Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive2

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)
  • Please note that this user is no longer actively contributing to WP, so he is unable to reassess his oppose vote. The editors however, have addressed (or have attempted to address) the objection. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't want to reassess my vote. I stand by my oppose vote. Please don't put words in my mouth.--Bcrowell
    • I have no intention of reassessing my vote, because the minor improvements have not been enough. I have already responded to this comment by saying that I'm still following this discussion, but someone deleted my comment. The fact that such a lousy article could be considered seriously for FA was one of the things that made me decide to quit WP and intentionally mung my password. Since orane feels the need to shout by boldfacing his/her comment, I've done the same in my reply. Note, however, that I would not sink so low as to delete orane's comment, as was done to my comment. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe me when I say that I'm really bcrowell, in which case it was sneaky and dishonest to delete my comment; or I'm you don't, in which case you can feel free to count this as an additional vote to oppose.--Bcrowell
    • Eternal equinox has deleted the above comment. This is the second time it has been deleted. Eternal equinox's comment on the second deletion was "Removed possible vandalism; if Bcrowell would like to make comments, he should do so from his own account." But of course the content of the comment makes it clear that I cannot make comments from my own account, because I've intentionally disabled my account. Also as explained in the comment, the supporters of this article can't have it both ways: either I'm who I claim to be, in which case it's dishonest and despicable to delete my comments, or I'm not who I claim to be, in which case this should be counted as a second vote against the article.--Bcrowell
    • Let me intervene (sorry EE). I have done some copyediting, and have replaced "phase" with the correct musical term — "section". I've also mentioned the key the song was in etc. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:58, 9 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)
      • I do—it informs the reader, which is the purpose of this whole project. You have a Britannica-based conception of an encyclopedia: a collection of tidy summaries fitted onto the printed page—well, it's worth remembering that if we were doing things Britannica-style we wouldn't even have an article on this song—or on Mariah Carey herself, since from that viewpoint, the elitist viewpoint, all of it's just trivia, mindless diversions for the "ignorant masses" and such, unworthy of inclusion in a real collection of knowledge. You should think a minute about the basis of your ideas about the nature of an encyclopedia. Where does your viewpoint start, in philosophical terms, and where does it lead? Everyking 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The use of chart trajectories is a contentious point, but I think the purpose of this forum is to assess an article against established criteria. There is nothing about chart trajectories in any of the Wikipedia policy or guideline pages, nor in any of the project pages - if it does exist and I've missed it, please show me where it is. This should not be a forum where any of us push our own particular bias and bargain for a support/oppose vote. Push for the chart trajectories by all means, but do it in the correct forum so that when articles come up for nomination, the chart trajectory is part of the agreed requirement. What we should be deciding here, objectively and dispassionately, is : does the article meet the current established and agreed criteria for a featured article? Yes or no? How can a contributor work to create a featured article if it's going to be judged and condemned against unwritten criteria? That you have a vision for the future of the project is admirable, and possibly a lot of articles will need to be reviewed in time as they might no longer meet standards, but the article should be judged against the current standard, not the future standard that we haven't yet agreed upon. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The issue is comprehensiveness, of course, and that's as standard an objection as they come. I believe the chart trajectory is necessary to comprehensively cover the subject. Everyking 10:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Sure, comprehensiveness is mandatory, I agree, and in general it's a standard, valid objection. Defining "comprehensiveness" is the grey area and I guess that's the point we really don't agree on; the line between comprehensiveness and excessive detail can be very fine. Rossrs 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, on one end there's a single sentence in an article on the history of music that mentions general trends in early 21st century Western popular music, and on the other end there's a whole family of lengthy articles dealing with every aspect of "We Belong Together" in delicious detail, enough to satisfy any and all readers. My real idea of what is comprehensive is the latter. But because that's years ahead of where we're generally at right now, my comprehensiveness standard in present-day practice is way less than that: I just want the inclusion of a basic chart trajectory that we already have access to and which we already know readers want. I see things in terms of movement to one end or the other of that spectrum and try to push for a goal that keeps things going in the right direction. Everyking 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think you're wrong to push, but I don't think this is the right venue. We'll have to disagree about that. "Delicious detail" won't necessarily "satisfy any and all readers", in fact it will repel many of them. If it's true that "we already know readers want" trajectories, I can only wonder why none of those readers seem to be commenting here, only the ones that don't want it. You seem to be suggesting that you are speaking on behalf of a majority, and I think that's doubtful. In any case, your oppose and my support effectively cancel each other out ;-) and the finer points of this conversation really should be discussed elsewhere. Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm changing my vote to support because of the addition of the chart. Everyking 03:13, 9 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)
