Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive3

Comments before transclusion
Oppose (for now) – Right away, I see issues with the prose of this article and the reference formatting. You should seriously consider doing more peer reviews before re-nominating an article soon after it failed a previous one. I am in no way trying to sound like a harsh [expletive], but you have to take your time into copyediting a strong article. More input from PRs always helps. You haven't done one since before your first FAC. It has certainly improved, but is not completely perfect yet. If you can clean this article up, I may change my vote. Thanks, — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * " "S&M" is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). " → " "S&M" is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna, taken from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). "
 * " It was produced by Stargate and Sandy Vee and was released on January 21, 2011, as the album's fourth United States single and third international single. " – Doesn't read nicely.
 * " With the release of the remix featuring Spears "
 * " Internationally, the song reached number one in Australia, Canada, and Poland, and on the UK R&B Chart. " – Cut as specified. Makes no sense.
 * The background should avoid repeatedly saying "S&M". It gets annoying.
 * " "S&M" received mixed reviews from critics. " – What this sentence really means that each review had a mixed opinion, which is not what I think you are trying to say.
 * " Rihanna and Spears have no plans " → " Rihanna and Spears do not plan "
 * Try to eliminate words that give no added meaning to the sentence or just simply add repetition, like the ones I raised in this review.
 * The references use incorrect italicization.
 * ✅ Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been editing this article for months now. It's had 2 Peer Reviews and been through (an unsatisfactory) GOCE, as well as having countless people from past GANs and FACs comment on things to improve. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It hasn't even been a month since the last review. In fact, comparing revisions, not many improvements have been made after the previous FAC. All I'm trying to say is you shouldn't rush with FAC, because you are already aware that it is a difficult and harsh process. Keep working on improving this article and use Tony1's guides for copyediting. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: Why is the Rihanna portal template in the wrong section? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where should it go? Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

— WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm afraid you've still got loads of issues, even in the references. So many (Entertainment Weekly, Rap-Up) use the wrong citation template. There are just still so many inconsistencies. I'm not opposing, but this really still needs work. Also, in order to be a real complete and balanced article, you need to put more stress on the background and composition sections. They are lacking a bit.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathan, that is all that is known about the Background and composition sections from reliable sources. I've said this in both of the 2 previous FACs for this article. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Calvin, we are telling you this for your own best. The composition section can be much bigger. This is way too short. I believe no FA on Wikipedia has such a short composition section of merely a few lines. You should use material from professional reviews t o craft a nice composition section. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  08:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where these would belong, but you can try some of these links:
 * http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-31/entertainment/29386357_1_abuse-rihanna-berman
 * http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20049249-10391698.html


