Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gimme More/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 not promoted 18:32, 1 January 2008.

Gimme More

[edit]
Check external links

After having edited this article, I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's getting there. The page may not perfectly present a featured one but with your help (comments and suggestions), it will. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the peer review myself; I did not fully and correctly archive, as this is something nominator is expected to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed already. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Gimme More" was generally well-received by music critics. Blender Magazine complimented the song for being an "unsettling disco dazzler," rating it four out of five stars[19] and Guardian Unlimited called the song "futuristic and thrilling."[20]." Firstly, Blender Magazine and Guardian are not music critics, but are publications. The Guardian did not call the song "futuristic and thrilling" either. Alexis Petridis, writing for that specific publication, did so. One critic's opinions is not representative of the publication as a whole. Othe critics whom write for that publication may have found the song appalling, but were not commissioned to review it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I fixed some. I changed it to added publications critics for the reviews and I fixed the reviewers as well. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done User:Phoenix2 fixed it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - Frankly, I don't have any regard at all for Spears or this song for that matter, but the article is well-written so that's good, especially for a single so recent; you must be quite the fan! One thing I'd like to suggest is expanding the commentary about the sample in its box, I dunno, maybe tell the reader about the structure of the song rather than just about the lyrical interpretations? Only then will it be suitable for fair use. Also the changes addressed by LuciferMorgan also need attention. Otherwise, you have my full support for it's a very informative article indeed. (SUDUSER)85 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I edited it with some re-mentioned "stuff", like the electro thing. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: Copy-edit please? - Generally not well-written
    "However, it was also welcomed as an improved performance to her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." looks clunky to me.
    "It is also influenced by electro elements which Kelefa Sanneh of New York Times described as "a nifty little electro-pop song." - ??? replace which with "and was therefore described by Kelefa Saanneh as [...]"
    --Kiyarrllston 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems we're not understanding each other regarding my second example - "nifty little electro-pop song" does not say that "it is influenced by electro elements" - it says it is an electro song. Are we on the level now?
 Done Yah. I got it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my first example - "However, it[The video was] also welcomed as an improved[ment] performance to her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." seems a little bit better - do you agree?
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I clarified why I object, hope this article can improve to FA quality.
--Kiyarrllston 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.=) --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SandyGeorgia fixed it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not ready for FA:
  • There is a tag on the article that says "This article documents a current single. Information is likely to change as the song remains on the charts." This means the article may not be stable.
The article will be stable since its chart performance is almost dropping. Only that the charting week will be updated. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph is too short and unreferenced: "The track is constructed in a verse-chorus pattern. Mixed by Araica, it interpolates background vocals by Hilson and Jim Beanz."
 Done I merged it. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 2, 3, 6, 17, 28 and 32 have formatting problems.
Could you pin point what that problem is? Like what formatting? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References always go after a comma or full stop, with no spaces in between. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. I also fixed some mistaken formats written as "cite web" which are actually "cite news." --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is not FA standard. My English is not very good, but I can see a few problems in the lead (but you must fix the whole article):
    • "co-written among collaborators" I thought "co-written" and "collaborators" mean the same thing?
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Gimme More" is the first single since In the Zone" Do you mean "her first single"?
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dubbed as a comeback release for Spears however, the song does not feature lyrics about her musical return instead, it features racy lyrics incorporating uptempo beats." I think you put all the commas in the wrong places.
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first hit radio stations and digital stores where it was a commercial success and was released in the form of CD" The way you use "where" and "and was released" to connect the sentence sounds funny.
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in North America where it topped Billboard's Canadian chart" Again the same problem with "where".
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In Australia and United Kingdom" Put "the" before "United Kingdom".
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In both the US and Australia" The earlier sentence also started with "In" and two countries. You sure you want to repeat?
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "introduces Spears pole dancing which was panned by critics" sounds funny. Only after I read it three times, then I understand what you mean, that critics panned Spears (apostrophe?) pole dancing.
 Done --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose' Some misleading statements are within the article. Examples;
  • "It was a huge club success by reaching number one on Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart on December 15, 2007 replacing Rihanna's contemporary "Shut Up and Drive"." - "Huge"? A "club success"? According to whom? Such adjectives are merely the opinions of whomever feel that way, and are not factual. People measure success in different ways, so therefore interpretations of what is and isn't successful differs from person to person.
  • "The single was also successful in European countries." - Whether the single was "successful" in European countries is an opinion, dependant on whomever is drawing conclusions. The fact it charted in European countries is just that, a fact, and therefore irrefutable. Whether it was "successful" though is refutable, depending on one's criteria as concerns what is successful.
  • "The single finally peaked on Billboard Pop 100 at number two.[45]" - "Finally"? What is the reasoning behind using this adjective. When someone uses this adjective, it's usually to show they're happy something has finally happened. Therefore, the word needs removing.
  • "It performed well in North America where it debuted at number nine on the U.S. Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart on September 6, 2007,[37]" - The fact it debuted at nine is a fact, but whether it "performed well" is an opinion.
  • "Elsewhere, "Gimme More" proved to be a moderately successful track." - "Moderately successful"? How do you personally measure what is "moderately successful"? Singles which don't reach the top ten? Singles which aren't RIAA certified? Singles which quickly enter and disappear from the charts?

These critical comments made within the article, ones that are misleading, need to be addressed. Other instances are also prevalent within the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for always using Gwen Stefani songs as a reference. Its just that they're worth emulating; they're all FAs. Just tell me further objections and I will address it as soon as possible. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant of whether 17Drew used them, I am still objecting per criterion 1d. I personally don't find the Stefani articles flawless, but that's my personal opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But letting some articles arrive FA statuses bearing this kind of "problems" would mean "inconsistency." We should be objective here and not subjective; as they say, it's all business. Anyway, I fixed the article. I removed adjectives that seems you don't like. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gimme_More/archive1&oldid=1078800068"