• HeyNow10029 has been asked several times to reanalyze her vote but has simply ignored both Journalist and myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The writing is not supposed to contain "chutzpah". It is supposed to qualify as "brilliant prose" so that others are able to read it very clearly. None of the images are out-of-focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be bland for people to understand it clearly. And the images are out-of-focus, I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. HeyNow10029 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree: the writing does not have to be "exciting" as it is not listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article. What images do you claim to be out of focus? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Who said anything about exciting. All the images look blurry, but specifically the first one where she's leaning against the wall. Stick by my oppose. HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Image use policy says in part "Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available" (the bold is also from the official policy page). Crystal clear, high resolution images are not to be used. The images are to be only of sufficient quality to do the job of illustrating/demonstrating points addressed in text. This part of your objection is therefore not actionable. With regards to the writing lacking "chutzpah", it would help people understand your position if you gave examples or suggested ways of improving it. Objections must be actionable, and it's up to you to make your opinions clear so that other users have the opportunity to fix what you identify as faults. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • My objections are actionable. First, fix the pictures: the pictures are blurry which has nothing to do with the resolution. The last picture was screengrabbed at a moment when she was waving her hand, which makes her hand look blurry and the picture poor. And like I commented on before, the first image where she has her back against the wall is way too blurry. Those are my biggest concerns, the writing isn't featured article-worthy but that's a secondary concern. HeyNow10029 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is stated in the licence "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." I fail to see under this statute the justification of three pictures of the same woman at the same stage in her life and career. This is pushing the spirit of the law too far. The same woman is also illustrated on the album cover featured in the lead thus negating the need for further images of her under this licence. There is also a world of difference between "low resolution" and "out of focus" as in the final image. Giano | talk 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's odd. You and HeyNow10029 are both seeing the images as out of focus. Eternal Equinox said the images are not out of focus on his monitor, and they're not on mine either. On mine they have a "low resolution" look but they are all in focus (except for Mariah's hand in the last one). Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have consistantly on this FA, and on the previous, only complained of the last picture being out of focus, I note you agree on that. The first image is just a poor reproduction, the others I query the reasonable legality of their inclusion due to their number. Giano | talk 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry, my mistake. Only HeyNow10029 said they are all out of focus. And yes, I agree the hand is out of focus. Rossrs 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I also have concerns with the images, which apparently suffer from poor resolution and compression artifacts. I'm particularly unsettled by the unexplained presence of what closely resembles an NBC Olympics logo in the bottom right corner of the Radio Music Awards photo. Zoom-in analysis seems to indicate that it is superimposed on the scene, although it may be part of the backdrop curtain. What is it doing there? What does it mean? --Tsavage 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to be removing that image; it is out of focus in a way and does present a logo of some sort in the bottom-right corner. I'll be replacing it with an image of better quality, in the least. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase quiet storm is used twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the structure section. The structure line is fine, as it is sourced to Yahoo Music summarizing it as quiet storm (among other things). The lead, however, has a supposed direct quote from a critic, ""We Belong Together" has been noted by critics for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocal delivery." that I would really love to see cited. I think it's a great article for a song! By removing the quote I feel fine about it nowStaxringold 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been cited. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • While I thank you for that, neither of the two sources you cited it with use the phrase "quiet storm ambience", or even just "quiet storm" anywhere in themselves. That still needs citing, or it shouldn't be a quote (and it would probably be POV in that case). Staxringold 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Radio Music Awards image has been replaced with a clearer, logo-less image of Carey accepting an award at the 2005 Teen Choice Awards. Hope this makes everyone happy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not shout at us in "red". You are not a teacher shouting at pupils in school are you? Giano | talk 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not shouting. Some users (not intentionally) miss out on important information and therefore, I chose to make it obvious. And no, actually, I am one of those pupils. Why do you want to know about my professors? Please respond on my talk page since this is unrelated to the FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I have no interest in your professors at all - merely a figure of speech. For some reason, I thought you were a teacher. I don't like the new picture, why is she standing next to a thing like a surf board, is that relevant? Giano | talk 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The surfboard is the award, as noted by the writing on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a funny thing to give somebody for singing a song, is there a connection that should be in the page? Giano | talk 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe so, as far as I'm aware. It is, after all, just an award, regardless if it's a statuette, moon-man or surfboard. