Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Good Girl Gone Bad/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Good Girl Gone Bad

 * Nominator(s): — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests. As the album is third, this is the third time we nominate this article for FA. Before I nominate it I went through it, not spotting any major issues with the prose or the references, and I think it satisfied the criteria pretty well. I would left the rest to the users who comment. Special thanks to who also helped me to bring the article to GA status. — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead

 * I believe worked with various producers on the album sounds more natural.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned that 7 million copies were sold worldwide.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, an album can not produce singles, it can generate them.
 * I agree produced is not the best word, however, what about spawned?


 * Why don't you write the producers with their stage names: Tricky Stewart instead of Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, L.A. Reid instead of Antonio "L.A." Reid, and so.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When I click on "tour", I expect the link to lead to concert tour. Why don't you write the full name of Timberlake's tour or maybe delink the word?
 * I c/e it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you've misinterpreted the ref describing "Umbrella". The Guardian called it an "improbable R&B summer smash" (not rock)! It further said it reminded the author of a "rock power ballad", but that's not the same as being a rock power ballad.
 * Fixed it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the live performances, isn't there some choreography when the songs are played onstage? I haven't watched Rihanna's concerts, but there certainly are dancers, screens, or specific outfit when she performs.
 * Since it was a 2007 tour, there are not much sources describing it the tour. — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The commercial performance, as well as the charts and tables are professionally done, perhaps the strongest side of the article, so I have no complaints on that.
 * Thanks Hope my responses satisfy you! —  Tomíca (T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are a few spotchecks on the references:
 * ref 2—Vibe saying A Girl Like Me is a pop album→verified
 * ref 3—dancehall and R&B influences on the sophomore album according to Rolling Stone→verified
 * ref 8—Rihanna received singing lessons from Ne Yo→verified
 * ref 15—"Umbrella" previously offered to Mary J. Blige→verified
 * ref 22—no Caribbean influences on this record per Allmusic→verified
 * ref 30—Metro Weekly compared "Rehab" to "Cry Me a River"→verified
 * ref 44—highlights are the three Timbaland tracks according to The Village Voice journalist→verified
 * ref 87—canceled concert in Malaysia because of costumes→verified
 * refs 91–100—these are critics quotations, so I assume they are correct.
 * ref 105—2.8 million copies sold in the US→not verified; the link is good, but the first part of the article is missing
 * ref 110—1.85 million copies sold in Britain→verified
 * ref 117—7 million copies sold globally→verified
 * ref 121—Rolling Stone ranks "Umbrella" at 412→verified
 * ref 125—not verified→link leads to unspecified entry; if you're using Chart Watch, you can credit the author, Paul Grein.
 * ref 130—not verified→best selling dance/electronic album, per the article's title
 * ref 131—the remix album 49,000 copies sold→verified, but you may add by July 2010, to be more specific
 * You may want to check the external links in the toolbox, it appears that several are dead
 * I fixed/removed/added all the dead links :). I believe everything is good now. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support since all my comments were addressed, and I have no further objections.--Retrohead (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Retrohead. — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor

 * We have six external links that have a connection timeout.
 * Done, repaired them. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I would title the picture set "Major writers and producers on Good Girl Gone Bad", since Tricky Stewart worked on two tracks, Ne-Yo worked on three, and Justin Timberlake worked on only one. I feel that the individual captions alone suffice because they give more specific details about their respective collaborations. The sentences for Tricky Stewart and Ne-Yo also need periods at the end of them because they are complete sentences.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Justin Timberlake caption, I feel like "and learned much from the sessions" is too open-ended and unclear. I would recommend just dropping this part of the sentence and leaving it at how much Rihanna enjoyed working with him.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In "Composition", you could move the first sentence into the first full paragraph, so we don't have a little stub of a paragraph hanging out on its own in the beginning.
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * How about you chunk the two audio samples into a single box so it looks a little bit less cluttered?
 * Done. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "Singles" section, it would be helpful to either a) find a better picture of Bey and Jay where both of their faces are more clearly visible, or if that's not possible, b) make the existing image a bit larger.
 * Since I couldn't find a better pic of them too, I decided that the Jay Z part was more notable regarding "Umbrella" ofc, and added just a picture of him. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Since it is a little short on its own, I feel like "Accolades and legacy" could be merged into a couple of other sections. The first paragraph would fit well in "Critical response", and the second paragraph would flow nicely in the "Commercial performance" section.
 * Merged them. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Re-issue and remix album" would fit well as the third subheading beneath "Marketing and release", since both discs are undoubtedly promotional efforts to boost the performance of the original record.
 * Same here. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason why "Deluxe Edition Featuring Dance Remixes" is in capitalized in the track listing?
 * I adjusted it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The release history table has a chunk of missing record labels for some countries.
 * Not anymore ;). — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to link music/digital download because you link CD and LP in the table.
 * Linked it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between the deluxe and limited editions? There are a variety of deluxe editions mentioned in the track listing so that for me isn't an issue, but I don't see anything about a specific limited edition.
 * That's just going according to what the source says the CD is. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in moving references into a separate column at the end of the table, although this is purely a matter of personal preference.
 * With all due respect, I prefer them like this :). — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments.
 * No problem! I'm happy to give my support. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ

 * Support I can't seek any issue on the article. This is a comprehensive and well sourced article indeed. Well done! Simon (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
Comment I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the minor copy-edit in the lead. I am okay with it, no need to revert it. Feel free to watchlist the article. — Tomíca (T2ME) 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio

 * Comment - Hi one thing I noticed in the Certification table that many of the references are manually coded in the certref parameter so that they can be used elsewhere in the article. However, you don't need to do this. The refname parameter can be used easily like the singlechart and albumchart templates now. Article space can be reduced much in this way. — Indian: BIO   [ ChitChat  ] 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Hey, thanks for the note. I did it, removed the manual references from the certifications table. :) — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Will jot some notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The prose needs a bit of polishing - I copyedited the lead a bit. Also, be wary of redundancies and too-short sentences - see this. Will make other striaghtforward changes as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning.
 * Thanks for the copy-editing . It's good, I like it like this too. Appreciate it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good Girl Gone Bad was recorded in Westlake Recording Studios and Conway Studios in Los Angeles; Battery Studios and Roc the Mic Studios in New York City; Chicago Recording Company and Pressure Studios in Chicago; Phase One Audio Group in Toronto; Lethal Studios in Bridgetown, Barbados; Espionage Studios in Oslo; and Parr Street Studios in Liverpool. - weird use of semicolons here.....I'd use commas.
 * Done, replaced it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weeks later, the three met in New York City, where Timberlake had conceptualized a song for Rihanna. Timbaland, who conceptualized a song for Rihanna under the title "Rehab", was producing a beat, over which Timberlake improvised his lyrics - "conceptualized a song for Rihanna " repeated - reword to something else..."written"..."penned"..?
 * Replaced it with penned. — Tomíca (T2ME) 09:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any clangers outstanding, and will just have another read to come to an opinion on prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - can't see anything that I can come up with a better alternative - some bits (e.g. Live performances segment) a bit listy and could do with some more comments to make less so but not a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you . — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Media check - all OK

 * "Fair-use" of lead image and 2 sound samples is within en-Wiki policy. The rationale for File:Rihanna_-_Don't_Stop_the_Music.ogg is a bit short, but OK.
 * Other files are CC with sufficient source and author information - OK.
 * Flickr file shows no signs of problems - OK.
 * File:JustinTimberlakeJune07_crop.jpg - consider rephrasing the caption with something more significant about his contribution. "She enjoyed working with Justin Timberlake" is a typical interview phrase with little encyclopedic information. GermanJoe (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the media check I changed the rationale, hope it reads better now. All the best! —  Tomíca (T2ME) 10:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
Looks really good! I only have minor concerns: Overall, a very well-written article that Riri herself would be quite proud of.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For "writers and producers" photos, three images in one spot is overkill. I would just use one or two there.
 * The "N" should be capitalized for "MacNeil"
 * "Canadian Online Explorer" should link to Canoe.ca
 * No need to mention "What Goes Around... Comes Around"
 * Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé
 * Timberlake makes more than a "cameo appearance" for the "Rehab" video :P
 * For "marketing and release" section, I'm not sure the referrals to Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded and Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes should use "main article" template, probably better to use "see also" or "further information"
 * Done all. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can now gladly support :)  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 20:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from JennKR
A great article Tom, and it's great to see you working on more FAs! I have some comments:


