Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive4

We Belong Together
The last nominations   had failed. It has been one and a half months since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Wikipedia project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the personal debate to the FAC talk page. Tony 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Note from FA director - The nominator waited a reasonable amount of time since the previous nomination, a has used the time to make substantial changes (presumably to address previous nominations). Thus, I'm content to let this nomination go forward Raul654 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose. The copy of the article has not improved substantially. I see many of the actionable items from the last three nominations remain. In particular, I find the following howler disturbing: "'As Carey vocalises, rhythm and bass are elaborated into the background, which creates an understated, relaxed tempo denoted by a 4/4 time signature set in C major.'"

FYI time signatures don't "denote" anything except maybe how to dance to the song. They're just a devise used by composers to define the beat. It's not uncommon for an R&B tune to be in 4/4 and it's unnecessary to mention it in the article as if it had any significance other than time. The text tries to be compelling, but just ends up sounding overwrought. There's a fair bit of reaching here with the vocabulary. Just speak plainly and if the subject is interesting the prose will be compelling. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused at your objection. Could you explain why the blockquote sounds disturbing? If it is because of the content, there is a reference that can be verified. If this is not the case, then I'm confused. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not uncommon for any song to be conducted in 4/4 time, so you're right, I will remove the redundancy. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the 4/4 time signature indication and corrected the blockquote which you found to be disturbing. Is there any prose in particular that you don't find to be brilliant? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it's even worse. "...relaxed tempo composed in C major."??? A tempo is not a key! There are similar bad phrasing that makes the prose inflated. If you want to copy edit this, here's a start: remove every superfluous adjective. Please do not post to my talk page on this. My oppose will stand. This needs a major re-write. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try and remain civil. I will continue to copy-edit the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Needs a thorough copy-edit.
 * Second sentence: "The song was primarily composed and written by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin (though as many as ten songwriters are credited)". You say "primarily", so "though" is inappropriate, because it doesn't contradict the preceding information. Can you remove "as many as" and, later in the sentence, "initially"? Remove "it" from the next sentence. Remove "numerous" (or state how many).
 * What's a "singing approach"? More precise language is required.
 * "It was also a worldwide success, where it peaked at number-one"—what place do you mean by "where"? (Fuzzy grammar.)
 * "Carey had finished recording The Emancipation of Mimi by as early as November 2004"—it's unclear to the readers why you've marked the date ("as early as"); either explain in the context that this was unexpected or unusual, or replace by "in".