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Eternal Equinox, that latest picture, did you screengrab it yourself? HeyNow10029 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well then you should check with whomever claims they screengrabbed it. Because the picture you uploaded with a screenshot tag is an almost exact copy of this picture: [1], which is not a screenshot but a photo released by the Reuters organization. A simple Google image search and you would have found that photo on the first page. If the picture is actually a copy of the one above, which I think it is, then Reuters would own the copyright not the network that aired the program. Furthermore, on the image's page, under summary, you credit: Copyright of the image is owned by MTV and related distributing networks. Do you have any proof that MTV owns the rights to the Teen Choice Awards. The 2005 Teen Choice Awards were aired on FOX, which is a subsidiary of News Corp., MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Two totally different groups that I'm sure wouldn't appreciate someone getting mixed up. Please address my concerns, which -considering this is up for FA status- are pressing.HeyNow10029 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it did not come from that location, but from a UK media release. You are right about the copyright, however, and I have corrected the original distributer, who is indeed Reuters. The violation notice has been removed as the appropriate licensing was appointed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hold on, not so fast. If it came from Reuters, it's obviously not a screenshot, and if it's not a screenshot you should change the screenshot licensing and fair use rationale that all refer to the image as a screenshot. And have you received permission from Reuters to use this image? If I'm correct Reuters is a subscription service that charges fees for the use of their images, I don't think Reuters licenses their images under a free license and I don't think their images are public domain. Plus, there's no link to where the image was copied from. You should really double-check all this before you upload an image on to an article. Eternal_Equinox. HeyNow10029 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • And please don't remove the tag, Eternal. It's good that you corrected the mistake you made in crediting the distrubuter, but the issue still stands as to whether or not the use of that image is a copyright violation. Until the issue is resolved the tag needs to stay on the image.HeyNow10029 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Worthy of FA status. Gflores ^Talk 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too many images, article looks cluttered. 3 copyrighted images for one single is definately stretching fair use, and the graph at the bottom is uneccesary. -AKMask 19:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a policy that dictates the number of images that are to be used? I'm simply asking because some people say its enough, then others oppose on that ground. My knowledge of the policy is that the images are acceptable if they are used sparingly and are important to the article and adds to its content— the images in the article do add significantly to the content. Again, with conflicting views: Everyking opposed until the graph was put in the article, but here another editor is opposing because of it's inclusion. Can both of you discuss it further so the editors can decide which action to take? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • At one level, it's simply a personal taste. a FA has to look good, and many feel too many images results in a cluttered page. It's a perfectly reasonable objection. On a completely different level, copyrighted images are utilized under the standard of 'fair use', which means we are legally allowed to use such images, generally in a non-perfect form (web-resolution and small in wikipedias case) just to the point of critiqueing and getting our point across. An album cover is fine. 3 fair use images for a single is pushing it too far, the points been made with one. Not a FA point, mind you, but fair use is the minimum to get the point out, not to make the point look pretty. cut the images from 3 to 2, only the cover being fair use, and dump the graph, and I'll support. -AKMask 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Considering Everyking suggested the inclusion of the chart, and changed his vote to support, I'm very reluctant on doing so. If it is removed, we still have take out another to receive your vote. That wouldn't work in favour of the FAC. The first image is supposed to indicate Carey's sheer frustration that is mentioned throughout the writing of the song. The second is supposed to present her wedding dress that was speculated as a publicity stunt; it also shows others that participated in the filming of the video such as Eric Roberts. The final image is of Carey accepting an award, which is appropriate for the section it is included in. "Article looks cluttered" is by far personal taste as I believe you have noted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Up to you, but as of now, you're either at the 'no consensus' level or one more oppose vote away, depending on the closing admins favored percentage level. -AKMask 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, only User:Raul654 is responsible for promoting articles, where (I think) he looks at the object votes and judges if they are actionable, valid, reasonable or just plain trivial, then he promotes it (or not). It's not done by percentage. Therefore, an article can probably receive 10 supports and 5 opposes, where the opposers nitpick and oppose on some really trivial, subjective and inactionable grounds, but still be promoted. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• You may wish to review wikipedia policy. Yes, Objections must be actionable, but all currently are. The goal is to reach a community consensus, which is generally felt to lie somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of the views expressed. -AKMask 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, you have misunderstood me: I wasn't implying that the objections here aren't actionable; they are. You, however, might want to review the policies, as you are wrong; its not, nor was it ever, about the percentage of support votes that an article received (you seem to have confused this with the RFA process). If you still have doubts, go to the FA director himself— or anyone else who has knowledge of the FAC process. Anyway, here isn't the place to discuss it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Images have been removed. All that remains are two from the video and the single cover. The single cover is important (obviously) and so is Image:WBT2.jpg, which depicts the singer's frustration that is mention and commented on in the article. Image:Weddingdress.jpg at music video is also vital— afterall I think that you will agree that we need a screencapture of the video if we are to discuss it at length. I hope that some of the objections here have been addressed. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Not confused, I just throw that percentage out because it is whats most reffered to as consensus, since we dont go for a straight up or down vote. Alas, the graph is still there, which is fine from a copyright view, but I fail to see how it does anything but clutter the page. High points in the charts and overall sales are all that is needed. And while im still wary of 3 fair use images, it is a 25% drop that you did with little objection, so im fine with that. Find a way to dump the graph, and you have my vote -AKMask 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. However, can't we come to a compromise? If we remove the graph, we will have another oppose on our hands. The thing is, you can choose not to support, but still strike out your oppose vote i.e abstain. Does the graph really lessen its quality and makes it unworthy of FA status? