Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Speechless (Michael Jackson song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [1].

Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

[edit]

Speechless (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. "Speechless" is probably one of Michael Jackson's least-known songs post-Motown, and is a Marmite-type track that people either like or loathe. I look forward to any comments or suggestions. Pyrrhus16 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images and sources (3, 1c):
    • File:Speechless.ogg. I feel you need a stronger tie-in with prose to justify this clip. There isn't that much specific critical commentary about elements in the clip, and the composition notes are straightforward enough that I don't really see why we need the audio to go with it (okay, I got it, that's the chorus.)
    • What makes MusicNotes.com reliable? I'm concerned about using it as a source since at best they did an arrangement of the piece, and so it may not hold true for the actual song. Another iffy source is The Daily Collegian. I can't necessarily argue with Omnibus Press' record, but the fact that there are two bios of Jackson released the year he died does not exactly assure me of rigorous editorial policies and fact-checking contained in the volumes (if you've ever been in the publishing industry you would know how fishy that seems). If possible I would try and find other sources for the two statements that those books use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Musicnotes.com was deemed reliable at the reliable sources noticeboard, where it was said that information regarding a song's composition can be sourced to them as long as they are attributed in the prose of the article. I've removed the Daily Collegian source, as there are plently of other sources for the critical reception section. The 2009 Grant book is just an updated version of the past edition of the book. It just has an updated foreword and ending, to reflect Jackson's death; the information regarding "Speechless" and Invincible has not been changed. I've removed the other 2009 book, as it just backed up what the Grant book said. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many good thing here but the lead could be tightened a bit. The song is a ballad and this could be established in the first sentence: "Speechless" is a ballad written by Michael Jackson following a water balloon fight with youngsters in Germany, and is included on his tenth studio album, Invincible (2001)." It isn't necessary to define Jackson as an "American recording artist" because he's known worldwide as such and his name is linked for further information. Further along I think this might be more effective: "Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to "Speechless" following a pre-release preview. The ballad was released as a promotional single, and received mixed reviews focused upon lyrics, composition, and Jackson's a capellas." 'A capella' (in the chapel) is correct for musicians worldwide and should be retained regardless of a variant spelling in a source. In the "Composition" section: "The sheet music states that the song was composed in a B♭ major key..." can be reduced to "The song is composed in B♭." "Is" rather than "was". The capital B in B♭ indicates a major key so "a B♭ major key" is redundant. The discussion of lyrics in the section should be a separate paragraph, and could precede the discussion of the musical composition because lyrics are generally written before being set to music. SoniaSyle (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. The lead of the article is based off of several recent FA song articles, and it is standard to introduce the topic as ""[Such-and-Such]" is a song by [Nationality] recording artist [Person]". The first sentence that you proposed is good, but a bit of mouthful and perhaps too much information to give readers in the opening line. My other concern for this article is not making the lead too short; it is currently around the recommended length for an article of this size. "Bam Thwok" is a slightly shorter but comparative song article of FA status. In regard to your other comments, I've re-arranged the composition/lyrics section as you suggested, changed the spelling to "a cappella" to match Wikipedia's article on it, switched "was" to "is", and removed the redundant "major key". I've not shortened "The sheet music states that the song was composed..." part, per my comment above to David Fuchs; it has to be made clear in the prose that the sheet music is being attributed for information regarding the composition of a song. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
  • Clarify – If the song was later released as a promotional single, then why the infobox still refers it to an album-track?
Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second section "Lyrics and composition" – The word composition entails to both music structure as well as lyrics hence having that as the second word is repeatition. Either change it to Music and lyrics else leave just Composition.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. with the magazine Vibe" —> can be just written as Vibe magazine.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson's first solo studio album since his 1995 HIStory" — seems redundant.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally wikilinks are not placed in quotes, but a capella needs a link somewhere. Might not be recognizable to somebody without much knowledge in music.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The symbol ♭ – use the {{music}} template wherever you are using the sign so that readers for whom the music fonts are not loaded, will be able to still see the notations.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracklisting – You can have the numerics for the tracklisting and the bulleting for the heading as all the songs normally do.