That's just the lead. The density of problems indicates that the entire article suffers from substandard prose. Please get someone to fix it—one to two hours' work by a good copy-editor. Tony 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide one or two more examples? I have read-through this article so much that my eyes tend to just jump from sentence to sentence without really observing the text. In addition, I have copy-edited the article so much that I cannot locate anymore content &mdash; to me anyway &mdash; that requires further editing. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why you need "strategic distance" from the text (see, for example, User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a). Can you find another editor to do it? Tony 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've tidied a lot of the prose. Comments? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've conducted another major copy-edit. What do you think? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Keep working at it, and try to find one or more collaborators. To pick up where I left off, let's look at the very next sentence.
 * "However, at that point, "It's Like That", "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" (which would eventually become the album's most successful records) were yet to be conceived." Why not remove "at that point"?
 * Fixed. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My US dictionary says that hip hop is hyphenated.
 * See below. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In a music article, we need to describe the music/performance in a way that is accessible to the non-expert (see The perfect article). Music is my area of expertise, yet I've no idea what you mean by "facile, verbose approach" as a contrast with her signature "melismatic" style. There's a lot of in-house talk all at once ("phrase-splitting"?), which is not going to help in conveying a useful idea of the music to readers at large. We need to back up such technical terms with links or brief explanations within parentheses, or in a separate sentence. I'm unsure how to do it—you know the topic ....
 * I've attempted to correct this to the best of my ability. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Jadakiss–Styles: should that really be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
 * Fixed. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Following the reference of Womack's song, she then sings:" Which word is redundant? There's another one of them shortly after this.
 * Fixed. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The tempo was composed in C major?
 * Didn't catch that, but I've fixed it. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "As tension raises, the hip hop prominence on Carey's vocal delivery increases"—raises what? "on"?
 * Silly mistakes. Fixed. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still finding problems in just about every sentence. Tuf-Kat is an expert in this general area and has established a system of quality control for articles such as this. Have you asked him for assistance? Perhaps he could suggest copy-editors. Tony 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems in every sentence? Oh dear. I don't quite understand this, but I will request that Tuf-Kat locate some copy-editors since at this point, unfortunately, I believe there is not much more that I can do regarding text and content-editing. I will search for him immediately. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My Canadian dictionary does not have a hyphen in the word "hip hop" and neither does the main article hip hop music. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The prose of the article has been improved upon and I would appreciate it if the editors who voted "object" reanalyzed their vote and commented further. Thank you.&mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) A few collaborators helped to trim and tidy the prose excessively. The material remains the same but is summarized significantly. I feel that the writing has greatly advanced, so please comment. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Message received. I'm an expert though, at least formally - no education beyond high school.  Anyway, I had a few comments in PR, of which not all were addressed.  I agree that the Music and structure section needs some copyediting.  I'll see what I can do now.
 * It's not clear to me what "heavy" means exactly.
 * Not clear what the bit after the semicolon has to do with "The hip hop influence is further exhibited in Carey's vocal delivery" -- don't write something like that unless the "hip hop influence" in vocals is clearly expounded on.
 * Also not sure exactly what "effusive" means here.
 * I only got about halfway through that section, but now I've got to go. Tuf-Kat 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for the response and thank you for tidying the portions of the music and strucutre section which did not quite make sense. "Effusive" and "heavy" could be described as irrelevant to the section now that it has been copyedited; from what the new material that I've read, it seems to make more sense without the use of these words. I apologize for not correcting all of your concerns at the peer review (I had become rather lazy, I must admit), but your knowledge has helped enhance the vocabulary! Excellent work! Are there any other parts that you think may require rewriting? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, impressive article. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, one of the best articles about a song I've seen on Wikipedia. --Musicpvm 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Per Malber and Tony. The page needs to be condensed and re-written. The banal prose uses twenty words when five will do. Aspern 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. What do you mean by "boring"? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment--I didn't say the article was boring. How could anything concerning Mariah Carey be boring? I said it was  banal (almost juvenile).  The vocabulary and phraseology are  limited and the prose doesn't flow. In some places it's verbose, in  others it's monotonous, hampered, and lumpy. Aspern 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleared a lot of the lumpiness. Is there a specific section that requires rewriting? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly edited sections to exemplify that which needs changing. I look forward to changing my vote when you have fully addressed my concerns with your prose and text. I am capable of following your edits. Please do not trouble me again on my talk page. I shall be watching with interest. Aspern 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that I have been troubling you at all. Anyway, Tuf Kat has not responded to the matter regarding copy-editors along with Malber and Tony. I don't believe there is anymore clunky writing, but I'll continue to copy-edit. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did not have the time to listen to the samples, but is it right to put two 30-second samples (1 minute) for a 3 minutes and 20 seconds song? CG 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is all right because the user who uploaded the files has the appropriate knowledge regarding music-samples. This was Rossrs. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the sections should be expanded. Especially the download controversy section, which is only one paragraph long. Everyking 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Just the first paragraph is enough to make me want to burn my wife's Mariah Carey Greatest Hits CD.
 * "We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song performed by singer do you really need to point out that she's a singer? think of thew audience that might search for this article Mariah Carey. The song yes, let's restate that it's a song was primarily who else was involved? composed and written  as a musician, the diference between compose and write eludes me by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin  the rest of this paragraph is a non sequitur -- unless you mean during through additional studio sessions after Carey had initially completed her ninth studio album The Emancipation of MimiNo link? (2005). how can you initially complete something?  Complete is an absolute -- it's either done or it isn't The popularity of "We Belong Together" is often attributed to its retro-soul appeal, and the understated, rap-inspired music and vocal approach, is this thing R&B, pop, retro-soul or rap?  which received critical praise following the reviews of Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002).Are they albums?  Do they have their own articles?  If so, link them.  Also, from whom did the song receive critical praise
 * Essentialy, a complete rewrite is needed.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on your last point, I don't think it's necessary to be specific&mdash;the sources of the praise are more properly identified later in the article. Everyking 04:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but a ref wouldn't hurt. In any case, the article is simply not good enough to even be considered a good article let alone be given FA status.
 * Object. Agree with the others above; the writing is simply not up to scratch for a FA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Redundancy in the lead section (when talking about the critics) and an expansion could be done. Fair prose but not brilliant. Lincher 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)