Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Say You Love Me (M2M 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2016.

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song)

 * Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the debut single by M2M, which was also the lead single from the Pokémon: The First Movie soundtrack. Article passed GA, has been peer reviewed and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

 * Comment ah, one of the least-guilty "guilty pleasures". This is among my favorite late-90s pop songs, along with "Steal My Sunshine". Here are my thoughts on a first run-through of the article:
 * I see that genre was removed from the infobox with . I think what was there, bubblegum pop, is basically self-evident, but it's surprisingly tricky to pin down a source that uses the word "bubblegum" — a few (this and that) call the band bubblegum, in passing, but not the song itself. But this article at Stereogum, while not about the band, does directly call the song "bubblegum", so there you go. I'd include it in the article body, and then you can put it in the infobox no problem.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also came across this NY Times article that could be used — you may have already seen it and dismissed it, since there's not a lot there not said elsewhere, but it's worth a look.
 * Thanks for pointing it out but I don't think i'll use it. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure about putting two critics' quotes in the lead. It's beautiful to see the famously cranky Christgau call M2M's music "impossibly touching," but still, he's talking there about their songs generally, not "Don't Say You Love Me" in particular. I'd consider cutting them.
 * I've removed Christgau's comments and left the other one. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The sample box caption talks about the lyrics, but not any traits of the sampled recording. You don't need a sample to discuss just the lyrics; fair use of the sample in fact requires discussion/commentary on the portion from the recording sampled. I'd reword the sample caption to talk about the style of the music and the lyrics.
 * Hmm after reading through the article the best thing I can think of to add is part of the review from Michael Paoletta saying how good the harmonisation is in the song. Do you think something like that would work? And if not, do you have another suggestion? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to put something together while I incorporate the music-sheet info. —BLZ · talk 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of, there's almost no discussion of the music itself — only the lyrics. You can glean some basic but useful facts from the officially licensed sheet music (tempo/bpm, what key it's in, the fact that iirc there's a key change), and the rest would likely be a description of genre and production style.
 * I don't know how to read a music sheet. So this sheet says the song is 100 beats per minute, is that right? What key does the sheet say it's in? Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's 100bpm. The key is either E major or C sharp minor... I could probably figure it out if you, uh, "give me some time". If you buy the digital copy of the sheet music (at $5.50 it's not totally unreasonable), you can send me a copy via email (I've enabled the emailing feature). I'll happily interpret it and draft up a solid paragraph. The music theory doesn't have to be much more in-depth than what you could find in "Under the Bridge", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or my own "Today", but I do think a song article needs to have some music-theory info where it's available (and since licensed sheet music exists, it is available here.) —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Every link in a source should be archived using archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl=no (unless the link actually is dead, of course). I think pre-emptively archiving all source links should be required in FAs because it improves the future reliability of the sourcing and saves a lot of time if links die.
 * I've archived all the URLs except the google book sources and some of the sources used for charting, which have been formatted in a manner which won't let me add the archiving parameters. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Sources that were originally print don't really need the same type of backup, since in a way the user is lucky enough to be able to access scans online in the first place. —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

—Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've addressed a couple points and will address the others shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now added the basic information from the sheet music to the article. You'll notice I also slipped in a new source that I came across: shockingly, someone in Oslo did their Ph.D thesis in musicology about M2M. I checked Wikipedia's sourcing policy to make sure citing to a thesis is OK, and in this case it seems appropriate; although caution should be taken with theses, they say that it's better if a thesis has been cited by others, and sure enough this one already has been cited, despite being only two years old and in the narrow field of scholarly pop-music analysis. I'm going to add a few more things that I think are useful from that thesis, but for now I have to run and do something IRL. —BLZ · talk 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, i'm really impressed with your work (and both amazed and fascinated to find out about this thesis!) Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I've added what elements of the composition and thesis I thought were worth adding, as well as bringing in what there was in the sources about genre. You've done an excellent job with this article. I'm satisfied that this meets FA criteria. Incidentally, I've recently found a site called archive.is which is extremely useful and seems to work for some URLs that archive.org won't save. It should work for at least some of the links that didn't work earlier. —BLZ · talk 05:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7
Everything looks good. The article is of FA standard. All images have appropriate licences (two are Fair Use). Consider moving the image of Raven across to the right. I corrected one typo in the text. A minor quibble is that my Australian version of Shades of Purple has The Feeling is Gone as track 14. Anyhow, well done. (As a passing note, I saw M2M at EPCOT in 2000.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Thanks . That's interesting about the Australia version; despited being an Australian myself I only have a digital copy of the album which contains the standard 13 tracks. Do you think I should add this information about the Australian version in brackets? The American version of the album is already used as a source for one thing; i'm guessing I might need to know serial numbers of something about the Australia version to differentiate it if I used it as a source, or would simply saying it's the Australia version in the reference be enough information do you think? I'm so jealous you got to see M2M at EPCOT. Haha you didn't happen to take any photos did you? Wikipedia is lacking a free image of both members of M2M together at all. Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have this version. I think going into this would be drifting off-topic here (although it should be noted in the Shades of Purple article!) I suggest instead just changing the text to say "which were left off the U.S. version of the album." It was pure coincidence that I happened to be there at the time. As for photos, alas, Hawkeye7 is not a photographer, I'm afraid. (I do recall that they sang the album version.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As is appropriate, I have checked the top 40: Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Source review
 * Ok
 * 1) Added a link
 * 2) Serious problem: Says 39,000 units sold, not 400,000 [I know i have a source for 400,000 units shipped, looks like I didn't put it in the right place. Hold on while I keep looking for it.] Freikorp (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Update: It took damn forever haha, but I found the correct source and have substituted it in where the incorrect one was. Freikorp (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * 1) Doesn't actually say they got a worldwide contract in 1998; wording leaves open the possibility of 1999 [Good point. I've reworded this accordingly.] Freikorp (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * 1) AGF on offline source
 * 2) Ok - Pretty amazing that someone wrote a PhD on M2M
 * Ok
 * 1) AGF on offline source
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * 1) AGF on off-offline source
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * 1) Can't verify the 11 January claim [I seem to have placed a superfluous inline citation there; the January 11 claim is backed up by the reference in the following sentence.) Freikorp (talk] 23:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Talks about a March 2000 release (as does source 18) [Ref 19 gives a list of where the single was available as of January 11 (most of Europe apparently) under the heading "Debut Single Availability". I note that Ref 18 seems to contradict this by saying the single is "due for release across Europe in March", however I think the official website is a more reliable source for this information than a third party source, and it's also much more detailed, specifying individual countries as opposed to generalising the release to "Europe."] Freikorp (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * 1) AGF on offline source
 * 2) AGF on off-offline source
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * 1) Covers Finland only. [Removed unreferenced Indonesian claim. I know I had a source for it somewhere but I can't find it now.] Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * 1) Ok 33 and 34 cover the Netherlands and Sweden, but missing the UK. [Added an inline citation for the UK chart. Source was in the weekly chart table, just forgot to put it inline in the prose.) Freikorp (talk] 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * 1) Ok But the one-hit-wonder tag is a bit harsh IMO. [Personally I thought it was harsh as well, since their follow up single did go gold in the US, but the term has been used, and by more than one source (Ref 46 uses it also) so I thought it would be biased if I didn't include it.] Freikorp (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * Ok
 * ok
 * 1) Doesn't cover the information in the second paragraph of Music Video! [See reply below. Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for the source review Hawkeye7, i've attempted to address all the concerns mentioned above. Let me know if there are any additional concerns. Freikorp (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Two more. The point on source 53 (above) and the statement in the second paragraph of the "Live performances and covers" section is not supported by reference 1, and is a bit misleading. M2M was a creation of the studio. They disbanded in 2002, but remained under contract, so neither was able to pursue a solo career until it ran out in 2005. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref 53 only backs up the statement that the music video was included on the Pokemon DVD. There are no sources for the music video content, or for the differences between the two similar videos. It is my understanding that this information would not require sources, for the same reason that film plot's don't. The music video themselves serve as the source.
 * As for the second issue - well that's interesting to know, thanks for pointing it out, I never actually realised they were still under contract, though it does explain why it took them so long to release their debut solo album's. Anyway I don't see how it's misleading, or how it isn't supported by the reference. The article stated: 'M2M disbanded in 2002, after which Raven and Larsen both pursued solo careers.' The source states: 'M2M released two albums, one in 2000 and another 2002, and then split, with both halves of the duo moving on to solo careers.' Granted, it does omit the information that they were still under contract, but I don't see how that is misleading. At the end of the day they still disbanded in 2002 and then pursued solo careers. Ravn's debut album came out in 2005, so it's probable that even if she was under contract until some point in 2005 she was writing songs/working on a solo career before then. Anyway to be more accurate i've reworded it to: "Raven and Larsen ceased performing as M2M in 2002, and both went on to pursue solo careers". Does that address your concern? Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All my concerns are addressed Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96

