Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)/archive2


 * 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.

This article was promoted by 10:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)

 * Nominator(s): — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... "Cry Me a River" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Justin Timberlake. Thanks to that, I found a descent amount of information which I placed within the article page. This is the second FA nomination; regarding the first there were some prose issues that thanks to the help from my fellow editors such as Wikipedian Penguin, Dan56 and Mark Arsten I believe they are gone. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I have to agree that the prose was not ready last time, but now that it has been copyedited by Mark Arsten, I have nothing to say about it but good work. I understand how much Tomica has worked on this article, and I am happy so support this time again. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you Hahc! — Tomíca (T2ME) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With all the respect Hahc, in the last FAC you !voted support without leaving any comments whatsoever, but you have now admitted that there were prose issues with the article at the time. I assume good faith, but I hope this one is reconsidered if you want the delegates to take your vote into account Till  11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a comment. I think that the caption for the sample is a bit too large. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 02:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I trimmed a bit. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  for now. I agree with the nom when he says that various issues with the prose have been dealt with since the last FAC. However, various parts of the article have left me baffled and confused. For example, after reading "...about a brokenhearted man who cannot accept the past", I viewed the attributed source and ended up with something completely contradictory to this statement. The source doesn't say he "cannot accept the past", it says that he "refuses to look back" despite being previously broken-hearted, which is the complete opposite of what the article says. I also didn't understand the part which said "who may represent Spears"—I haven't seen the video, so perhaps this was some sort of commentary from the director? I've only looked at the lead, but it appears that some work will need to be completed before the article is going to be considered our best work. Till  11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Till. Thanks for giving you opinion here. Tbh, I was little worried about "refuses to look back" stuff, so I added in its original form with a reference in the lead. Also, the portrayal of Spears [it's not what the director said but critics commented on it and also Timberlake himself] ... However, I copy-edited the sentence in the lead. I hope it's fine now. Looking forward for other comments before you change your vote [hopefully]. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Till  02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "...was inspired by Timberlake's failed relationship with pop singer Britney Spears..." → "Failed" is a bit odd here. Perhaps there's an alternative such as 'ended' (or any others you could think of)?
 * Done, replaced it with end. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "some of whom considered it a stand-out track on Justified and praised Timbaland's production". → 'Some of whom' doesn't work here, just write 'who considerd it a...'
 * Re-worded. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the point in saying 'for shipments of 35,000.....' in the lead. That should just be a summary of the article without going into specific details.
 * Removed. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "In the video, Timberlake's character spies on his ex-lover – who allegedly portrays Spears – and plots revenge with help from Timbaland and a new lover." → Like I said above this is confusing for me.
 * I would need additional help for this. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done by Mark. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first section of the article is glued together with a bunch of quotes. Did you consider paraphrasing any of them?
 * Same as above. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Generally) a comma should come before 'respectively'
 * Added. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "It was released on a CD single in Germany on January 23" → on a CD single? Did you mean 'as a CD single'?
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The single contained the album version of the song" → It should be in present tense
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Comprising' should be composing or another alternative
 * Replaced with composing, although I am not fully sure if it is the right alternative. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to write "previously included".
 * Removed it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again with the present tense: "The single featured the album version of the song".
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "According to Annet Artani, Spears' 2003 song "Everytime", which Artani co-wrote..." → Doesn't read well. I was wondering who it was, but then the sentence tells it too late (in my opinion).
 * I am not sure how to this one either. Grammatically the sentence is correct. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done by Mark. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Till 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The copyedit introduced an error: "who considered it a a stand-out track on Justified". I also have concerns that "breakup" is a bit informal/colloquial. As for the music video bit, the word "his" has been used three times in one sentence. We could come back to these later. Till 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did it now. Removed the double "a", I replaced "breakup" with "former relationship" (I think is the best term we had there to date). And for the music video sentence, I re-worded a bit, although now we have "his" two times again. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are far too many quotes from critics in the composition section. For example, in the first paragraph it has 4 quotes from critics, one after another, reading, 'x from y described...' and 'x from y called...'
 * "...that features clavinet, guitars..." → Surely you mean the instrumentation features '....'. And clavinet is singular, is it not.
 * Copy-edited. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Tyler Martin of Stylus Magazine described the song as "surprisingly experimental sounds placed together in thrilling new ways"." → This makes no sense.
 * Can you please be more specific? — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cry Me a River" finishes with a Timbaland vocal sample, which Martin deemed "bizarre"." → How is his opinion even remotely relevant here?
 * I removed the last part of the sentence. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Again with many quotes from reviewers in the 3rd paragraph.
 * "Tanya L. Edwards of MTV News was not sure if the song is about Spears..." → What's that point of this? We are already told in the previous sections that the song was about her.
 * Removed the part about Spears. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This section needs work :/ Till  12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the points haven't been addressed. Till  11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ""Cry Me a River" reached the top ten in more than ten countries." → What's the point of this? We don't need a summary for a section
 * "in the December 21, 2002, issue" → in the issue dated December 21, 2002 perhaps? Reads better like that.
 * "On February 1, 2003, the single reached its peak at number three,[42] becoming Timberlake's first solo single to reach that position." → Some redundancy, eg. "reached its peak". And "at" number three? You might have meant "of" number three. Also where is the source for that last statement.
 * The Pop songs info needs copyediting too, it's much like the writing above which I pointed out
 * "For the December 28, 2002, issue, "Cry Me a River" debuted at number 75 on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.[45] It reached a peak of 11 on March 8, 2003." → Same repetitiveness as before
 * "In Australia, "Cry Me a River" debuted at number two on the Australian Singles Chart on March 9, 2003." → Well, obviously. You don't need to write 'in Australia' if we're being told that it's the Australian chart.
 * "The song stayed at the position for one week" → Why is this necessary? I mean, it's obvious that it stayed there for at least one week.
 * Remove "of more than", it's just 35,000 copies, not anything more
 * "and stayed there for one week" → Again, you don't have to write this because it's blatantly obvious. If it stayed on the position for more than one week then it's okay, but that wasn't the case here
 * "The next week it felt to number three" → "Felt"?
 * The song has sold over 265,000 copies in the country as of 2012, and it stayed on the chart for 13 weeks" → These don't seem to be mutual.
 * There are more redundancies such as "reached its peak". Just say "reached #..." or "peaked at #..."
 * "...and it stayed on the singles chart for 21 weeks" → we're already told that it's a singles chart
 * Umm, there has been information repeated. First we're told, "It also attained top-fifteen positions in several other countries, including France, Germany and Italy." But then we're told the actual positions? Suggest removing this sentence as there's no point in summarising what's immediately following.

