Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)/archive3


 * 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017.

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)

 * Nominator(s): — Tom (T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2007 song recorded by Barbadian singer Rihanna, part of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad. Being one of her signature songs, "Don't Stop the Music"'s article on Wikipedia (IMO) is well written, comprehensive (maximum of the available sources online are used) and tidied up. This is the article's 3rd FAC, the previous one was closed because of inactivity, so I hope this one will bring more attention to editors. Thanks :) — Tom (T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

 * You could use "hlist" rather than "flat list" to condense down some of the infobox parameters
 * The lead is often the hardest section of an article to write, so I have a few issues I feel need to be addressed:
 * Just a suggestion – Add "Both" before "Rihanna and Jackson were sued by..."
 * "The song was critically acclaimed" → This isn't very neutral
 * "it sold more than 3.7 million copies..." → "it has sold more than 3.7 million copies..." (the song is still available for purchase; this period never ended)


 * The first instance of "critics" could be linked to "Music journalism"
 * "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" → Same; I don't know how neutral this is
 * The "Weekly charts" section for Rihanna's version should read "Chart (2007-2009) per the new WP:MoS for this specific template
 * This is what I noticed from a quick glance. I will try to go deeper in my next comments, but otherwise it looks great so far! Carbrera (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments . Appreciate them. I believe I have fixed all the upper presented issues. To make it more neutral, for the critical part of the song, I wrote Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. A similar sentence replaced the positive reviews part in the 'Critical reception' section. I hope it reads better and more neutral now. And I can't wait for your other comments ;) ! — Tom (T2ME) 10:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Moisejp

 * "Dibango's attorneys brought the case before a court in Paris, demanding €500,000 in damages and for Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music to be "barred from receiving 'mama-say mama-sa'-related income until the matter is resolved".[4]" Is there any information on how those legal proceedings ended up? Your source says "French judges will announce on 17 February [2009] whether they will hear the case." Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This source in Radio France Internationale says that the judge on Feb. 17 ruled against Dibango but it sounds like the latter was expected to appeal the decision. [] Here is another source in La Presse about the same ruling: [] I did a quick Google search and couldn't find news about any later developments, but quit after 5 search pages—but if you want you could see what you could find. In any case, you should probably add mention of the judge's decision. If you happen to need help with the details in the French articles, just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey ! Thanks for the comment. I remember when I was writing the article (3 or 4 yrs ago) I didn't have any luck finding sources about what happened after the lawsuit, same as now. I am really bad with French, so maybe if you have time you can translate what you found in this sources and add it to the article (if it's not too much trouble)? — Tom (T2ME) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to do so in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it now. By the way, it looks like you have at least two raw URL references that need fixing: #77 and #111. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomica, as you saw, I've added info about the February 17 court ruling. This is my best translation of the French sources, although I'm not a legal expert and can't guarantee there might not be more precise legal terms to use. One other side note, I would like to recommend that you archive all of your sources (as I did for the two I added). I'll admit that I only recently became converted to this practice, but I'm now a strong believer in its benefits. Of course it's up to you, but it's just generally a good idea. Good luck with the article, and take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * Both of the subtitles from the first two images in the body of the article repeat the line about the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. It seems a little unnecessarily repetitive to me, but this may just be a stylistic preference.
 * I do not think you need to repeat the full title of the song ("Don't Stop the Music") in such close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Development and release" section. I think it would stronger to just say "It was recorded at..." instead.
 * Do you have any information about the lyrical interpretation of the single? I was just wondering after comparing this article to "S&M" and I noticed the absence of that information in this article. The parts about the composition are very good though.
 * Great job with the article. These are the only points that I have noticed. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Aoba. I think I resolved the first two issues :) Check to see if it's better now. While for the third one, "DSTM" was released in 2007 while "S&M" in 2011, so a lot of online sources are dead from back then and that's all that I found for the 'Composition' section. I know that it can be more complex, however, I think I used maximum of the available online sources. Again, thanks for the comments and praise! — Tom (T2ME) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article! The response about the "Composition" section makes sense to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

 * "he allegedly approved the request without contacting Dibango beforehand"..... if possible, I would try to use something more definitive than "allegedly"
 * Well, I opened the source and read the original publishing, it really says that. I don't have an idea, how would I re-write that. If you have something on your mind, feel free to share :)


 * "compared 'Don't Stop the Music' to Rihanna's 2006 single, 'SOS'" could use some elaboration; go into how Slant felt they were similar
 * He is not specific at all, just compares it to it :/


