Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)/archive1


 * 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 by GrahamColm 22:51, 25 November 2012.

Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)

 * Nominator(s): — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... "Cry Me a River" is one of the best songs by Justin Timberlake and maybe his signature song of his solo career. Through a period of 6 months I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I believe that the article is very close the the FA criteria. I would also like to say thanks to User:Accedie who c/e the article. Finally, I would like to ask everybody who opposes to post on what he/she opposes certainly. Thanks— Tomíca (T2ME) 09:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Section Synopsis need a source, I like the article! 77.35.178.218 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is no need for providing source for the synopsis if it is short and not comprehensive. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. 77.35.178.218 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Very good article. It meets my criteria. Good work Tom. — ΛΧΣ 21™ 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is from the lead and (some of) the first section alone:
 * "Timberlake's failed relationship with singer Britney Spears was his inspiration for penning the song." → This can be written much better, and 'penning' is not encyclopaedic language.
 * There is nothing wrong with "penning". The verb dates back to the Middle Ages and is valid, encyclopaedic English. It is preferred to "writing" because it refers to music as well as lyrics. A valid synonym would be "compose". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show me a Featured article that uses the word 'penning' and I'll strike this point out. The ones that I've looked at use 'wrote' or 'composed'.  Till 23:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad, with instrumentation that consists of clavinet, beatbox, guitars, synthesizers, "Arabian inspired riffs" and "Gregorian chants"." → Needs a copyedit.
 * What, specifically, is the issue with this sentence? It looks perfectly acceptable to me. Accedie talk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence should be rewritten to avoid the words 'with' and 'that'. How about "Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad; instrumentation consists of ....." Till 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lyrically, the single is about "a brokenhearted man who refuses to look back"." → A bit implicit, suggest paraphrasing the quote
 * "In 2003, Spears recorded a response to the song titled "Everytime" for her fourth studio album In the Zone." → Avoid beginning sentences with 'in', and I assume you mean answer song!
 * Can you please link me to an English grammar textbook that contains this rule about avoiding prepositions at the beginning of sentences? I'm not much one for prescriptive grammar, but I've never even heard this one before. (Unless you're confusing it with this common misconception about ending sentences with prepositions?) Accedie talk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There ia absolutely nothing wrong with beginning a sentence "In..." The first sentence of the Bible reads: "In the beginning..." See also - well, almost every literary work ever written. If there  was a rule against it, most of the featured articles on Wikipedia would have to be rewritten, including all of mine. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "It earned Timberlake a Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance and reached the top ten in more than ten countries." → These points are not mutual and would be better off in separate sentences.
 * "For shipping over 35,000 copies." → Awkward
 * "In it, Timberlake's character spies on his former lover–who allegedly portrays Spears–and plots revenge with help from Timbaland and a new romantic interest. Media outlets speculated that Spears inspired the video." → Umm, "in it"? And this should not read like a plot.
 * Yes, this is an awkward use of a preposition at the beginning of a sentence. I'm not sure, though, why you think it's as awkward and flat-out inappropriate to begin a sentence with a date clause like "In 2003." Please explain. Accedie talk to me 20:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The production of the song was helmed by" → Why helmed? What is wrong with "It was produced by"?
 * "In November 2002..." → Reword the sentence so that it doesn't begin with 'in'.
 * "Due to its lyrical content, media speculated that Timberlake's inspiration to write the song was the failed relationship he had with Spears." → "Media speculated"? "Failed relationship"?
 * "In an interview for MTV News" → Same as above.
 * "Timberlake clarified the speculations" → To clarify something means to make it clear and more comprehensible. The quotation does not.
 * "One of the producers, Storch, while explaining the recording of "Cry Me a River", revealed that it was easy to work with Timberlake in the studio..." → Jumps from past tense to present tense and back to past tense.
 * "In December 2011, nine years after the release of the song, Timberlake clarified the rumors and admitted that he had written "Cry Me a River" after an argument with Spears." → Could be written much better.