I sort of skipped the reception section :/ Might come back to that later. Till 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I resolved all the the given issues. — Tomíca (T2ME) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the reception section has truncated sentences. Although, I don't have any other complaints for this section. Till  00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If by "truncated" you mean very short sentences, I think now looks quite better. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Apranam2| Apranam2 ]](T2ME) 10:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cry Me A River" is one of Justin Timberlake's most iconic works. Other than peaking at number three on the Billboard Top 100, it has amassed over 50 million views on YouTube and become a staple in the music industry as a well-respected song. I think this article is crafted beautifully and deserves to be featured because of it's importance.
 * After reading this article, I see it has a good chance of being a featured article. Probably needs a few minor changes before that can happened but so far it looks really good. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Wait to see your comments so how I can further improve this article. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jivesh
 * This article is very well written. Kudos to the copy-editors who polished the prose. However, there a few comprehensiveness concerns. The references look good at first glance. I am leaning to support but first let me post a few comments.


 * The lead looks great. The first section is also free of grammatical errors and very comprehensive though I think some paraphrasing won't hurt.
 * Are you referring to sentence ""Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad about a brokenhearted man who "refuses to look back".[1]? Well, it was paraphrased, but according to Till the paraphrasation was not good so I restored at the original. However, I will ask Mark to see if he can copy-edit it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to the first paragraph of the Writing and production section. The lead is excellent. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That section has been c/e it a lot, but for sorry I don't think additional paraphrasing is possible as to keep the originality. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * From the second paragraph of the Release and response section - There was initially a rumor that Britney had written a song in response but there was no confirmation of the song's name, right? She said it was not her style but later in an interview she said she would let the song speak for itself. Isn't she contradicting herself? And I see the other female co-writer has confirmed. Please explain this to me. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 10:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the song is obviously about Timberlake, however, she doesn't want to confirm it. So then she denied it, but in a 2009 interview she added the other statement. For to be more specific I added the year for the last quote. :) — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the composition - it will be best to separate the instruments and what the song is lyrically about and of course fix the usage of "songs", "singles", "it" etc to avoid redundancies after you move these sentences appropriately. To tell you frankly, you have got very interesting composition material but a better re-arrangement is indeed needed. Do not mix the instruments, vocal styles and lyrical meaning together. Are you getting my point? Jivesh 1205  (Talk) 07:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this? It will be copy-edited of course. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me too. I'm just not sure about whether the "What Goes Around... Comes Around" part belongs there. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There, it's restructured now Jivesh. Mark thanks for your contribution, moved the "What Goes Around... Comes Around" sentence. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do note that the Radio and release history table consists of several over-linking. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not overlinked, the table is free accessible so I have to link every term because with the access it isn't known which term will finish first. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a reliable source?
 * Rolling Stone ranked "Cry Me a River" at number twenty on their list of the 100 Best Songs of the 2000s - number 20 per WP:NUMBERS. Be consistent. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * VH1 ranked "Cry Me a River" at number fifty-nine on their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the 2000s - Same as above.

