Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man/archive1

This Charming Man
Partial self-nomination. Worked on this with a few other users (notably User:Hn) and I feel it fits the criteria for featured article status. Live Forever 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Approval. Very well written article, should be a standard for other song/singles articles. --CJ Marsicano 06:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Live Forever has done an excellent job with this article, making it both comprehensive and well-written. --Hn 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Object for now. Agree that it's mostly very well written. Well written. Nice, concise style that covers everything important without going off into trivia.  Well structured, well illustrated, and partly well referenced. Meets all criteria as far as I'm concerned. Rossrs 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)   I've changed some wording to remove colloquialisms, repetition of words etc, but I think the following needs to be looked at:
 * 1) "Composition and meaning" - conclusions such as "The bicycle is a metaphor for the protagonist's bisexuality" need to be reworded.  It's not clear who is drawing that conclusion - Morrisey, the author of the article, or someone else who is not referenced. Or does it run into the following paragraph with comments attributed to reference 6?
 * 2) "Music videos and performance" - "both fairly rare"?  does that mean the videos are rarely seen, or were not screened very often when they were released?  Please reword so that it's less ambiguous
 * 3) "Influence and praise" includes 4 quotes/comments, none of which are referenced. also no references for the Q Magazine and UNCUT polls in the lead paragraph
 * 4) "Format and tracking listings" - "These are the formats and track listings of major single releases of "This Charming Man". As an opening sentence, it reads a little bit like the introduction to a classroom presentation.  It's very jarring against the otherwise good standard of writing.  Perhaps it would be better at the end of the paragraph right before the formats etc, are listed.
 * 5) All the image pages, including the image page for the sound sample need to be complete as per Image description page with regard to identifying the copyright holder and providing a fair use rationale. While these things are not enforced a lot of the time, for a featured article to be "the best of Wikipedia" these details need to be addressed.
 * 6) Not sure how to fix this bit, but the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming and cluttered with BBC Radio, Q Magazine and UNCUT comments all jammed in together.  Perhaps they would work better at the end of the lead section rather than the beginning.  Especially because from a chronological point of view, they are polls that have been conducted fairly recently looking back at the song, so putting this after an actual description of the song/songwriting etc would make it stronger.  If you move it to the end of the section, perhaps including the years the polls took place would help, and of course references. Rossrs 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. It does run into the following paragraph with comments attributed to reference 6, but I will add the words "widely considered" to clarify either way. Live Forever 18:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an example of a weasel term. The statement needs to be backed by a comment from a prominent critic (with reference) to this affect. The Catfish 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the "weasel term" and referenced the same source as the paragraph that immediately follows it. Live Forever 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * the problem now is that the link is dead, so we can't refer back to it anyhow. was it actually said by a reviewer or a critic that can be named in the article? Rossrs 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Its actually not dead, its just that the references are out of sync because there are 10 sources referenced 13 times. Reference number 4 doesnt lead to the 4th source in the reference section but the 6th: http://www.oz.net/~moz/lyrics/thesmith/thischar.htm. I've just fixed it. Live Forever 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that link is fine. The problem is still that the reference is attributed to a Stuart James, who may or may not be someone credible.  He scores zero google hits, so I'd say probably the latter.  Have a look through this Manchester Evening News and see if by slightly rewording the text and using this as a reference you can come up with something that works.  You could perhaps use this one also BBC to underline that Morrissey and his lyrics are frequently sexually ambiguous.  Hope this helps - I've spent ages going through sites trying to find something, because "Stuart James" has me worried, and I do want to see this nomination succeed.   Rossrs 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * With regards to the citations - if you use the same source, you need to use the same number, and not actually "count" the number of references. ie if Rogan is number 10, he must always be number 10, so that it's clear which source is being cited. at the moment the numbers don't match up.  You've got Rogan as number 10, and number 13.  So if someone's looking at "cite 13" in the article it goes nowhere.   It means the numbers don't necessarily run in sequence, and they get repeated, but that's ok. I used the same format in Sharon Tate - I feel I'm explaining this badly, so have a look there and you'll see what I mean - they're out of sequence in places but each one links to the right source.  The main reference I used is the one at number one, and you'll see how frequently "(1)" is scattered through the article.   Rossrs 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * O.k., I think that I've now fixed all problems with the references. Live Forever 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're looking great now. Rossrs 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've searched everywhere and this is the best I can find, off of Google books . Live Forever 03:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The google results are getting onto the right track. I'm concerned that about 25% of the article is interpretation of lyrics, and unfortunately most of it is sourced from blogs and what looks like some bloke with an opinion but no credentials, and as such it is just not an acceptable source. This is a big problem, and I'm surprised nobody else can see it. I've gone into the talk page and put a couple of paragraphs that can be sourced back to various articles. It's nowhere near as good as what you've written - what you wrote was beautifully written - but at least it can be verified. It's up to you - maybe you could keep the first and last paragraphs, and get rid of paragraphs 2, 3 or 4. Failing that, I don't know. Anyway, over to you. Rossrs 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually liked what you wrote on the talk page. I've taken out the paragraphs in question and replaced it with what you had. I hope its all o.k. now. Live Forever 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it. It all looks good now. Changing to support! Rossrs 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. I meant "rarely seen". Will clarify. Live Forever 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. I've added references to all except Q, which I removed (even though it is credible).