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The awards image has been removed. Now only two images from the music video and the one image of the chart trajectories remain. I would appreciate it if the objectors reanalyzed their votes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could the users who voted object please reanalyze their votes? The image at the awards ceremony is long gone now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This just isn't really Featured-quality writing. The prose is uncompelling and there's really a dearth of encyclopedic information about the subject. Featured Articles on songs / singles like Layla, Get Back (song), or Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) present a vast amount of information on songwriting, recording, historical impact, and so forth, with nearly no divergence into (arguably) trivial stuff like describing the plot of a song's music video or listing its positions on the Top-Whatever charts. This article, however, gives us a couple of hundred words on those topics, some direct copy-and-paste quotations from various reviewers, and then the music-video rundown and charts data. When looking for Featured Articles, we must ask "what makes this particular article special among other articles on the same subject?"; the answer, in this case, is "absolutely nothing", and I cannot support it. --keepsleeping slack off! 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, your concern about the "historical impact" of the song is going to have to be overlooked mainly because it has only been public for eleven months. There is information in the article regarding recording and songwriting, it just is not very expandable. What is it that you would like us to accomplish? Perhaps search out for more information on the writing process? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The thing is, you have given examples of the few songs where "songwriting", "recording", and "historical impact" are the strong points and the composers are known for their artistry (like the Beatles, or Temptations ). "We Belong Together" (like "Cool") is a contemporary pop song, where these things are not emphasized as much. ie, nothing was special about it as to merit lengthy discussion. You have to admit that today, there is bearly any real artistry behind pop songs— people just sit and write anything, then they make a good video to ensure its success. You can't use the examples of 70s songs to dictate what info is to be included on a 2005-06 pop song as 1)people's expectation of what info to look for has changed, 2)Unlike the 70s where no one cared about music videos and ficussed solely on music, music videos have now come to the forefront of any pop song, and 3)Chart placements dictate the commercial success of the single. However, I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not equally easy to write an FA-quality article about any topic. Although, for example, shoe polish made it to FA, if they had wanted an easy topic for an FA, that wouldn't have been it. Orane, my main complaint about the article has always been that it wasn't sufficiently well written to interest a reader who wasn't already a Carey fan, and that the lead, in particular, didn't explain what was noteworthy about the topic in a convincing way. The article on shoe polish didn't have to convince me to become a big fan of shoe polish; it merely had to convince me that it would tell me something noteworthy and interesting about the topic -- and it did. It seems as though you're saying now that the song is without artistic merit, and therefore there's no need to discuss the actual music in the article in any depth. If that's the case, then I'm more perplexed than ever as to what the article is claiming is noteworthy about the topic. It seems odd to me to state a POV value judgment about the artistic merits of the song -- one that the lead appears to contradict -- and use it to justify the article's lack of any musically literate discussion.--Bcrowell 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand. I'm now working on including the recording and songwriting, though there's little information to go on (online or off) with such a recent pop song. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The article has gone under some long and drastic changes. I've added info on the recording, inspiration, writing, studio sessions etc. Bcrowell, I've also changed the intro. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great job, exceedingly well sourced and comprehensive, everything I would want to know if I liked that song :) Judgesurreal777 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the "music and recording" section has undergone a complete rewrite and an image of the opening notes from the song has been added. Could the users who objected please check their votes over to see if anything remains relevant? As it currently stands, I'm almost positive that a few objections have been addressed and are no longer applicable to this debate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The article is too long for a single. Too many fair use screen shots of the video that don't really have anything to do with the song. Also, I strongly object to the image of the sheet music. This fails the fair use test because the subject of the article is the esthetic aspect of the song and its notability as a successful pop single, not a critical interpretation of its musciality. On this basis, the song is not very notable. The scant critical interpretation of this song is merely that it is in the key of C (a highly dubious statement in itself because most piano sheet music transposes to a key that is easy for a novice or intermediate player). Sheet music falls under the publishing license of copyright. The sound recording falls under the mechanical license. The article is about the sound recording and thus any argument of fair use of the publishing licence is moot. Furthermore, the image is taken from a site that sells sheet music. It is unclear if the uploader even purchesed the product or simply copied the image from the site. To paraphrase Tolkien, an administrator should know better. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean that the article is too long? Is there a set limit for a single? It does not go over the 32 kb limit. Furthermore, all the information presented in it are notable for a pop song in this day and age. In order to make your oppose actionable, I (very kindly) ask that you take the time to go through the article and give examples of what section needs trimming.