Please fix the above issues before I re-read the article for a last time. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – I have read the article a few times now but cannot see any underlying problems. The prose is excellent, the subject matter is comprehensive and I am happy to show my support to elevate to FA status.  --   Cassianto Talk    11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Storch said that working with Timberlake in the studio was easy because of the song's meaning." – If he "said" this, maybe it should be quoted as what he said. If your trying to avoid a quote, swap "said" for something else. --   Cassianto Talk    11:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think elaborate is the wrong word. Storch found working with Timberlake easy because of the song's meaning would be better if you are trying to avoid a quote.  Could you not find the quote and quote it? Beware, if you opt for my first suggestion, "the songs meaning" would need a bit of...er...elaboration :-) --   Cassianto Talk    19:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think about it now?:) — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, you now need to establish what is meant by "the song's meaning". The reader is now left asking a question; what was the song' s meaning?  Could you add a brief note as to what that meaning is? --   Cassianto Talk    20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's actually continuing in the next sentence. Reporters believed its lyrics were inspired by Timberlake's romantic relationship with American recording artist Britney Spears,[3] which ended in 2002. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So it is, good work! --  Cassianto Talk  
 * Thank you, very much! :) — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, great job.  Snap Snap  19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In the lead, I'd personally rephrase "for his 2002 debut studio album Justified" to "for his debut studio album, Justified (2002)".
 * When I work on my previous featured article "Rehab" reviewers pointed that adding the year in the prose was better, so that's what I followed in this article. I hope you don't mind. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the lead and in "Reception and accolades", I suggest changing "Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance at the 46th Grammy Awards in 2004" to "Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance in 2004", in order to avoid overlinking and repetition of the word "Grammy Award".
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Funk music → Funk.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Billboard Hot 100 → Billboard Hot 100
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The picture of a Grammy Award doesn't really seem to add anything to the "Reception and accolades" section, but that's just me.
 * Well it highlights the award, it's still Grammy (isn't that prestigious? :]) — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the release history table is supposed to be sortable (I might be wrong).
 * Personally I found sortable table better in this case, because there are not many releases and people could go through them easy. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support  Snap Snap  21:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The majority of problems have been addressed, with the article looking very polished. I can't see any major issues.  Et 3  rnal  22:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Et3rnal. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Now, I like to stay away from FAC's, but I will make an exception for this excellent article. Tomica's done a great job! It's FA worthy in my books! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. That should be done by some other user right? — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct -- you can request one in the relevant section at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On closer inspection of the comments above, I note Till's concern with the accuracy of one of the source citations in the articles -- I'd like to see a few more sources spotchecked for accuracy (and avoidance of close paraphrasing) before we wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was actually re-worded and I really believe it's accurate now. Ok, so now again, a talk request?:) — Tomíca (T2ME) 08:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can do that, or one of the reviewers above could respond -- I may do it myself in the next day or so if no-one else does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. You can, if no one responds until. Thanks. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly OK (sources and authors provided), just one suggestion and a fair-use issue (FUR tweaked)
 * File:Jt_cry_me_a_river.jpg - OK. Fair-use for identification of article topic.
 * File:Britney_Europe.jpg - technically OK, but why use a 2011 image to illustrate a relation, which ended in 2002? Maybe the 2003 image from the Spears-article would be better. (Done)
 * File:Justin_Timberlake_-_Cry_Me_a_River.ogg - OK, fair-use as sound example with detailed info.
 * File:Grammy.jpg - OK
 * File:Swift,_Taylor_(2007)_cropped.jpg - OK
 * File:JT_-_Cry_Me_a_River.png - rationale appears weak "To give the reader an idea of the video's contents." is not sufficient. Can you elaborate, why the image "... significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", as required by WP:NFCC #8? I am not against a video screenshot here (assuming the video has no own article), but the selected scene appears pretty generic and has no special visual elements (i can easily imagine a man stalking a blond woman, if i must). Is there no better scene capturing the video's mood and/or special effects? GermanJoe (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi GermanJoe, thanks for the image review. I replaced the Spears' image with the one from 2003, and also improved the caption of the video shot. The thing is, the shot is important because of the girl who allegedly portrays Britney. I hope it is better now. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I expanded the rationale a bit with some more specific details (please double-check). The breakup with Spears and its possible influence on the song and video are given broad coverage in the article, so fair-use should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe for that check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FN03b -- no issues
 * FN15 -- no issues
 * FN24 -- minor point that I dealt with myself
 * FN65b -- no issues

Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.