephrase to avoid the "with... with" here.
Was thinking of ways to rephrase but this one works the best. Aaron • YouDaOne
"The end of the video intercuts scenes from throughout the video and new scenes of Rihanna..." Is there a good way to avoid saying "video" and "scenes" twice here?
"Rihanna responded to the news via Twitter, writing, "They watched 'Umbrella' ... I was full nude"." Could this be clarified a bit? A link to Umbrella (song) might be helpful too (though hopefully not within the quote". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think I'll have time to finish my review of this article, but at the request of Calvin/Aaron I'll post my thoughts. I'm not inclined to support at this point as some of my concerns about MOS/Prose are unresolved and one of the references I looked at didn't support the claim found in the article. I still think this nomination could succeed if thoroughly spot-checked and if an experienced prose reviewer were to review the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks found some issues:
"she does not think of the song in a sexual way" vs "I don't think of it in a sexual way"
"Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history" vs "Rihanna logs the shortest span between a solo artist's first and 10th No. 1s in the chart's 52-year history"
Which now reads, "Rihanna set a recorded for the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the history of the Hot 100" - it's still too close to the source, and what does "set a recorded" mean? Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops typo. Well, that was what happened. Aaron • YouDaOne 17:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The wording is too close for inclusion in a FA, see here where it says "...cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language". Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how I am supposed to re-word this case. It wouldn't really sense any other way as there is only one way to say that she logged the shorted span. It's not even identical, it is different. Aaron • YouDaOne 17:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Try something like "With only four years, eleven months and two weeks between her first and tenth number one on the chart, Rhianna set a record for a solo artist." Graham Colm (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I've used that. Thanks. Aaron • YouDaOne 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Can't find "The video's production was influenced by Rihanna's love of pop art" in the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Featured Articles represent our best work – but this one does not. I have followed this and previous nominations closely and reviewers are constantly highlighting problems. It's turning into a peer review of gigantic proportions. In this nomination further problems with the prose, which is a persistent problem, have been raised. And, we now have concerns over close paraphrasing, following a spot check. I think part of the problem is the nominator's unconsidered, quick (too quick), responses to comments, which are generic problems. I see dismissive comments like, "there is only one way to say that she logged the shorted span". Wrong, there are many ways to write things – English is a rich language. Looking once more at the article today – and to be blunt, I am tired of reading it – I immediately saw another error; "The single was released on iTunes Stores throughout Europe on February 11, 2011. and South America." And colloquial phrases such as "uploaded online" still occur. I would be embarrassed to see this one the Main Page as a representation of our best work. The constant and numerous fixes here and there are not working and often introduce new problems. As I said many moths ago, the nominator needs to find collaborators; writing a Featured Article is not easy and there is no shame in admitting that help from other, more experienced, editors is needed. I expect the response to this comment will be an edit or two to address the two examples I have given – but this will not be enough; better contributions than this have failed to meet the criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Close it then. Don't bother keeping it open. Clearly 3 supports means nothing. Aaron • YouDaOne 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Three supports matter, but three opposes indicate ongoing concerns that need to be addressed away from the current review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, clearly doesn't. And a comment like that Graham is hardly uplifting or motivational. Thanks for basically undermining all the work I've put into it over the last 8/9 months. Aaron • YouDaOne 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.