 * "After the release of Rihanna's single 'Only Girl (In the World)' in 2010, many critics compared its composition and structure to 'Don't Stop the Music'"..... same as before
 * They really just elaborate more for "Only Girl" which is important for that article not really here, IMO EW's comment is the only one who could be featured here as well
 * In that case, it would be better to only mention the EW review for this comparison Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Already menionted it :)


 * While "Rihanna's 20 Biggest Billboard Hits" is really more about commercial performance, I would contain a quote along with its ranking
 * Added quote


 * "In 2008, the song was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" is outdated when it's gone 5x platinum in Australia
 * Fixed it
 * Just remember to update the ref as well! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Shoot, totally forgot that. Fixed now — Tom (T2ME) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So far looking pretty good. I'll go through this again later and perhaps conduct an image review. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it! :) — Tom (T2ME) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking through again.....
 * The only glaring problem I find is how the About.com link used says nothing about this video; please replace the URL or remove that bit entirely
 * Removed it :'( Now the section is even shorter than it was, About.com update the article on the same article and sadly I haven't had archived it

That should be it.<b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For live performances, four digits are preferred for years per this discussion. Could you perhaps add commentary for her performances of this track, even if part of a tour review?
 * In "Credits and personnel", psuedo-headings (using bold text and especially ";") are discouraged for accessibility concerns
 * I think I resolved the last issue. For the commentary, there is no significant mention of how she performed, or what she wore, it's just that she performed it along some other dance hits "Pon de Replay" and "SOS". — Tom (T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I now support this for FAC following its improvements. A job very well done! <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Media review
Image and sample review complete. I find nothing of concern. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG has an appropriate FUR
 * File:Manu dibango1.jpg is claimed as own work. I will assume good faith that this is true.
 * File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg complies with WP:SAMPLE
 * File:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg is A-OK as the author says all of his uploads are free for public use
 * File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png also has an appropriate FUR
 * File:Rihanna Last Girl on Earth Tour Zurich.JPG is also claimed as own work. I can't find anything suggesting otherwise, and will assume good faith here as well.
 * File:Dont Stop the Music Cullum version cover.png is another non-free image with an appropriate FUR
 * Thank you :) — Tom (T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has been open for quite a long time now (and listed at the FAC urgents page), and I think we are in danger of going stale with only one support in all this time. I'm afraid if nothing happens in the next few days, this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we probably just need a source review, unless I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are unanswered comments lingering below for more than a week—what is your status in addressing them? -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry
Music is not my area of expertise but I quite like this song and seeing as the review seems to be struggling for input, I'll take a look. Obviously take my comments with an appropriate dose of salt.
 * StarGate, with Michael Jackson receiving This isn't a great use of "with" in professional writing, especially not in the second sentence of the lead.
 * Done/Adjusted it a little bit. Hopefully, reads better


 * praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook Do you think it's necessary to repeat "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" here?
 * I am afraid so. I know it's a long word, but at the same time I don't want the readers to be confused


 * number one in more than 10 countries Is there a reason not to give the exact number? Also, switching between numerals and words is discouraged by MOS:NUMERAL.
 * I did now, it was actually less than 10 if you see the table (great that you pointed). Also, I chose words for the numbers


 * with additional songwriting by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson.[a] It's surprising that you use the footnote to explain Jackson's relevance in the body, when you mention it in the prose in the second sentence of the lead. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, I'd be inclined to put it in the prose in the body.
 * I changed it and now it corresponds with the lead


 * The song samples the line "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" from Jackson's 1983 Ah, perhaps this is the place to explain why Jackson gets credit? It wold also reduce repetition.
 * I clarified it in the first paragraph and just removed this part in the latter section


 * This was due to the fact is again not really professional-quality writing
 * Removed the phrase.


 * territories including Australia, Italy, New Zealand and Spain Just out of curiosity, why "territories" and not "countries"?
 * Changed to countries


 * four-minute, 27-second mixing words and numeral again
 * Adjusted it!

Other than the above, the article seems very well put-together and, based on a quick look, comparable to other featured articles on individual songs. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Harry thanks you so much for the review you. Appreciate it! Hopefully my responds/edits worked for you :) Cheers! — Tom (T2ME) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. This is much, much better and easier to follow. Just FYI, you don't need to write out all the numbers; the MoS just doesn't like you mixing numerals and words in the same sentence. Regardless, I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry :) — Tom (T2ME) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

to reply to me 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png this non-free image does not have an appropriate rationale (Purpose of use "To illustrate in the article"?) Per WP:NFCC#8—contextual significance—the music video would only need to be pictured if it contains a scene that could not be adequately described with sourced text alone. Since it's a simple image of her dancing in a club, it's completely understood without the need for an image. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The change from "territories" to "countries" may be in error, as iTunes has stores for a few places (Hong Kong, Macau) which are not countries. Reference 9, next to it, also doesn't contain any information about the date of release (only the year) or the territories the EP was released in aside from Australia. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

