Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable


 * 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 00:05, 31 March 2008.

Irreplaceable
Self-Nomination: After being passed to GA, geting fresh eyes for the peer review and additional substantial reviews, I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is now ready. "Irreplaceable" is song by Beyoncé Knowles and was 2007's best-selling single in the United States. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hey, I was gonna comment on the peer review, but I guess I am too late.(been busy lately) I do think this article needs some serious prose work, some parts are kind of choppy, some sentences are short, and could be merged together.  Here are a few examples of the prose issues I see:


 * When Ne-Yo heard the song, the melody was more guitar-based. He felt that it sounds like country western music. It was brought to R&B when the drums were incorporated, and Ne-Yo considered making an R&B-country western music song. - could be combined into somthing easier, like "Ne-Yo felt the original demo sounded like country music, although adding drums gave the song an R&B feel.  He considered making an R&B country crossover song." or somthing to that effect.
 * Hmm. Sounds like the history is twisted a bit. Here is the real statement: "When I first heard the track, produced by Norwegian production team Stargate, they just played the guitar. There was no drums to it and sounded like country western music and when they put the drums on it, it brought it back to the R & B side of things. I was then thinking of making an R & B country western music song." --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ne-Yo also felt that with a woman singing it is empowering. - Stubby, could use clarification.
 * Merged. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A demo of the song was presented to her, and was pleased after listening. - confusing
 * Clarified. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In an interview, Ne-Yo said about the writing that "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest, and that's what she did." - you could just use 'Ne-Yo said "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest'.


 * The strum of guitar was noted by Al Shipley of Stylus Magazine as an integral element Stargate and Ne-Yo crafted on contemporary singer Rihanna's 2007 single "Hate That I Love You". - run on sentence, could be reworded.
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

These sentences (and quite a few more) have an akward feel to them, and could be rearranged/rewritten. Other than prose, the article seems very comprehensive, and the sourcing looks good, good job! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - subdisfactory the graphic. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007, MEDIA TRAFFIC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.'' =)
 * Likewise http://acharts.us/?
 * This website is up-to-date, and been used by in many articles.
 * Please justify use in this article, in terms of WP:V. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this enough?
 * And http://top40-charts.com/? (That it bypassed my no-popups and flashed me an annoying add isn't helping my opinion of the...
 * Used in "Cool (song)".
 * Cool song is not being evaluated here; please explain what makes the source reliable per WP:V. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This?
 * Likewise http://www.mediatraffic.de/about-us.htm?
 * Its published by Media Traffic.
 * Who is Media Traffic? The link to the article took me to a page about the chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can be found at the bottom of their site: ''THE MOST POPULAR TRACKS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL AIRPLAY, SINGLE-SALES DATA, PAID DOWNLOAD, AND VOTE. IMPORTANT SOURCES: IFPI, MUSIC CONTROL, NIELSEN SOUND SCAN & BROADCAST DATA SYSTEMS (USA, CANADA), ORICON & SOUND SCAN (JAPAN), OFFICIAL UK CHARTS COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), SNEP / IFOP (FRANCE), MEDIA CONTROL (GERMANY, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND), ARIA (AUSTRALIA), AFYVE & MEDIA CONTROL (SPAIN), FIMI / AC NIELSEN (ITALY), HOT100 BR@SIL (BRAZIL), MEGA CHARTS BV (NETHERLANDS), GLF (SWEDEN), VERDENS GANG (NORWAY), AC NIELSEN (DENMARK, BELGIUM), YLE (FINLAND), AFP (PORTUGAL), RIANZ (NEW ZEALAND), AND OTHER. COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY MEDIA TRAFFIC.


 * THis one http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/db.html looks to me like it's a private site?
 * Used in "Hollaback", "Rich Girl", "Cool", etc. ARticles already featured.
 * Those articles aren't being evaluated here; if they use non-reliable sources, they can be submitted for review at WP:FAR. For this article, please explain reliability of that source. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this site gets its chart from this archive.
 * All the other links check out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable?  No last name doesn't inspire confidence.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its Spence Abbott. Since do not allow this formatting, February 01, 1990, I used the YYYY-MM-DD formatting to all references to achieve consistency. My problem now is what type of template I'll use for the sheet music ref. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nuetral Regretfully withdrawing my support. Read below comment. Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose —Cautious neutral. Tony  (talk)  14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) not well-written. In particular, many of the relationships between the ideas within sentences are jumbled. Please get someone new to sift through the whole text.
 * "Originally not created for her, Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song during the production." I can't see a clear referent for the last three words. Appears jumbled.
 * Removed the last three words. --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "a female empowerment anthem"—"an anthem to female empowerment" would be better; I do hope this is referenced in the main text; it's such a contestible statement that you might consider saying who "considered" this, even in the lead.
 * Changed per suggestion. All are properly cited in the main text. Don't worry. The New York Times also said its a statement of independence.--Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "the album's third single late in 2006"—so the third of how many in late 2006? I think you need a comma.
 * Yah, I got your point. Its really confusing to others. "Late in 2006" is added after "released domestically". --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ""Irreplaceable" was certified as multi-platinum, and one of the best-selling single of 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." —Was certified as one of the best-selling single (I think you mean singleS) of 2007? I think you need "was" before "one". Was it both the multiplatinum and this best-selling thing that established her as ..., or just the second reason? Jumbled; the causality needs to be absolutely clear.
 * Changed to: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed again to clarify the causality: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, and its addition to Beyoncé's achievements establishes her among the most successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Compared WITH, for contrasts. Tony   (talk)  03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support --dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To Sandy: Im hiding Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments since he allowed me to do it. --Efe (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the reviewing. I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —

"Support - subdisfactory the graphic." "Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also."

Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process. Tony  (talk)  11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Tony, you have a very, very valid point. I read the article and did not point out grammer mistakes simply because I create alot of grammer mistakes myself. I usually don't notice them when I am reviewing an article. I do not oppose but I am striking out my support and replacing it as nuetral. sorry, Burningclean  [speak]  18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * Further comments upon my oppose above.
 * Fair-use rationales: I wonder what a judge would think when WP is being sued for copyright infringement when she sees the FU rationale for this article, and two others in which the track is used, just cut and pasted. Exactly the same wording? No, the folks at WP:NFC would be alarmed to find this; thing is, we need the FU rationale to be more closely related to the text it is supporting. Criterion 8 at NFC says this:
 * I cant access the sample so I asked the uploader which part of the song is uploaded so it will be properly captioned. --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per captioning, I stated in the template the relationship of the instruments to the genre of the song. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Convince us, please, or the NFC police will be visiting (after 23 March, I believe). At the very least, I think you need to say something about how the file "illustrates" the article — perhaps in the terms you've used in the main text, harmony, form etc. I've always wanted to know how an audio file shows similarity or difference in terms of the surrounding output by this artist and similar artists—I don't know, it's not my area, but you need to do something different for each of the linked articles. So the vocal range is more than an octave and a half—is that unusual for this artist (and the style in general)? Is the less aggressive tone to do with the lyrics here? Just one level deeper would make your FU claim stronger.

The notational excerpt: "To visually present the musical structure of the song."—It's "part of the excerpt" rather than the whole song, and "structure" normally refers to form on a larger scale than three measures. Visually? Better "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression, rhythmic style, and pitch relationship between piano and voice." Or something like that. Caption and main text: en dashes, not hyphens, between the chords.
 * I used this: "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression". --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tag includes this statement: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Have you provided copyright information? Who holds the copyright? Sony, is it? Website or postal address might make the company feel more recognised if their copyright people inspect the info file. Catalogue number of the album? Track number and its total duration? More details would shore up your claim. I'm not being a contrarian, but warning that they're about to get tougher on NFC!
 * I think Columbia also owns the copyright. I stated Columbia in the description page. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added Sony Urban Music. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the prose that describes the excerpt: What is a "moderate" pop song? We see "moderate" again a line later. Replace "written in the key of" with just "in". No hyphen after "-ly". ""Irreplaceable" refers to a woman breaking up with a boyfriend after she found him cheating, and was considered a statement of independence." What, the woman was considered a statement of independence?
 * All crashed out comments were addressed. For the "moderate" stuff and "written....." were already fixed because the first para was copyedited/reworded. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And below, why oh why is that little-known country, the US, linked? Please tell me. Australia too. In general, it's not necessary to link anglophone countries in the English-language WP.
 * Fixed some of them. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony  (talk)  12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE After fixing questioned sources, a copyedit by someone new to this article will follow. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Commment - Hey, sorry for the delay, I haven't been on much in the past few days. Another look finds the prose is still pretty choppy in places - mostly in the "Background and inspiration" section -its just confusing in places. The "composition" section looks good, as does the "Release and live performances" section. I'll try and clean up a bit of the prose, but here are a few sticky sentences I notice from the other sections:


 * American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform." Sung?  should it be performed, or sang, or somthing else?  and did Beyonce appear with the band, or perform on her own? its a little confusing.  if the sentence is related to the 2007 American Music Awards info before it - "..and a "surprise" performance of the country version of the song during the 2007 American Music Awards. American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform. The band has been known for covering Beyoncé's songs during their live shows and the idea of teaming-up emanated from their publicist" - then it needs to be restructured, you could try somthing like:  American country band Sugarland, who were known for covering Beyonce's songs live, were joined by the singer for a performance of "Irreplaceable" at the 2007 American Music Awards. or somthing like that.
 * Fixed per suggestion, but with little addition. I removed the "idea of teaming up" thing because its too much detailed. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the quotes in the Critical reception section don't really describe the song or add to the article, such as: "Bernard Zuel of The Sydney Morning Herald noted the track "a pretty good rhythmic ballad" and "Carolyn Davis of US Magazine referred to "Irreplaceable" a "power ballad". A power ballad is a type of song, not really a critical description.  I think that there are ample quotes and critical responses, you could lose a few for clarity.
 * I removed the former because its the only description of the song posted in the site, as well the latter. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", along with "Resentment", are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B compared with other tracks in the album". The 'are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B' part sounds a little strange,  could be "have more in common with", or somthing different.
 * Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, who is Spence D, and with no last name, what makes him a reliable expert? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "and at the 2008 Grammy Award for Record of the Year." - should be "awards", and the sentence is a little vague, did they just get nominated, or win? And I'd think that the Grammy nom is a little more notable than the VH1 one... Im not sure the nominators are needed, you could add "by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" - but I think the sentence would read better leaving both out, to say somthing like:  "Irreplaceable was nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammy Awards, as well as Song of the Year at VH1 Soul Vibe's awards show."
 * Fixed. I wanted to add that it was lost to blah blah blah to clear it out but some users would always object that its too much detailed. Any thought? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go at the "Background and inspiration" section, to tighten up some of the prose there. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * =) =) =) Thanks for the help. Like Burningclean, we need assistance from those who have good grasp in English. --Efe (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a good grasp, I just suck at spelling. (I'm from and live in America) :p Burningclean  [speak]  21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If thats only your problem, you dont need assistance anymore. Even Microsoft Word can help you fix them. Hehe. Thanks for striking neutral. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I stumbled on this article randomly, saw it, and thought that it should be a WP:FA. I noticed someone was heavily editing it, so I didn't bother to touch it, but then I noticed that it was already nominated. Good lord, the article is definitely WP:FA status in my books! Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.