 * What I feel like isn't stressed is that GGGB is the major turning point in Rihanna's career. It's the first album were she makes her stamp in the ground of early 2000s music, the first were she makes a cohesive body of work and the first were her overarching dark, sexual image emerges. I think what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be a part of the article where the reader gets the impression this is where the good girl went bad, and this should also, crucially, be stressed in one or two sentences in the lead. At the moment, the lead summarises the article's parts well, but it isn't telling me why this album is important—to Rihanna's discography and pop music. I'm sure there are some retrospective articles on GGGB.
 * I merged that statement to the departure of the Carribean sound in the lead. I hope it's good. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, but I think this needs to go a lot deeper (and note you've only included that in the lead). Reading over Rihanna's main article, it claims "she rose to widespread prominence and became a household name with the release of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad". If this is true (and I think it is), this needs to be stressed not just in the lead, but actually in the article. I would research some new articles that discuss the impact of this album. This Entertainment Weekly article alludes to something I mentioned beore about GGGB being where what I said was "her stamp in the ground" and what they say is her "newfound staying power". The Rihanna page also tells me this is the best-selling album of her career, which, if also true, I believe is crucially ignored here.


 * Is there no sales update out there? 7m as of 2009, which is five years ago (how time has flown!)
 * I tried finding most newer source, but no success so far :/. If you could try searching I would be grateful. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a search and found nothing! :( —JennKR | ☎ 17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * > In Development, if possible, perhaps delve into her image further, i.e. what it was before, what it was at the time, etc.
 * I added some facts, I hope it's better now. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In Composition, is there more you could say about the overall music, lyrics or themes? (For sure talk about the lyrics of some songs, you've done so limitedly)
 * Every song is described in the section. I also found one notable sentence in one review. The rest is already in CR. I hope it's not a biggy. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all album articles should contain some lyrical analysis. Perhaps look at the singles pages for sources and describe the lyrics of those songs. A more complete description of how the album sounds would be beneficial, AllMusic can help.