Done. Crystal Clear x3 08:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are my two cents on teh article. Overall, it looks good. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks yo Crystal for the quick fixing of the concerns I posted above. Looks ready to pass. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and for supporting the article for FAC. Crystal Clear x3 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you both. Pyrrhus16 11:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but in "post-production and release section" it says: "A remixed version of "You Rock My World" featuring rapper Jay-Z served as the single's B-side"-> Could be in this way: "A remixed version of "You Rock My World", featuring rapper Jay-Z, served as the single's B-side" and also I don't see that the song is in the infobox. TbhotchTalk C. 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting the article for FAC. I've corrected the sentence that mentions the single's b-side, but I'm not sure what you mean about the song not being in the infobox, could you clarify? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to "You Rock My World (remix)" should be in the main infobox in the | B-side = section. TbhotchTalk C. 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, I've added mention of the b-side into the song's infobox. Crystal Clear x3 02:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks like editor as resolved all issued raised.. Only suggestion is to move Portal for ref section to perhaps Tack list or above template at bottom ..it affects the reflist for those who use firefox....Moxy (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, I've moved the MJ portal tag into the 'See also' section. Crystal Clear x3 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still a bit uncomfortable with the prose. I think "the track came to fruition when Jackson was inspired etc." a bit stiff-sounding. Is 'track' synonymous with 'song' or 'ballad'? I don't think so. The sentence could be reworked: "The song is a ballad and was composed in its entirety after Jackson enjoyed a water balloon fight with youngsters in Germany. It realized its final form in studio collaboration with musicians Jeremy Lubbock, Brad Buxer, etc." I'd prefer to see the "Composition" section re-titled "Lyrics and music" because this section doesn't really discuss the actual composition of the song. Delete the "a" before "B♭". I'm very uncomfortable with the word "aphasic". The link tells me this is a disorder caused by lesions on the brain not love. "Aphasic" is not a synonym for feeling at a loss for words when in the presence of one's beloved. Use "wordless" or "at a loss for words" instead: "The lyrics to "Speechless" are about being rendered at a loss for words by the power of love."
The "Writing and recording" section could br reworked. A third paragraph could begin at: "Speechless" was digitally edited by" for the technical aspects of production.
This paragraph could be reworked: "Jeremy Lubbock worked with the musician in arranging and conducting an orchestra..." When I read "Arranging and conducting" I thought this meant Lubbock arranged the chairs for the orchestra. "Arranging the song for orchestra" is what is intended I believe. Clarify. In listing members of an orchestra, the strings are listed first, with the violinists leading the parade, then violists, cellists, and finally bassists. Strings are followed by winds, brass, and finally percussion (including piano, or other keyboards). I've rewritten the "Writing and recording" section (though I don't insist it be accepted) but I think this reworking clarifies some bits and pieces here and there and is closer to what I would like to see in this section:
Michael Jackson wrote "Speechless" after having a water balloon fight with children in Germany. In an interview with Vibe magazine, the musician commented, "I was so happy after the fight that I ran upstairs in their house and wrote 'Speechless'. Fun inspires me. I hate to say that, because it's such a romantic song." He added, "But it was the fight that did it. I was happy, and I wrote it in it's entirety right there. I felt it would be good enough for the album. Out of the bliss comes magic, wonderment, and creativity."
Jeremy Lubbock arranged the song for orchestra in collaboration with Jackson and conducted the studio ensemble. Strings comprised Peter Kent, Gina Kronstadt, Robin Lorentz, Kirstin Fife and John Wittenberg on violins, and Novi Novoq and Thomas Tally on violas. Brad Buxer supplied keyboards with gospel singer Andrae Crouch and The Andrae Crouch Singers providing backing vocals.
"Speechless" was digitally edited by Buxer and Stuart Brawley, and was mixed by Bruce Swedien, who later said, "Everything with Michael is a stand-out moment but an absolutely gorgeous piece of music called 'Speechless' was really an event. Michael sings the first eight bars a cappella. At the end, he closes it off a cappella – it was Michael's idea to add the a cappella parts."