The article has been expanded a lot but falls short of criterion 1a. Also 10 months is a bit exaggerated... you only started editing it since May. I suggest a withdrawal and finding an experienced copyeditor or putting the article through WP:GOCE. Till 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed all of your concerns .  Statυs ( talk ) 04:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I have went through and copyedited the article. You may wish to revisit the article. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs ( talk ) 04:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Status, I appreciate it. And of course I am not withdrawing, because even I did that you [Till] would still oppose. User:Accedie an awesome copy-editor did the prose, so it doesn't fail the 1a criteria at all. — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 08:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What on earth? My concerns are entirely in good faith. And I'm not forcing you to withdraw, it's just a suggestion. The article fails criterion 1a as the prose isn't "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Till 08:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I don't want to argue with you here, because this is something professional, but I have got to know you really well in the previous weeks. I really know about your 'concerns'. Your issues have been addressed. — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments The "Composition" section runs into a problem that I see common in a lot of recent song GAs, in that it mainly assembles descriptive statements from assorted reviews instead of drawing from sources that specialize in musical composition/theory and giving us any in-depth insight into how the music is structured, the intentions of the author, and how it was achieved. Compare the section to those in "Paranoid Android" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Also, only comment on the chart trajectory if the sources talk about it. They do in regards to the Billboard placements, but not in regard to the UK Singles Chart. Refrain from citing retailers for factual information like tracklistings. Reduce sourcing to primary sources like the liner notes as much as possible--if something isn't mentioned by a secondary source, then it's probably not noteworthy. Only include full dates in the prose when they are absolutely necessary; oftentimes just month and year will suffice. I see a lot of remixes listed in the tracklist section--any information on how they came about? Also, have you made sure to look up any potential print sources? I see nothing but online sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi WesleyDodds. Thanks for commenting. However, is there a rule saying that the composition section should be same as in the articles you pointed above? What is wrong with saying what editors commented when the prose is good? Also for the chart section, ChartStats gives all the weeks of charting of the song, what is wrong with writing that as a prose? Having the fact the song is from 2002, and there were not separate chart explanation articles. Also, they are five published sources from magazines. That's all I found in them regarding the song. There is not rule again whether you should cite published or web sources if they are reliable. — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern with the lack of print sources is comprehensiveness. Can you say that you've explored all avenues for available sources? If they don't exist, they don't exist, but you need to make sure of that. Detailing chart trajectory is typically discouraged unless it's particularly noteworthy (remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so not every single little development needs to be covered); what matters in the end is the peak. Composition sections don't need to be identical across articles (compare "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to "In Bloom"), but the ones I linked to have more depth and are etter sourced, relying mainly on sources that have specialized knowledge of music theory and recording practices as well as offering insight into the creation of the song structure, typically by way of fact-finding interviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, detailed chart trajectory is never discouraged in music articles. Your assuption is not true. Actually, music articles are not considered complete if they lack a chart performance section into which is explained at detail how the song/album performed on charts. Also, comprehensiveness does not mean to have all the sources, but all the sources that are needed to cover the topic in detail; quantity is not quality. If online sources cover in detail what offline sources can do, too, then we can choose between online and/or offline. We don't need to have them all. Also, comparing this article to another one makes no sense. Each article has different levels of broadness depending on how society covers them as an important topic; and thus "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is way more important and influential than this song. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Detailed chart trajectory is indeed discouraged, see WP:CHARTTRAJ. And yes, not ever single source needs to be cited, but the lack of print sources when they are available is a recurring problem I see in music articles (people usually opt for the easiest ones to find/source), so I like to make sure all reference avenues are explored. And while there's no one-to-one correlation or need to establish crushing uniformity, I see no reason to compare a potential FA to previous FAs on the same topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CHARTRAJ is a discretionary recommendation, not a rule. Also, print sources are not mandatory if online ones cover the topic very well. Also, online sources are easy to verify and thus, information can be spotchecked with ease, so asking for offline sources when they may not be needed is nit-picky. Finally, I understand that we have to compare previous FAs, it is usual, but the final assessment is against the criteria :P — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I am not bringing these up as reason to oppose the article, but there are areas that need to be improved before I myself can support its nomination. I am aware that guidelines are merely that--guidelines-- but the chart information is pretty dense and should be trimmed down. If there are any print sources around that can be incorporated (are there any Timberlake biographies available?) to fill in the holes about the song (there's close to no secondary source information about the writing and recording of the song; details are mainly sourced from liner notes) then they should be cited. I am not saying print source are mandatory. What I am asking is, has Tomica explored all reference options available? That's what I want to know and if that's so, then that's fine, but I haven't received an answer on it. And I am not saying "This is not an FA because it doesn't look like these FAs"; what I am saying is "There are things you can improve in this article, and you can check out these previous FAs as models to glean from".WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, finally I agree with you there. It is reasonable of you to ask about the existence of printed sources. I may have read that you were asking them to be included, and as I see that wasn't the case, I apologize the misunderstanding. Also, I will take another look at the chart performance. Finally, I expect Tom answering your question sooner rather than later and, of you wish, you can leave more specific comments [regarding specific parts of text, etc.] and additional ways to improve the article. Thanks. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again Wesley. Look at this. I tried to search in every book the words 'Cry Me a River'. Except in this one, no one other contained the information. Also the information that is in that book is already present in the article via online source. So is there a reason for putting it again? I didn't find information about its additional writing or producing. And when the chart performance is in question, what about this? — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Book Search won't show you every print source available. The main example is magazines, since only certain publications make their material available there. I don't understand your question involving that Madonna song article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So, what provider should I use so I can find a print source about its (possible information) about the writing? And I wanted to show you a FA with a detailed chart performance. It doesn't mean it should be use as it's in "Smells Like a Teen Spirit". — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to sources, visit libraries (use interlibrary loan if possible), track down back issues of magazines on eBay, visit fansites and ask for reference leads, ask fellow editors to help you track down sources you may not be able to access yourself. Working on a lot of Nirvana, R.E.M., Joy Division, etc. articles, this is what I have to do, and it can be hard work, but it's research you need to do. In regards to 4 Minutes (Madonna song), note that it's a mix of unnecessary chart details and information that's actually noteworthy and commented on as such by secondary sources. Details like "In the United States, "4 Minutes" debuted at number 68 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for the issue dated April 5, 2008, based solely on airplay", "The song became Madonna's first top-ten single since "Hung Up" (2005), and was her 37th Hot 100 top-ten hit, breaking the record previously held by Elvis Presley", and "For Timberlake, "4 Minutes" became his ninth top-ten hit" are commented upon by news articles, and aren't just gleaned from plotting out where the song ranked each week, which this article does quite a bit of. Stick to listing the chart peaks, and add details expanded upon by news articles (chart debuts, length of time at a certain position) where appropriate. As it is, the chart performance section is too detailed and as such makes for very dry reading. Another thing I noticed is that some of Billboard links on this article don't work properly, starting me off at the top of the article instead of the exact place where the relevant material is listed. And given it's online, you can cite it as a web reference; no need to include the print information like page numbers (especially since you can link directly to the page you want to cite). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am sorry Tommy, but the prose are really my issue. They are not up to par:
 * The production of the song was handled by Mosley, under his stage name Timbaland.
 * Storch, while explaining the recording of "Cry Me a River", revealed that it was easy to work with Timberlake in the studio because there "was a meaning behind [the song]"