 * Comment – Calvin answer me something. In what way do you think that the article has improved from its last nomination? Content wise? Prosewise? I think (correct me if I am wrong anyone) it was explained to you before that a song article cannot pass its FAC if there's no coverage on its writing, background, composition, recording etc. things that make a song article complete and are the necessary content. There lies difference with GAN where whatever material available, is accepted. This nomination simply cannot pass if content is not improved further. Also, why are you pushing for this song only? It is indeed a relatively newer song so its obvious that composition and recording info would be sparse. I think you would be better off to withdraw this nomination and work on any older Rihanna song, maybe "Umbrella", for FAC since I believe they have wholesome content than this. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I've never done this before, you know that. I might remove or change something which doesn't need to be removed or changed. People on the FAC have no patience what so ever. I don't understand why this article isn't complete. All the information about the songs Background and composition is here, thus making that section complete. There is NOT any other information regarding those two points, and you know this Legolas, as you helped promote the article to GA. It's not as if the article is lacking in information. Look at how much there is about the Reception and Ban of the video and the remix. More is known about the remix than the original. And I'm not only pushing for this song, Only Girl (In the World) has been listed for a Peer Review for weeks now with only a few comments, as I'd like to make that song an FA. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that every info is present Calvin? Although I helped promote it to GA, I would strongly say no if I were asked if "S&M" can be a Featured article candidate, because to me it lacks info about its writing+development, recording etc. Check out most recent FA material "4 Minutes" and see the difference. It took me a whole year to promote it to FA. Its tough I understand, and if information is not available now, it does not mean that it won't be available later. That's where this article fails. Hence I asked you to move on with an older Rihanna article, which probably have better info on all of this. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I need a source for the recording locations in the Info box, and I don't know who wrote Britney's verse either. I just added quite a bit to the Background from those two sources above. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Legolas here. FAs are all about giving the best experience for readers and should not leave them wondering about information just because it is unavailable. If that was true, songs barely passing notability could become FAs, which would be corrupt. By the way, recording information should be available on liner notes. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well can you both tell me exactly what you are left wanting to know? Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  12:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is clear that the Background needs to be split from the Composition and both need to be expanded. Also, what happened of the lawsuit by the photographer? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Background and Composition are in different paragraphs, putting them as two different sections will make it look weak and small. Everything to do with the lawsuit is in the Music video sub section, where it should be. She didn't get a lawsuit during recording or pre-single release. It came after, so it's not apart of the Background. This is what I mean, "both need to be expanded." With what? That's what I mean't by "tell me exactly what you are left wanting to know?", saying both need to be expanded is very vague.  Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is not that you don't really discuss enough about the suit, not the section. And I am looking for a better lyrical analysis of the song. Use song/album reviews as Jivesh said. Plus, there is no information on the song's recording and production. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There used to be a bit more info, but the guy from GOCE cut it down. You can only use song reviews from after the music video was released for commentary from critics about the plagiarising. I think I said above, it says in the info box where it was recording, but there is no source. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A mere mention of a recording location doesn't make it a notable addition. There needs to be commentary about the recording process adapted, mixing techniques used, instruments in it, bass etc. As WP and others have pointed out, there's basically no info on the background of the song, like what inspired Rihanna to like the song, what inspired the writers to write it, what thoughts led to its development etc. These are essential infos which should be in a featured content, and carried more importance than its music video or live performance. I pointed out one article above, which is the recent most song article FA, you can definitely take pointers from it. These kind of info comes much later and hence its futile to try and nominate this article for FA. It won't pass I'm afraid and we would be exhausting reviewer energy. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * God, I really, really don't know how else to put it any simpler. That information does not exist. I can only take pointers if I can apply it to S&M, which I can't, because that information is not available. If it did exist, then it would obviously be there. And I never said that the recording location makes it a notable edition, someone said that it is not included in the prose, and I said I don't have a source for it, actually. Plus, it doesn't matter if it is the most recent FA, surely they should all express the same high level of detail? Just fail the nomination. At least I know the only thing thing holding it back is the Background section.  Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  12:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are expressing a classic case of "didn't hear it", Calvin. It has been pointed out to you that "information not available now" is not equal to "information will be never available". You are free to nominate this article when such information is available, else your endeavors will turn futile, time and again. Hence, I suggested that take any old article of Rihanna and try to promote it else you are wasting your own time I believe. And this is the last time I'm commenting. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 13:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the information isn't available. I just can't see all the information I need coming out in the near future, yet alone the distant. If the info hasn't been released already in the 8 months it has been a single and the 10 months it has been a song from Loud, why would it become available from this point on? I'm clearly reading what you are writing for me to be able to reply back, so it's not a case of case of "didn't hear it". My point is people keep asking where a piece of info is and I am saying that it doesn't exist, I'm just responding what peoples points. And it hasn't been a complete waste of time. The article has improved a lot in the 3 FACs as a result of trying to promote it, which isn't a bad thing, surely you would agree? The only thing which is considered short is the Background. Nothing else in the article has issues now.  Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take Lego's place. If the information isn't here, that's awful bad and the article cannot be a FA; simple as that. This is what we've been trying to tell you. I strongly suggest withdrawal. "Umbrella" actually has a chance of being FA but this one doesn't (not right now at least). Please understand and not be offended. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that the info isn't available, that's what i keep saying!!!!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter if I withdraw or it is closed by another editor, it will still result in a "not promoted". Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  13:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – I am opposing the promotion of this article per my above explanations. I would like to see this back much later, when information is really available. At present I don't believe it passes any criteria of WP:WIAFA. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above comments were added to the FAC before it was transcluded to WP:FAC; moved here by Ucucha (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Related discussion at User talk:Ucucha. Ucucha (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)