This sentence from the section: ""Speechless" was the only song from Invincible written solely by the entertainer" could easily be moved to the "Lyrics and music" section to expand it. Use "with words and music" instead of "written": "Speechless" was the only song from Invincible with words and music solely by the entertainer." SoniaSyle (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've changed "aphasic" to "at a loss for words", removed the "a" before "B♭", and changed "track" to "song". I agree that the article could be reworked (just like any article could), but I don't feel it needs to be reworked, so that's all I've done. I think it's pretty obvious what arranging an orchestra involves, but if not, then apologies, because that's all the source says. It doesn't elaborate and I don't want to get into OR territory. In regard to changing 'composition' to 'lyrics and music', I'm not entirely fussed (that's what I had it as before), but Legolas said above that "The word composition entails to both music structure as well as lyrics." So, I'll leave that as it is for now, unless an independent editor chimes in. I personally feel that your suggestion of "'Speechless' was the only song from Invincible with words and music solely by the entertainer", is less clear than what is in the article. It is also not backed up by what the source says. In regard to moving that piece of information, I feel that it is most relevant to the writing and recording section. Pyrrhus16 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I believe some aspects of this article need to be reworked and I've made suggestions. The prose could be reworked for flow and clarity. "Arranged" (I think) means Jackson's song was "arranged for orchestra" which is not entirely clear as the material now stands: "Jeremy Lubbock worked with the musician in arranging and conducting an orchestra." It could also mean "gathered together" as in "Lubbock gathered together and conducted the orchestra." Did Jackson also conduct the orchestra? I'm not certain what this sentence is trying to say. As I mentioned, the musicians should be listed in a certain order. Violinists first, followed by violists, cellists, and bass players. Winds and brass next and percussion (keyboards) last of all. This is traditional. I don't see that in applying this suggestion anything is lost and I'm wondering why the nominator cannot cooperate. I'm glad to see the nominator has reworked some of the material but I've made some good points for improving the article which the nominator chooses to fight. I sense the article was written by someone unfamiliar with musical terminology, writing about music, etc. and I think that person needs to take some advice from those who are familiar with such. The nominator's resistance is inexplicable. I cannot in good conscience support a promotion to FA level because I think the article needs to be reworked for flow and clarity. SoniaSyle (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not elaborate as to what "arranged" means. I cannot expand on it if it's not in the source. Also, there is no rule anywhere that says that instrumentalists have to be ordered in such-and-such a way, and there is nothing wrong with the order that is used in the article. "I don't see that in applying this suggestion anything is lost." I don't see that in not applying this suggestion anything is lost. Your "my way or no way" attitude is becoming tiring now. Pyrrhus16 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegate - SoniaSyle (talk · contribs) recently reported me to ANI, claiming I was showing "ownership issues" over an article she wanted to push an anti-Jackson point of view on. She reported me because I didn't allow her to push her agenda and because I didn't cater to her every suggestion. SoniaSyle ended up being the individual who was blocked after going to ANI; for disruption and edit-warring. After the block had expired, she attempted to review an article I had worked on that another editor (kindly, but without my knowledge) had nominated at GAN on my behalf. I withdrew the nomination, mainly because I thought the article was not quite ready, but also because I felt that SoniaSyle would hold the review hostage until the article was hacked to pieces and reworded unnecessarily to the way she wanted it. And now, SoniaSyle turns up here, opposing this article in what I view as a spiteful act of disruption and wikihounding. Pyrrhus16 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing a clear conflict of interest here because of past dealings with each other (if this is the case). I believe multiple third parties should look at the article from the beginning and not take into account what was said here. Both of you know what is needed for an FA article this is not the first you too have been involved in. SoniaSyle comments seem valid (in around about way), but this could just be a difference in grammar used by each other...because both of you have a "style to your writing" that seem to be in-conflict (meaning one likes things said one way and the other another way - yet they mean the same thing). What SoniaSyle has pointed out i see as just rewording not adding any real content, however meaning and interpretation is important. I was not confused when reading it, but like i said before lets just wait for a few more experienced editors to read it over and comment.Moxy (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated advice, Moxy. I have welcomed several of the suggestions posted by SoniaSyle, but I'm not happy about a) an editor wanting me to reword parts of an article to say things that are not backed up by the citations, b) opposing because it is not the way they would have written it, and c) opposing the FAC of an article when they have an apparent conflict of interest. Pyrrhus16 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truly think the prose in this article is awkward in places, is somewhat muddy, and needs to be clarified. This is why I oppose the article's promotion. Here is an example: "Sony Music Entertainment executives were given a pre-release preview of "Speechless" and responded positively to the ballad." More concise and encyclopedic in style: "Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to a pre-release preview of the ballad." Somewhat muddy: "Their comments focused on the a cappellas featured on the track, as well as the song's lyrics and composition." I'm not sure "composition" is the right word here. It is not necessarily a synonym for "music". I think "music" is clearer: "Their comments targeted Jackson's a capellas, his lyrics, and the music." I still think this is not the best but I'm trying to stay close to the original. There are other instances of lack of clarity in the article that I feel need reworking and this is why I oppose promotion. Before I forget: "Linear ..." at 5 in the Notes at page end probably should read "Liner ...". SoniaSyle (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the "liner" typo, the sentence pertaining to the executives responses to the song, and replaced the word "composition" with "music". If you could, can you please cite "other instances of lack in clarity", I'd be more than happy to correct every little problem with the article so that you could strike your oppose. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 02:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sony Music Entertainment executives responded positively to a pre-release preview of the ballad", doesn't make entirely clear that they were the only ones given the preview. As I have said to you before, there is no prize for writing an article in the least amount of words possible. If a few extra words have to be used for clarity, then that is what's done. I'm not fussed about changing "composition" to "music", so have done that. I don't like the word "targeted", as it suggests to me that all of the reviewers were negatively attacking the song, which is not the case. Also, I don't see a problem with the phrase in the article. Your comments seem to be based on preference rather than serious prose issues. I'm not too keen on rewording the entire article to suit a single editor who I have had conflict with in the past few days. So, I'd like to wait for independent commentators before making further changes to the prose. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this offer very, very gracious, Crystal Clear. It's late now and I'm tired. (I had a busy day gardening and walking and bathing a neighbor's dog! Whew!) I will get busy with this first thing in the morning! Thanks! SoniaSyle (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article meets FA criteria. For me, it already belongs to FA category. Speaking about the content, there is nothing more to be written or added. Speechless is one of the less known MJ's songs ,it is impressive how did the contributors find so many material about it. Gramatically, I would change in the introduction where it says: Jackson collaborated with musicians including... , instead of including, I would put such as. Also, in section Live performances, I would say like Crystal did in Butterflies article, that Michael Jackson didn't performed the song on his 30th solo anniversary nor later. But he had rehearsed it... The rest is great: infobox is perfect, the introduction, the references... everything. Well done!--MajklDzekson (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bleh, everyone else already stole all of the correction comments. :P Aren't you glad now, Pyrrhus, that I argued so much in the AfD to keep the article? One thing I would like to ask is, is it necessary to have a cappella linked both in the lead and then again in the Composition section? I'm not sure if there's some sort of rule for that or not, since I don't think the article is like some others, where they are long enough that it is right to wikilink some important parts again further down. This article isn't like that, so is it really necessary? SilverserenC 10:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, I still don't think it's that notable. :) But, seeing as it was decided to be kept, then it may as well be turned into a good quality article. Hmm, a cappella probably doesn't need linked twice in such a short article, so I'll remove the second link. Thanks for your support. :) Pyrrhus16 11:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed the article during its GA nomination and passed it after some minor improvements. Its even better now thanks to the improvements made during FAC so I'm happy to offer my support. One thing I would personally like to see is some sort of link added to "... and sung in a vocal range from F4 to D♭5", either to Scientific pitch notation or Vocal range. I'm a musician but the only reason I know what "F4 to D♭5" means is because a similar issue came up in another article I reviewed and I did a bit of research. Cavie78 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it's entirely fair to dismiss all of SoniaSyle's objections in the way that they apparently have been. Although I'm indifferent to any supposed rule about ordering musicians by the instruments they play, she does make a good point about the prose, which is certainly still awkward in places. A few examples:
  • I agree that SoniaSyle often makes good points, but sometimes criticism is more welcomed when it's from someone that wasn't calling for you to be blocked a few days ago. Lol. :) Anyway, thanks for your comments. I've responded below.
Lead
  • "Sony Music Entertainment executives were given an exclusive preview of "Speechless" before its release, and responded positively to the ballad. It was later released as a promotional single ...". Why "later"? It could hardly have been released sooner. The repetition of "release" is slightly jarring as well.
  • I've removed the "later" and changed the second "release" to "issued".
Composition
  • "The lyrics to 'Speechless' are about being rendered at a loss for words by the power of love." This doesn't really make sense. I've never seen the phrase "rendered at" before; what does it mean. Also, this text is very similar to that in the box just to the right. There's no need to say the same thing twice.
  • I've changed to "The lyrics to 'Speechless' are about becoming lost for words due to love." Is this better? I've also changed the words in the box to "The lyrics to the song are about being in love."
Critical reception
  • This is the section I'm least happy with. I guess the temptation here, because the article would otherwise be so short, is to include every single review ever published, but the effect just reads like a list without the bullets. Is the opinion of a reviewer writing in a provincial newspaper like the Deseret News really noteworthy, for instance? Or a student newspaper like The Chronicle?
  • You're right, it is tempting to cram as much information as you can in. I've removed the two opinions that you mentioned. Do you feel any further ones should be removed or anything else should be done in this section?