 * 4. Changed according to your suggestion. Live Forever 18:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. But they are... aren't they? All images give the source and copyright status / rationale. Live Forever 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * no, they weren't. they had the source and were correctly tagged. As far as the other - it was covered in a generic way, while it should be specific, especially for a featured article. I've added the copyright and fair use rationale anyway, so it's fine. Rossrs 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6. Fixed according to your suggestion. Live Forever 18:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting article.  Well written with extensive research.--Dado 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose I now SUPPORT. Is there anyway you can change the "Formats and track listings" sub sections into a colourful table. If you did that I'll change my vote to neutral. If you generally expand & polish the article, maybe add a few more external links & such, I'll change my vote to support.... Spawn Man 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any ideas as to how exactly the "Formats and track listings" sub section can be turned into a "colourful table"? Or is there an example somewhere on Wikipedia that could be used? Also if you could be a little more specific as to how the article could be expanded and polished, that would be nice. For an article on a song it seems quite comprehensive to me. P.S. Hello fellow Wellingtonian. :)--Hn 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now the "formats and track listings" subsections are pretty muck Wikistandard for WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG - Not to mention they're cleaner and easier to read than a table. --CJ Marsicano 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, the way it stands now is excellent, no need to add a colored background to every vaguely tabular set of information. Table formatting is not very useful when the table would only contain one column. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well my only concern is that nearly half the article is taken up by the "Formats and track listings" sections, a section where most people would find boring & not really interesting or needed. Imagine, if you deleted that part, would you be left with an excellent FA? Maybe a comprehensive article for a song, but by no means a FA. That's my sole opinion, & although I may get ridiculed for it, I'm standing by my original decision until the whole text portions of the article are beefed up. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Spawn Man, I've tried my best to "beef up" the whole text portions of the article. I've added all the information I could find on google books and a number of quotes that would fit in. I honestly feel this is about as comprehensive an article on the subject as could be expected. I hope its enough for you to at least change your vote to neutral. Live Forever 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I will never change my vote to neutral. Instead I will change it to support. Well done on a great article. Spawn Man 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Well structured and well written. Faultless article.Thethinredline 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent article. Interesting, informative and well written. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for my first real test: this is an excellent article about a widely-recognised piece of innovative and influential pop music, and does indeed fulfill the criteria for FA, but... this is still an article about a readily purchasable commercial product. We may well be validating more than Morrisey/Marr's genius by promoting this article, as it may be construed as advertising better left to dedicated fan sites. This really pushes the gripe to the absolute limit, and it hurts to type this here. --HasBeen 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Has, you say that about every music-related article that comes up for FAC. *elbow to the ribs* --CJ Marsicano 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While I think HasBeen's line of reasoning has merit, this comment should be brought up on WP:TFA if and/or when this passes FAC. - The Catfish 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a stuck record, it's true, but a consistent, direct approach might yet help deter potential PR abuse of wikip... --HasBeen 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. Perhaps a little on the short side, and Rossrs' first objection could probably do with being fixed, but it's still well worth supporting. Ambi 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Object over WP:NOR problems. Example: Musically, the song is defined by Marr's bright jangle pop guitar riff and Morrissey's characteristic vocals. The rhythm section of Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce provides an unusually danceable beat, featuring a motownesque bassline. Who describes that as the definition of the song?  Us?  Same with The "New-York" mix by DJ François Kevorkian was not a fan favourite.  Also These are the formats and track listings of major single releases of "This Charming Man". needs rephrasing .  Jkelly 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. FOUL! You claim that this is violating WP:NOR, but how were the writers supposed to write about the recording without listening to it?. The record itself is a primary source. As for the other objection, I don't think the line about the Kervorkian remix would be hard to prove. --CJ Marsicano 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ?!? Jkelly 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CJ Marsicano], I think you're misinterpreting [[WP:NOR. Phrases like "unusually danceable beat" might very well apply, but they need to have a source (and probably an inline cite) of a notable critic who expressed that sentiment. Otherwise it is original research. - The Catfish 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added sources to the sentences you mentioned, removed the questionable line in the track listing section. I really think this is taking it a bit far though. Yes: for a Smiths song "This Charming Man" is unusually danceable, largely because it features a Motownesque bassline. Yes: the song is characterized by Marr's jangle pop guitar riff and Morrisey's characteristic vocals. These are things that anybody who listens to the song and is somewhat familiar with the band can recognise. Should I also provide a reference for it being an "up-tempo pop song"? Either way, I hope you like the article now after these changes. Live Forever 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of the citation issues quickly. I notice, however, that the referencing is now broken -- the inline external links are interfering with the ref-note system.  I may, no promises, be able to fix that myself if I get some uninterrupted time.  Jkelly 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * JKelly, I have completely fixed the references now according to the native footnoting format suggested below. I believe they are now perfectly fine. Live Forever 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak object. Would prefer to see the native footnoting format used, as it avoids the icky problems that the template-based workaround is very susceptible to, like the external linking problem mentioned, and section editing. Let's replace "--" and similar variants with &amp;mdash (&mdash;). Also, is there any negative criticism of the song? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have redone all the references according to the native footnoting format. Regarding negative criticism, of the five different original reviews I've found of the single, all were positive. The song was met with pretty much universal critical acclaim. Live Forever 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Superb, informative article that is well researched. --Davis &quot;Suede&quot; Hurley 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Solid support. I did some minor copyediting because the article drew me in well enough to read it closely and I learned a few things I didn't know. After "Layla" became an FA, it's about time a more Gen-Xy song got up there, too. Looking forward to seeing it on the main page. Daniel Case 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not looking forward to having to get in the way...--HasBeen 09:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and do it. Daniel Case 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)