Yes, the site sells the sheet, but they offer that small section (the first few notes and first two words of the song) for public viewing. I don't think its copyright infringement to use that single page in an article — it falls under one of the blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, how can you say that two images of the music video are too many? The first image (Image:WBT2.jpg), as explained earlier, is vital as it is used to identify and comment on the songs progression and the emotional states of the protagonist, which is discussed at length in the "music and structure" section. The other image Image:Weddingdress.jpg is used at the music video section to show the state of the protagonist, and it represents the theme and central plot of the song, which is also commented on in "music video". How are they meaningless to the article? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A music video is a work of art separate from the song. I wouldn't object to a FU image in a section describing a video based on the song, but a screenshot tells the average reader nothing about the quality of a song. I'm referring to Image:WBT2.jpg which is in a section titled "Music and structure." The argument that the fair use of this copyrighted image provides information about the musical structure of the song is equivocal.

As for being too long here are some examples: Carey and Dupri decided to include portions of what they considered classic R&B singles in an attempt to make "We Belong together" special. How? Where is a citation for how this is special? The section then goes on to paraphrase the lyrics of the song. It is somewhat notable that the song references other songs and borrows lyrics, but it's not entirely unusual. This section could be shortened to The song references and uses lyics from Two songs, Bobby Womack's "If You Think You're Lonely Now" (1981) and The Deele's "Two Occasions" (1987, featuring Babyface as lead vocalist). We can't conclude the meaning of the inclcusion of the references to these songs without a citation of a critical review pointing out the relevance. Carey transitions into the third and final section by raising her voice an octave, which is meant to emphasize the sheer frustration and desperation of the protagonist as she gives one last plea for her former lover to return. I find this statement questionable. How do we get into the composer's mind that going up an octave relates an emotion? I can't check the references at my location, but I hope that they include a critical review that states this. I always question the inclusion of chart performance because I doubt this will be useful information ten or twenty years from now, but that's a debate for another forum. However the inclusion of this material is one of the things contributing to the article being over-long. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, your above post requires that I go into detail to explain the point about the reference of other songs, not tweak it. And, yes there's a source for that section, which I will cite momentarily. The lyrics are notable enough to be included — all other featured articles have them, and no one has objection on its inclusion until now. Does it lessen the article's quality as a potential featured article? I really doubt it. I believe that the point about the octave shift is, in fact, sourced. No, its not a critical review, but an article from an interview with Carey herself. Yes, the source says the exact same thing —I could even quote it if you wish. Come to think of it, I do have a critical review that says the same thing; I could cite the two. Charts are important, and if we remove it, we risk being opposed by EveryKing. (See above discussion.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your objection, the sheet image has been removed, as it is too risky. However, I really think that its inclusion was harmless. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, I don't believe that the sheet of music should be removed — it is perfectly acceptable in a music-single article. See various Beatles song articles for other examples. I'm not so sure if many of Malber's objections are actionable, especially considering the broken wikilink they have provided us with. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night (song) contains a piece of sheet music and this article has featured article status. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though the sheet music from A Hard Day's Night (song) is public domain, it still boasts fair use rationale, and therefore, makes the situation similar to this one. Just because they are public domain, it doesn't make the image special (but it does make them free!). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night is NOT public domain and that image is certainly non-free (I've clarified the conflicting templates on the image descrption page). However, because the article discusses in detail the melodic structure of the song, the lead sheet qualifies as fair use. The We Belong Together article does not go into this deep of musical interpretation. Furthermore, the image of the sheet music not only infringes on the copyright of the composer, it infringes on the arranger of the sheet music as it is undoubtably an arrangement of the song, not the actual score. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're speaking nonsense; one sheet of paper attempting to present the first four lines of a song does not infringe any copyright holder and does not distort the article in any way. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use because you're currently overdoing this procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of work has gone into this article, including much activity to meet FAC objections. A fair amount of information is present, however, I still find serious problems with many FA criteria. The actionable specifics (below) also add up in this case to a larger, separate, and quite disturbing problem: a relatively small amount of core material has been torturously fashioned into an overlong article that seems to be striving, painfully at some points, for a "scholarly" and "fully explored" feel. This fails, because of poor writing quality and ultimately, lack of substantial information. Some specific examples:

• Inflated lead In describing the song, a third of the lead features redundancy and statements of the obvious. Phrases like "a blend of hip hop, soul and quiet storm ambience" are so vague (and oddly worded, how do you blend broad genres with an "ambience") and "classic sensibility" are near meaningless generalities that could be used to describe quite different-sounding songs. They don't put the reader further in the ballpark than would simply succinctly getting to the point with something like "R&B ballad", "hip hop-influenced ballad", "ballad", there are many easy picks... (The sources cited also don't seem to have been well-mined. The NY Times article referenced for these bland conclusions also notes, far more interestingly, "It's the most melancholy song to rule the summer in years." and traces Carey's "pioneering" of the "thug-love" duet, through rap-styled vocal and lyrical approaches, to "We Belong..."'s vocal style.) The lead then goes on to "analyze" the lyrics by quoting such emotionally evocative (?) words as "stupid", "foolish" and reminding us, despite the TITLE OF THE SONG, that she believes that they "belong together".

