Template:Did you know nominations/FourFiveSeconds


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

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

FourFiveSeconds

 * ... that Kanye West sings instead of raps his guest verse on "FourFiveSeconds"?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Yang Jiong

Created by Tomica (talk), Calvin999 (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 12:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Kanye West never sang before that? I think you should try something like: ... that Kanye West sings instead of raps on the "country-tinged" song "FourFiveSeconds"? It's just a suggestion.--malconfort (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he is a rapper. And I don't see how your suggestion changes anything? It makes it longer and less concise, and adding the notion of country doesn't enhance it. It's not actually a country song, nor does it sound like (It's a matter of opinion). I'm sure he could rap on a country song if he liked, too.  —  ₳aron  11:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. You're right. Apart from that, the article is new, long enough, and within policy. While the hook is cited, properly formatted, and the content is adequate. --malconfort (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg please do a closer check of neutrality and close paraphrasing. I edited out a lot of close paraphrasing under Composition and lyrical interpretation and Critical reception, but don't have time to check all the sources. Using the same words as the source and just flipping them around isn't acceptable; the words might as well be put in quotes. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Note: the nominator has more than 5 DYK creation credits; please ask him if he has more than 5 DYK nomination credits, in which case a QPQ is required. Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not. QPQ is only required If am creator/contributor of the article. I have never done a QPQ for an article that I have purely nominated, I have not contributed anything to the article at all. —  ₳aron  10:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The rules changed on November 21. Now any nominator, be it self-nomination or nomination of someone else's work, has to submit a QPQ for each nom. Yoninah (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * QPQ done. (Thank you.) Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , rereading FourFiveSeconds, I believe this article needs a copy-editing. The problems you've pointed out are tied to the overuse of quotations. A trait common to music-related articles. For example, why we have that Rolling Stone in the middle of the music video section? How that quote relates to the previous paragraph?--malconfort (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the quote in the second paragraph and also paraphrased some sentences. I hope it's good now. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A tad better now, but it has been protected due to content dispute?--malconfort (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. Can't it still be approved and sent to a queue? That still takes several days. —  ₳aron  17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Rule D6 precludes approval until the content dispute ends. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not protected anymore and there is not edit warring. I believe the DYK can be promoted. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you for your ping on my talk page, . Yes, the review is ready to go ahead, but as I read through the sources for the Composition and lyrical interpretation and Critical reception sections, I just kept finding more and more close paraphrasing. It's great to quote instead of copy, but the problem is that the lead-up to the quotes is copying the wording in the sources. Even though I spent time editing out the close paraphrasing in the first 3 sections, I really don't have the time or inclination to edit the whole article – that's your job. I suggest that go through the rest of the article with an editor's eye and get rid of the rest of the close paraphrasing, and then the nomination will be ready for review.
 * The copying is simply everywhere. Here, I just found it scrolling down the page:
 * Source: Wearing a black pantsuit, she performed the acoustic song against a white screen, which moved to reveal a curtained backdrop.
 * Article: For the performance, Rihanna wore a black pantsuit and was accompanied by West and McCartney who played the guitar. They performed the song against a white screen which later moved and revealed a curtained backdrop. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a close paraphrasing. Should have I invented new words? How would you paraphrased it, please let me see the example. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would delete this description altogether, as it contributes nothing to the article. The sentences before and after flow together perfectly. Please look at the changes I made today in the other sections. There are certainly more ways to say the same thing without using the author's original words. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Tomica, that source/article comparison is a textbook example of close paraphrasing, and not acceptable on Wikipedia, much less in DYK. If you can't see it, you might want to request the help of the Guild of Copy Editors to deal with it. Yoninah, if the close paraphrasing is "simply everywhere" and like the example you noted, then I recommend you consider tagging the article with a close paraphrasing template. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done a copyedit of the Composition section. Please have a look and tell me if more needs to be done. —  ₳aron  18:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still see close paraphrasing in the remaining sections. The article uses the same words as the sources and follows the sources line by line. Writing without close paraphrasing means saying it in your own words and rearranging the presentation. I edited out some minor close paraphrasing in the article, but left these examples for you to deal with:
 * Source: It debuts on Pop Songs at No. 37 with less than two full days of airplay. Thanks to hourly plays Sunday on numerous iHeartMedia-owned stations, it starts on the ranking with more than 1,000 plays on nearly 100 reporters, which translates to a reach of 7.4 million in audience, according to Nielsen Music. While it's Rihanna's record-extending 40th entry on Pop Songs, it's McCartney's first (dating to the list's 1992 launch).
 * Article: "FourFiveSeconds" debuted at number 37 on the US Pop Songs chart after less than two full days of airplay. According to Nielsen Music, it was a result of the hourly plays that the song received on Sunday (January 25) on several radio stations owned by iHeartMedia. According to the source it started ranking with more than 1,000 plays on 100 reports that is translated into a reach of 7.4 million in audience. With the feat, it became Rihanna's 40th entry on the chart, while it is McCartney's first song to enter it since the chart's launch in 1992.
 * This isn't similar at all. It's quite different, and to be honest, there's only one way to say how a song debuts on a chart, and that is how it's written here and in every other song article on Wikipedia. This is a bit of a trivial pointing out here, Yoninah. —  ₳aron  15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source: With the song's Hot 100 advance, McCartney makes history: he returns to the chart's top 10 after more than 29 years, ending the longest break between top 10s (as a lead artist) in the Hot 100's 56-year archives. ... McCartney passes Santana, who waited more than 28 years between top 10s from 1971 to 1999.
 * Article: With the song's advance, McCartney returned to the top-ten on the Hot 100 chart after more than 29 years and ended the longest break between top-ten songs in the 56 year old history. He passed Santana, who achieved a span of more than 28 years between his top-tens in a range from 1971 to 1999.
 * I've added/removed words and re-jigged the structure of the sentence, but again, there's only so many ways you can write this differently. I believe I've made it more different to what you've go above. —  ₳aron  15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source: With the song's Hot 100 lift, McCartney ranks in the top five for the first time in 31 years, one month and one week.
 * Article: With the song's advancement, McCartney was in the chart's top-five for the first time in 31 years, one month and one week.
 * I've reworded this one. —  ₳aron  15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source: West showed off his angry side by kicking the camera at one point while Rihanna actually began to tear up as they both belted out the acoustic track.
 * Article: there are moments in the video where West shows his angry side by kicking the camera at one moment, while Rihanna begins to tear up.
 * I've cut this right down and reworded. —  ₳aron  15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with malconfort's observation that this article suffers from an overuse of quotes from music reviewers. While the song may be very popular, the Wikipedia article shouldn't sound like a breathless fan magazine. I would strongly suggest summarizing the reviewers' comments, especially the ones that say the same thing. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the Critical reception section in particular, I can't see any quotes really? —  ₳aron  15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I've address those four points. — ₳aron  09:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)