More comments from Moisejp
Sorry these are late in the game, Tomica. I hope you can quickly address these within the time period of the FAC. These are all in the Composition and Release & reception sections:
 * Neither the Fair Use Rationale of File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg nor its caption say specifically how this sound clip illustrates the song in a way that words alone could not. Whenever I do FURs and captions for sound clips, I try to include points directly mentioned in the article that the sound clip can be said to illustrate in a way that words alone could not. In your case, you could say (for example) that it contributes to the "pulsating musical structure" and that it adds to the effect of the song's powerful beat (a paraphrase of "blur[s] into the track's overpowering beat").
 * Changed it! I hope it satisfies the criteria right now. :)


 * The FUR notes that the sound clip is under 30 seconds, but what is more relevant is that it is under 10% of the song's length. Sound clips must be under 10% or under 30 seconds, whichever is less—so the 30 seconds is only relevant for songs 5 minutes or longer.
 * I firmly believe it is under 10% of the full length of the song. It's 24 seconds long, while the full song is 4 minutes and 27 seconds long.
 * Sorry that I wasn't clear for this point. I did not mean to imply that the sound clip was not under 10% of the song's length. What I meant was that the FUR should say "The sound clip is xx seconds long, which is under 10% of the song's length of 4 minutes 27 seconds" NOT "The sound clip is under 30 seconds." Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "After the release of Rihanna's single "Only Girl (In the World)" in 2010, Brad Wete from Entertainment Weekly described "Only Girl" as a "stronger" and "sexier version" of "Don't Stop the Music"." This feels like weak filler content that does not add to the reader's understanding of the composition of "Don't Stop the Music". I would recommend removing it.
 * Restored the original text. Well, tbh, when "Only Girl (In the World)" was released, the fuss about being similar to "DSTM" was huge! So I think it deserves a slight mention even in this article.
 * Great, this restored version is a definite improvement. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of direct quotations in these two sections—I would argue there are more than is ideal. I know it's not always easy to paraphrase music quotes and get the exact nuance, but I urge you to try to paraphrase at least two or three of them. For example, "we defy you to get the hook from this pounding 2007 dancefloor favorite out of your mind" should be easy to paraphrase. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just on that particular example, I disagree. Sure, you could paraphrase it as "felt it was a catchy tune" or something like that, but that's much less fun. Quotes aren't just devices for accurately conveying somebody's words, they add variety to the prose. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  07:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that a given quotation can be "fun" and add variety to the prose. But my point was that, for me, the number of quotations here risks being a little bit too much. With the goal of reducing the number of quotations, the one I cited above seems it would be easy to paraphrase without losing any nuance of meaning (although it could lose some fun factor as you say). Tomica could paraphrase other quotations, but might have to work harder with some of them to not lose any nuance. That was just my impression from scanning the various quotations, but maybe Tomica has ideas for effectively paraphrasing some of the other ones, in which case it's all good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do take your point; we all know the challenges of writing featured articles and trying to balance all the competing demands. I'd just hate to see Tom go too far in the other direction and leave us with bland prose because he tried not to use too many quotes. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for the input, I really appreciate it. For the last "issue" of the direct quotes, I checked them and... in my opinion they are kind of specific in a manner of paraphrasing them. Also, I am gonna admit, I am kinda burnt these days and my paraphrase inspiration is null. On the other hand, they are pretty short, so I don't think it's a really big of an issue to stay like this. If you have time, and idea how some of them can be rephrased feel free to edit them :). —  Tom (T2ME) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm making some tentative paraphrases. As I mentioned in my edit summary (and taking HJ Mitchell's comment to heart), I am not saying we necessarily need to keep all of these paraphrases. These are just some ideas, and maybe we can find some consensus on the best ones to keep. Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Cullum's take on Rihanna's 'Don't Stop the Music' is best of all..." This seems to be in reference to something else mentioned in the source (previous to this quote), but without the context given, "best of all" is not really meaningful. I didn't read the source, but maybe it is saying it is the best track on Cullum's album; if so (or even if not), I recommend paraphrasing this first part of the quotation to clarify the meaning. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for all the c/e :) I think you really did a good job. I paraphrased that one, I hope it reads good. 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Support: I have done more copy-editing, and I now believe the article is well-written and satisfies the FA criteria. There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference, and perhaps Rihanna fans appreciate the extra detail. Good work on the article! Moisejp (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is getting close. I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd like to look at it one more time when my brain is fresh (hopefully tomorrow or soon), and likely make a couple more mini-c/e's if I spot anything else. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I really appreciate the copy-edit and all of your input in the article. — Tom (T2ME) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * Fn 95 is a dead link
 * All of the other citations look appropriate for the information that they are citing.
 * Everything that needs to be cited is cited. Other than the first point I raised above, this is good to go as far as sources are concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed Fn 95 :). Thanks for the source review ! —  Tom (T2ME) 21:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1