• The lyrics are quoted because that is the way the protagonist feels in the song. I'm not sure what other may to put it. "She believes that they 'belong together'" is included because this is another emotion the protagonist expresses. We are not going to leave it out because the song is titled "We Belong Together"; it is important that all of the information is summarized and that we clearly communicate the message. It should not be vague or even misleading. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• You've responded to only one of three specific examples, which may be summarized as 1) music description vague and inflated with ambiguous descriptive phrases, 2) relevant material from cited source not included, 3) analysis of lyrics vague and inflated with unnecessary, literal detail. Your reply to 3) doesn't address the central point of the objection, "inflation" (aka padding). FA concerns include writing style and summary. If this is a song about recriminations and regrets after a breakup, that or many other straightforward, succinct phrases are available to clearly convey the point. Particularly in a LEAD, drilling down to the point of quoting individual words the lyrics is absolutely unnecessary, and obscures the overall description of the song and its real-world context. And the other examples remain unaddressed. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness Even within the "quoting and echoing pop media" style, an examination of some of the sources shows that more interesting conclusions have simply been ignored. For instance, in addition to the NY Times above, the VH1 Road To The Grammys: The Story Behind Mariah Carey's 'We Belong Together', cited four times, presents a much clearer and compelling pop account to the song's creation, in one-third the words (and, although much of that material is included here, the cohesive reading experience of a light entertainment article is missing). The same potential goldmine of a NY Times article notes that, despite the simple sound, "the liner notes credit no fewer than 3 producers and 10 songwriters", and this is nowhere mentioned. The lead fails to mention that this was a "summer hit", when such a thing is a well-recognized, at least in harsher climates, and the article doesn't develop this simple fact, except for a cuople of mentions in critics' quotes). And so on...

• I'm afraid that I don't understand this portion of your objection. One reviewer noted the song as a "summer hit", not all of them, so I don't see why this should be included in the lead section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Again, you've selected only one of several examples. I clearly explained that I examined the source material and found information there that would seem to belong here. A "summer hit" is a common phenomenon, at least, in certain areas of the world like the US where this had its biggest success: a pervasive track that huge numbers of people will associate with the summer season of a particular year. This is interesting and relevant, and belongs at least in the lead, and developed more than in critics quotes. Then, that a song described as musically simple, stripped down, vocal-oriented still involved 3 producers and 10 songwriters is also interesting and notable. There are other examples. The selection of information included is questionable, and so comprehensiveness (and here from readily available, cited sources) is in doubt.

• Awkward musical discussion (writing quality) While it's great to include a discussion of the music itself, here the language is often odd and stilted. "in an effort to attract attention to Carey's vocals", "A piano playing the melody of the refrain opens the song, and at once establishes its melody and harmonic structure., "she employs a state of vocal restraint, phrases several words per note, and occasionally sings counter to the rhythm", is an uncompelling and literal way to dissect music that doesn't read well.

• What I gather from this objection is that you don't want the information to be literal. I'm going to correct some of the text, nonetheless. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, not simply "literal", but, awkwardly written. "Literal" was part of an attempt to describe the nature of the awkwardness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overemphasis of chart positions There is far too much detail of what, with the passing of time (like, a few months), becomes extraneous, trivial data. Four paragraphs of chart performance could be collapsed into one (the first para, with a sentence from the third). The article confuses the prevalence of chart chatter in pop music media and marketing (with countdown shows, radio patter about the current hits, and so forth), with what is of any lasting importance. Listing "weeks on", and what passed what is entirely meaningless in a general historical record. There may be a future use for trainspotting type recording of every detail of every music release, but an encyclopedia article isn't it. The Billboard et al archives are a good source for that source of thing.