 * "There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movie version and the version released on Shades of Purple." - this could be better There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movieand the one released on ''Shades of Purple
 * "and reached an audience of 5 million people," - spell out 5
 * "The single was released in Norway on radio on 24 November,[17] and by 11 January the single was on sale in Norway" - reptition of single
 * Added a wikilink for NRK Petre to NRK P3
 * "M2M performed the song live at Walt Disney Worlds Epcot" - Walt Disney World's

This article was a nice read. I'm going to admit that I have never listened to this song. MWright96 (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and helpful suggestions. I've made all the changes. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read through the article again and could not find anything else that stands out. I therefore give my support. I have not spot checked the sources MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Small point, but I changed it back to "5". Normally numbers less than ten should be represented as words, but forms such as "X million" are an exception. Per Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. —BLZ · talk 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Welcome back Freikorp, best of luck with your degree. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment from magiciandude (Erick)
Hey it's me again! Congrats on the nomination. Anyways a few comments from me:
 * You should mention that Chuck Taylor wrote for Billboard in the lead as you have done in the body, as readers may not know who he is.
 * Good idea. Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:SONGCOVER suggests that a cover version should only be included if it the cover itself satisfies WP:NSONGS. What makes Krissy & Ericka's cover notable? Was it released as a single?
 * WP:SONGCOVER says "discussion of a particular artist's rendition" should only be included if the cover is notable. I'm not discussing the cover, I simply mention it exists with one line. It doesn't say you can't mention it. From looking at other featured song articles it appears commonplace to list, with sources (as I have done), notable groups that have covered the song. The cover is notable because the covering group is notable. It was not released as a single. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the music video, are there any critical commentaries of the video itself? Did critics (dis)like the video? Was it in a top ten music videos of the year list? This one isn't a huge issue for me and it's alright if you can't find any, but I am curious nonetheless.
 * I spent a lot of time looking for information on the music video, what's in the article now is pretty much everything I could find unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Any critical commentaries for the live performances as well? Again, not a huge issue for me. Erick (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really unfortunately. The limited coverage of concerts only gives passing mention of overall fan reception, and nothing in particular to this song itself. It's a problem I had in general for the live performances section. For example the 'Angels of Norway' reference, which is used to support that they played the song as an encore in Kuala Lumpur to a crowd of 4,000, also states they played for a crowd of 10,000 in Bangkok, but it doesn't explicitly state they played 'Don't Say You Love Me' at that concert (even though they obviously would have considering it was their biggest hit). I have plenty of sources that M2M opened for both Hanson (band) and Jewel (singer), but again, none specifically states they played this song, even though we know they would have. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. The article is still well-written. I now support this article. Great job...again! ;) Erick (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note
Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No Ian nobody has done that yet. Incidentally just letting reviewers know I happen to have PDF's of all the offline sources, so if someone wants to check any of those in addition to the online sources just email me and i'll send you copies of them. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Freikorp -- I'll leave a request for source review at WT:FAC. I know you've had a spotcheck or two in previous FACs so we don't necessarily need it here, but of course if someone can perform that too I certainly won't discourage it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a source review (above). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is now completed and all issues raised have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.