 * "Don't Stop the Music" is a song ..." opens the article. Then the first para ends with ""Don't Stop the Music" is a dance song ...". Could the grammar be changed for one of those instances?
 * In my opinion it should stay like that, because "Soul Makosa" is mentioned in the previous sentence, so if we change the last sentence it might confuse the readers.


 * "Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of"—is "Critically" ambiguous in this context? It appears again below.
 * Removed it.


 * "Certified four times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"—suggest "Certified platinum four times by ...".
 * Hmmm not sure about this one, I think it should stay as it is, since that's how it's used in all the music/albums FAs.


 * "In the video, Rihanna and her friends sneak into the back of a candy store which contains a secret club and she parties with club-goers."—Suggest "that" for "which", and a comma after "club".
 * Done.


 * ""Don't Stop the Music" is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance song."—since the fact it's a song is very very obvious by now, perhaps: ""Don't Stop the Music" is 4 minutes, 27 seconds long."?
 * The emphasis here is also on the genre, so I think song as a word should stay.
 * Why? Tony   (talk)  03:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it would read like this "'Don't Stop the Music' is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance." If it reads like this I would think DSTM is a dance, not a song. — Tom (T2ME) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems far-fetched. At least use numerals, which is standard. Tony   (talk)  02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "According to Sony/ATV Music Publishing's digital sheet music, it was written in the key of F♯ minor in common time, with a moderate tempo of 123 beats per minute.[14] Rihanna's voice ranges from F♯3 to A4.[14] The syncopated song samples a variety of layered rhythms,[3] with hip-hop rhythms and a heavy bass drumbeat predominating.[3] The sampled "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" was added to the arrangement for a "pulsating musical structure".[3]" Surely the key and tempo (and the other obvious musical features) can be observed on the recording, and need no citation. Query, then, why you need to announce "According to" anything/anyone—sounds like you're questioning the veracity of the score. The citation is fine, but ... do we really need 14, 14, 3, 3, 3? Successive reftags of the same number can be irritating unless they verify really critical or controversial propositions. (Put at end, once? Reftags are retrospective in reach.)
 * Fixed now.
 * It's not fixed. Why do we need "According to ..."? If you listen to the source, it's easily recoverable. It's like saying that "According to the music score, Beethoven's Eroic Symphony is in E-flat major and compound time." And ... why do we need [14] and [14] a few centimetres from each other? Tony   (talk)  02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wondering why you didn't use numerals for the two-digit numbers; wouldn't it be easier for readers? We have "13th", too.
 * Restored them.

Doesn't smell, thus far, like a featured article. Tony  (talk)  13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! Changed some stuff, commented for some other things :) — Tom (T2ME) 20:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * " It was successful on the Swiss Singles Chart, peaking at number one for five weeks.[52] The song also reached number one in Austria,[53] Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium,[54][55] Hungary[56] and the Netherlands.[57]"—Do we need "also"?
 * "fourteenth", but "13th". Tony   (talk)  02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
Support on prose -- I have not reviewed the tables of data. There are a couple of minor points below, but I don't think they should hold up promotion. I've copyedited; please revert if necessary. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding the date of recording to the first paragraph of the body; it's in the infobox but not the body text.
 * Why do we need the details of some of the chart performances spelled out in the "Commercial performance" section? The chart tables give much of the detail.  I can understand calling out some of the higher-profile facts, such as the Billboard Hot 100 peak position, or coutnries where it reached number one, or the gold and platinum certifications, but why do we need to read here that "The single debuted at number 31 in New Zealand on October 12, 2007. After fluctuating for four weeks, it peaked at number three for a week and spent a total of 22 weeks on the chart."?  You don't have "weeks on chart" or "debut position" in the table, but those are fairly minor facts unless they set a record in themselves.  You could add them to the table if they're that important, or just let the reader can go to the source for those details.
 * Hi Tomica, when I wrote above that "There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference..." Mike's comments about the charts was actually one of them. I agree with him that it might be beneficial to take out some of the detail from this section, although it is a minor point. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think, despite Tony1's reservations, we have enough support to promote this now. Reading through, I agree that there are places where the detail could be trimmed about performances, etc, but that is not enough to delay promotion. However, I would recommend addressing the points of Mike and Moisejp after the article has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.