• See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not an indiscriminate collection of facts applies here. 70% of the chart material is of no importance or use to the vast majority of general encyclopedia readers. How do I "know": common sense plays a part, as I can't conjure up a situtation where anyone but a hardcore fan or chart fanatic would want to know such specifics about a single song. For that audience, there are other sources (e.g. Billboard books and back issues). WP, or any general encyclopedia, is not a repository for all facts or even a majority of them, SUMMARY is the goal. An encyclopedia is essentially a shortcut and starting point to learning about many areas and topics, not a place to pack in lots of trivial detail. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It should be a starting position to give broad overview without leaving important information out. Encyclopedia is not an almanac or trivia book, that's for sure, even though I have a feeling that students (or other people) are going to start using wikipedia as primary source for their homeworks, which is sad. Temporary account 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• No coverage of remixes As critical components of a modern pop song release, remixes are as important as music video. What about the DJ Clue remix — featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., and the Reconstruction radio and club mixes?

• See my comments below. Mention of remixes are not incredibly notable, and one has been cited within the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• In modern pop music, remixes ARE as integral a part of the story of a song as music videos. Remixes, which may bear little immediate resemblance to the album version, are used to reach different market segments, and may be responsible for breaking a song (e.g. a remix in a certain dance genre may cause a media buzz that leads to wider interest and so forth). World-class independent producers, DJs and artists work on essentially parallel versions of the release track. Remixes are as significant to the marketing effort and the cultural impact, as a music video. Whether a remix or the "primary" version (album track or edits thereof) had most impact for a particular release doesn't diminish the importance of covering the remixes; their substance, production, and impact should be noted for song coverage comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unnecessary emphasis of "Free download controversy" As digital methods collide with traditional practices, these wrinkles occur. From the account, "We Belong..." happened into one of them. A sentence or two should suffice to sort it out, instead of a subsection that essentially retries the case.

• See my comments below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• See my comment in answer to the comment about "chart positions". SUMMARY is the goal here. Balancing the relative importance of the various events and facts, and relaying them in a clear, concise, contextually cohesive manner is the goal. An overly long section 1) taxes the reader unduly with extra reading, 2) puts undue relative importance on an aspect of the whole topic, and thus, misrepresents. The download controversy did not impact the song itself, or its massive airplay and market penetration, and the resolution was routine. As described in the article, this is a notable minor event, given unnecessary prominence. And I'm not quibbling about a word or two, by word count this is around 10% of the main text, with its own subheading title. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Confusing, pointless sheetmusic image I imagine it will go before this is over, but it's there now. What is it meant to illustrate. Are we to equate the opening notes of "We Belong..." with the opening notes of, say, Beethoven's Fifth? Is it intended to add stature and depth (although what sheet music is a symbol of, I'm not sure, "culture", "serious music"?)? What does this image do for the aritcle? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is featured to demonstrate the music explained in the article (time signature, quarter notes, rests, etc.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• How many general readers are likely to want or even have the skills to examine sheet music to learn important details about a recorded pop song? People who want to play the song buy a songbook, not look it up in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of images applies as it does to facts. And is the actual score used in the recording, or a transcription of the music as recorded—what direct relationship does it bear to the recording in question, as the article is specifically about a recorded instance of a song? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Forcing the reviewer to reply in excruciating detail to back up objections does a disservice to common sense. This can't be the place for such things. But, given the FAC Director's apparently at times quite cursory way of evaluating objections, it seems necessary, if a review is to be "bothered with" at all, to follow up, lest any reply be seen as sign that an objection was "fixed". --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't have a problem with the topic, which seems quite notable as far as the category of current pop songs goes, and there is enough material here to do something with, but the way this article is assembled is not comprehensive, not summary, and far from a compelling read. As noted above, I got much of the info here in a more entertaining read, from one source that is a third this length. I'm not the "punisher": being blunt and...detailed seems to be the only way to even attempt to critique articles where counter-argument is a main support tactic. --Tsavage 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an FAC without the backlash from Tsavage. Anyway, most of your objections confuse me. Do we need to include coverage of all Carey's remixes? By the way, in case you missed it, the DJ Clue remix is included in the article, though only briefly. I personally don't believe that the "Free downloads controversy" should be removed because it was a critical part of the song reaching number one on the U.S. Hot 100 and there were many accusations of Carey manipulating the charts. Your concern of the in-depth look at the chart performance also confuses me; Wikipedia is here to summarize the facts. If somebody wants to know what position it reached on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay or the German Singles Chart, they should feel the need to access this website because we have the information. It's not a matter of what won't be relevant in six months or ten years. The rest of your objection—at least to me—appears personal and rather