 * I personally don't have a problem with the Digital Spy source, but I know some editors loathe it. Can it be replaced? (I wouldn't worry if not)
 * Me neither tbh. I find it quite reliable. Some of the sources are not replaceable so I think it's fine letting it stay. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Include the Metacritic score in the infobox?
 * Metacritic is already in the prose, there is no need for repetition in the boxes. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That's it really, everything else looks good. If I find anything else in the meantime, I'll add it here. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 13:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Cheers! —  Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine Tom! There is certainly no problems with the existing material, but I think there is some room for development. In particular, the article should capture the nature of the album: what Rihanna wanted it to be, how different it was from her previous material (particularly for its themes and tone) and how GGGB impacted music of that time and Rihanna's subsequent work. I'm actually reminded of what Journalist told me during my first FAC for 4 and how my article lacked a slant, I think that problem exists here. Spend time on describing the statement Rihanna is trying to make with the album, which I see as a deliberate, drastic, provocative change of image, and how this has imapacted her as an artist, particularly how this album established her, and has obviously influenced all subsequent work (no Rihanna LP has since returned to the Carribean pop of Music of the Sun or A Girl like Me, but albums like Rated R and Talk That Talk are noticeably darker like GGGB). I know this is quite a big ask, and I don't expect this to be quick-fix, but try to dig deeper with the sources available. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just realised I can put my point above in your own words. In the description of this FA you say "the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests." This is the exact thing I take away from GGGB and yet this is only hinted at in the article. —JennKR | ☎ 18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also just realised it may seem I'm only referring to the lead, but I'm actually referring to the article as a whole. How these changes come about is up to you—they could be placed throughout the article, they could materialise in a section about the album's impact, etc.
 * With all due respect Jenn, most of the things you asked me are already in the article. I tell how she changed her image, changed her sound, why she named the album Good Girl Gone Bad. And tbh the album doesn't feature that dark sound or has a major inspiration like Rated R did, of course that album was inspired by Chris Brown and their altercation. And when I talk about a game changer I also want to tell that this album unlike her previous received positive reviews, gain major commercial success and impact thanks to the singles. Everything is noted. Also point that there are no much sources (I used maximum of it) since this album was released in 2007 unlike 4 which was available in 2011. If you read carefully, the whole article is about impact. All in all users who commented thought that it was well written, referenced and I believe I can not go beyond this to be honest. All the best. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I do still feel this should be FA, Tomica, I just noticed one additional thing- for the PopMatters review, you mention comparisons to Gwen Stefani, Kelis, Beyoncé, and Pink, but don't include any quotes or detail on the comparisons. Just fix that and it'll be more comprehensive.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also believe the article is well written and referenced, and you have in fact dealt with how her image changed, I just don't agree when reading it that the album's impact has been considered explicitly. You say that this a "game changer" because it was largely positively reviewed and a major commercial success because of its singles, this is partially true, as some of its songs are some of the most notable of Rihanna's career. However, it's also a "game changer" for her because it's her first cohesive record—the one that gave her a standing in music, the one that introduced the good girl gone bad persona, and I feel like the evidence points to this, but its never actually spelt out in the article. I think the problem I find is that this article could have been written no differently in 2009, just before the release of Rated R, where we had no idea where Rihanna's career was going and how big it was going to be. I don't want to just know that GGGB was succesful commercially and critically (which is, of course, part of impact), I want to know how this impacted Rihanna's career. I appreciate that this is difficult, especially because it's in that awkward position of not being old enough to have lots of retrospective articles, but not new enough to have lots of articles detailing its making, production, release, impact, etc., but I think some research should be at least attempted. I mean one of the first sources I looked at was Biography.com's entry on Rihanna (see here), and one of its sections (the only one dedicated to a particular work) is for GGGB, which says to me that this is a work with impact. Can there be more consideration of the album's impact, particularly on its maker and her subsequent work? I think this article is certainly FA worthy, I just want it to go deeper in this area. Best wishes, —JennKR | ☎ 19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so first of all thanks for the sources. I created this section which I think that summarizes the impact in whole of the album and included some pretty much describing image and music quotes. I hope you like it and are satisfied with it. apart of that I don't think the review has something better to include tbh. Also after that comparison he gives some sleazy comments which are awful to read not to quote or paraphrase lol. —  Tomíca (T2ME) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * XD they are quite sleazy. Probably best then to remove any mention of comparisons then, and instead focus on how he liked the album itself.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 15:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, I wanted time to go through the section properly! Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. I'm just checking, are you positive this can not go any further, particularly when considering the impact on her subsequent albums? Admittedly, having had a look for sources, they are quite hard to find easily, but the ones that are unearthed seem to be quite useful. Aside from that: Apart from that, you look good to go! —JennKR | ☎ 00:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the points that (1) this is the major turning point in Rihanna's career; and (2) this is where her image changed dramatically and permanantly, need to be stresed in the lead. If you think of the people who will read this in years to come, I think that the take-away is that this album is where things changed. I think this could be done—if necessary—with the expense of loosing some detail in the first paragraph (e.g. the long list of producers, which could be cut down to major contributors, if you needed to).
 * I pointed out above that GGGB, according to the Rihanna main page, is the best-selling album of her career. Is this true? I think it would be an oversight at the FA stage to not include this detail in Commercial performance and the lead.
 * Glad you like it! I added another quote from AllMusic which is also useful. And I think it's already good as how the section looks. Btw, her subsequent albums, Rated R was a whole different story we all know it, with Loud she goes back to her roots and gets dance-poppy, Talk That Talk is a whole different sexual story, while Unapologetic is Rated-R-meets-Talk That Talk, I wouldn't say GGGB influenced them directly. I added a sentence in the lead for the image change I think it looks good. And since I can not find a source to update the sales, I am not sure whether it's good to mention that. Plus I didn't find a direct source stating it's her best-selling album. Think my rsp will satisfy your needs. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain
Oppose until issues are cleaned up. I'll need to run through it again after you fix them. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Link the names of works on first mention only if you are going to do it (for example, fn 2 and 16)
 * Vibe magazine is cited differently in two different places (2 and 16)
 * Publishers are missing from many of the references, and you are inconsistent even within the same work in providing it or not providing it (for example, MTV News).
 * Usually you are providing just the name of the site as the work for web references (for example, fn 9), but sometimes you are are using the URL even if it's not the name of the web site (for example, 143 and 144)
 * The Rap-Up citations in general are low-quality, because you are linking the reader directly to videos which for the most part seem to have been removed. On several of them I had to scroll up to find the text, if any was given.
 * Can I assume the myriad citations to chart positions don't contain any WP:BADCHARTS violations?


 * Thanks for the source review first of all. I think I fixed all of the above issues with the references. I added publishers for all the references (at least the ones that have), fixed the pointed names of the websites, I also added language field in the charts section, I removed/replaced the Rap-Up references that didn't have the given information in their content. And for the charts, there are not badcharts violations at all. Cheers! — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think everything looks good now—no further items of concern. Thanks! -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the overall input Laser! :) — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Coord note
About ready to promote this now that source issues have been resolved but I have to ask, re. the lead, what is a "turnover point"? Do we mean a "turning point" in her career, as Jenn suggested above? If so, suggest you use the latter phrase, which seems far more common and easy to comprehend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Re-worded it. — Tomíca (T2ME) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.