  • "The New York Post proclaimed that "Speechless" was "lullaby-like" ...". Proclaimed?
  • Changed to "said".
  • The word "while" is being used incorrectly in this section, as in "The Dayton Daily News' Ron Rollins described the track as a "pretty love song", while Tim Perzyk of the Duke Chronicle stated that the a cappellas of "Speechless" displayed a "disturbing vocal androgyny ...". Were they both doing so at the same time? "While" implies simultaneity.
  • Ah, I've changed "while" to "and". Does this work better?
Live performance
  • I can't make head nor tail of this section. It's exceedingly short, which makes me wonder whether a standalone section is warranted, but it starts off with an account of Jackson's death!

Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that is a short section and the temptation was to plump it slightly with the info regarding Jackson's death. I'm not sure where the best place to put that bit of information is. I've added it to the end of the "Post-production and release" section. Does it work okay there? And thanks again for your comments. Much appreciated. Pyrrhus16 13:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that after the changes you've made this is pretty much there now. I'm still unconvinced by a couple of the reviews, the final one from The Olympian, for instance, and I'd probably drop that one – circulation of 33,800 doesn't sound like a very significant newspaper to me. I'm also not sure about including the quote from Rick de Yampert of The Daytona Beach News-Journal in the Composition section. Is Rick de Yampert's opinion of especial interest? These are small points though, and overall I think you've probably done as much as can be done with this kind of promotional recording. Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding The Olympian, it's not necessarily as insignificant as its circulation makes it appear. Olympia is only a small town in Washington, but as the home of K Records and many of the acts associated with it (and of Nirvana and their associated acts) it has the same status with respect to the US indie music scene that Manchester has to its European counterpart, or Detroit to soul. Although Jackson was a Motown act and not by any stretch a part of the indie movement, I'd expect the music critics for the local papers in Olympia to have a disproportionate influence than might be expected from their circulation figures. – iridescent 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I know that the US doesn't have the same national newspaper coverage that we do anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Pyrrhus16 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not too fussed about any remaining prose anomalies; the article is short enough that anything that's brought up should be resolvable in a matter of minutes. It's on the content side that I think the article falls down. There are too many gaps—and attempts to paper over them. The release section tells us nothing useful save that that song was released in 2001. When in 2001? In which countries? How did it chart in the US and worldwide? How many copies did it sell? Was there a music video? Instead, the section is given over to praise from executives from Jackson's record label. That they were given an "exclusive preview" before the album's launch I would think is a given. Similarly, that they would praise it to high heaven is a dead certainty. They wouldn't diss a song or an album on which many of their jobs depended, so their praise is meaningless. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into fleshing the article out, but I don't think it's been entirely successful. All the best, Steve T • C 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't released as a regular single. It is a promotional recording, so it would only have been issued to a handful of radio stations and journalists. Promotional singles are not available to the general public to buy, so "Speechless" wouldn't have charted or sold any copies. Music videos are mainly used to promote a regular single, that is probably why "Speechless" didn't have one. It is also why the song is not that well-known. Regular singles promoted with music videos are better known than album tracks, which "Speechles" basically is. Pyrrhus16 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to call me a tool, or the equivalent in your culture of origin. :-) I should have followed the link. I assumed the term was synonymous with that for a regular single (which is a promotional item for an album, usually, leading to my confusion). I've struck my oppose, but the comments about the executives still stand. Oh, and sorry. :) Best, Steve T • C 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I'm not concerned with things like the order in which musicians are listed, and the prose issues have been resolved. I do agree that the "Critical reception" section is large, but can't see an obvious way to trim it, given that I assume the intention is to show that reviewers generally had strong feelings for or against it. Has anyone released any cover versions (other than this abomination)? I realise that a full legacy section for a song even most fans of Jackson's haven't heard of is probably not possible, but ending on "Critical reception" seems a bit abrupt. – iridescent 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, Ghost are the only artists to have covered "Speechless" and I don't even think they are that notable. The song isn't that well-known and it isn't an influential track either. When the promotional single factor is taken away, "Speechless" is just an album track from Jackson's lowest-selling studio album since the Motown era. It doesn't really have a legacy in the same that "Billie Jean" or "We Are the World" has. Pyrrhus16 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK: can "documentary–concert" have a hyphen, please, not an en dash? Tony (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 13:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Speechless_(Michael_Jackson_song)/archive1&oldid=1257290383"