trivial. The piece of sheet music is supposed to illustrate the opening bars and melody of the song, the time signature, etc., which is included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, from what I've gathered, you've not been satisfied enough with any FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not attack the reviewer along with, or even instead of, the review... I've still posted clear, actionable points against the criteria, and I'll conscientiously follow up if they're addressed for a reasonable length of time (let's say, up to a month). And it'll maybe be thumbs up, maybe thumbs down from the FAC Director. And all will be hunky dory in FAC... (Do you think I'm out of my mind and making up these objections from another dimension? And if you're so concerned with my overall FAC reviews, take a look...the archives are all there.) --Tsavage 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not attack you, it was merely a figure of speech. I still believe that most of your objections are trivial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I guess it's nice to be missed. Hope the "non-trivial" objections help... --Tsavage 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey no kidding. I just found out that you (Eternal) supported the Ford Taurus FAC, and even said it is "good work." That FAC has clearly serious problem in prose and grammar, and why you supported or didn't mention a single word about the grammar is TOTALLY beyond me. This seems to confirm my stance that people have double standards or are not critical enough (or reasonably critical), as I have said on the infamous Bulba FAC. Anyways, don't take this as personal attack. Temporary account

And by the way, you (eternal) supported Philosophy of Mind, which I think also is good, but haven't finished reading. And you said that "writing could be improved at times." For a good article, you are pretty picky, but for Ford Taurus, you give unconditional support. Just boggles my mind. Temporary account 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your rambling about a topic irrelevant to this FAC boggles my mind. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping quiet about this FAC for a while because I don't really care whether this article becomes featured or not, but I should note that Tsavage provided a lot of helpful feedback on Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I know he and Monicasdude (talk · contribs) tend to be abrasive (and more than occasionally stubbornly pedantic) on FAC, but I found their objections a lot more helpful than the supports. (YMMV, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we just quit the quibbling? Aren't we all adults here? Please behave in this manner, and let's not get distracted here. I'm goint to get to work and try to address Tsavage's lenthly, but very helpful and detailed comments. Give me a couple days though. School is back in session :). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I concur with most of what Tsavage (talk · contribs) has said. In my original comment I stated that the article was over-long. I believe Tsavage states it better that it's bloated without providing additional detail. For example, take a look at the referenced NY Times article. It concisely states that the song borrows from earlier R&B songs without resorting to quoting the material itself. Tsavage also re-iterates what I stated about the unnecessary and copyright infringing sheet music. Eternal Equinox: you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the FAC process. For every actionable item in this discussion, you have come back with a rationalization of why the edit should not be made. Tsavage has given you a gold mine here and you fail to recognize it. The FAC process is not supposed to be a popularity contest where you justify the article, it's supposed to be a crucible. You should welcome oppose votes as they are here to help you make the article better. You may want to step back, take a break, and try to look at things objectively. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just went through the figures only, and it seems where's the source of that chart position graph? Did somebody just draw it? I am not familiar with the music industry, but is "chart trajectories" a proper way to title it? Temporary account 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are provided under "References". Yes, "chart trajectory" (or chart run, whatever your preference) is the correct title for the graph. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on misconduct by Eternal Equinox. There is a problem here with Eternal Equinox deleting people's comments. The edit history for this page shows both me and Tsavage complaining that Eternal Equinox has deleted our comments. As explained in my comments, I've intentionally disabled my original WP account (Bcrowell) because, after several years of participation and thousands of edits, I feel that WP is now headed in the wrong direction, due to fundamental flaws in its design. I had been responding to Eternal Equinox's deletions as an anon, appending the string "--Bcrowell". However, Eternal Equinox has been deleting everything I say, with transparently dishonest comments in the edit history. Therefore, I've created a Bcrowell2 account. I'm aware that this could be interpreted as a sockpuppet account, but since Eternal Equinox seems to feel free to delete anything I post without logging in, I don't seem to have any choice than to create a new account. I feel that Bcrowell2 does not really qualify as a sockpuppet account because (a) I'm being completely upfront with everyone about being the same person as Bcrowell; (b) I'm not attempting to vote as Bcrowell2, but merely to point out Eternal Equinox's misconduct; and (c) I'm in the same position as many other users who have forgotten their passwords and simply created a new account.--Bcrowell2 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not the way to get an article past FAC Eternal Equinox. As noted earlier, embrace the oppose votes and the discussion. They aren't here to fling crap on the candidate, they're there to tell you how to make it even better. This ones not gonna go through, looks pretty no concensus to me, but learn. The articles almost there. Most of your oppose votes are on formatting and images, not on content. Spend a couple weeks making it look pretty, resolve any last little copyright issues and you're there. So come on. Sit back. Deep Breath. We're just here to help. -M^ask 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. Previous commentors have up a number of legitimate issues with this article. Since these issues have not been dealt with, the article should not be promoted to FA status.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)