 * The prose could be so much more enticing to read.
 * The first paragraph just isn't well placed and explained. You tell us the writers, and that his relationship ended. Then you attempt at connecting it poorly to show how it was affected publicly or by the media. The section should begin discussing his relationship with spears, then an introduction of the song during reports of "tumultous times" and then introduce us the the break-up/post speculation. The article is just stiff, and has no professional flow. I'm sorry to be so tough, but as a friend I really want you to grow and not be mislead. Good luck :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   03:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per prose concerns. Riddled with really poor writing, as others have noted. I saw a mis-spelling of the artist's name. Needs a really thorough copyedit even to properly meet GA criteria. Sorry. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it doesn't meet the GA criteria. It perfectly passes, having the fact what kind of articles are GA's. I will ask an experienced FA editor to further copy-edit it soon. — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The more I read it the more poor writing I saw. You had "helmed" to describe the making of the music video. I found many careless typos too. Next time clean these up before bringing it to FAC. Feel free to ping me once it's in better shape, but for now it definitely isn't a FA or even close. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a total of 14 citations to Amazon. This isn't a very good source. Consider getting better sources or removing this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comments - Clearly this nomination was premature and the article requires more work, which will be more productive away from FAC. I have decided to archive the nomination. Please accept these constructive comments from the reviewers, which I agree with, in good faith. Graham Colm (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Tomica. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)