Talk:Cry (Michael Jackson song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SoniaSyle (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Right off the bat, I suggest a careful copyedit. In the lead alone, I spot two simple errors. There's a kind of wordiness to the article that is tiresome. There are a great many quotations and these can be paraphrased without damaging the article. SoniaSyle (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the lead could be reworked. In the first paragraph, I suggest:

"Cry" is a R&B ballad recorded by American entertainer Michael Jackson for his tenth and final studio album of 2001, Invincible. The song is about bettering the world, and was written by R. Kelly, a R&B singer/songwriter who had previously worked with Jackson on the single, "You Are Not Alone". Jackson and Kelly produced "Cry", and the song was released outside the United States by Epic Records in December 2001 as the third and last single from Invincible.

"Cry" received mixed reviews. The single had a moderate chart performance internationally, peaking at number 16 in the Netherlands and hitting its nadir at 65 in Austria. A music video by Nicholas Brandt was released for promotional purposes that exhibited people holding hands and standing side by side in a variety of settings including a beach and a forest.

I've reworded the lead as suggested, although I wrote out the numbers pertaining to the song's chart positions so that the lead would be consist with the numbers being written out in the chart performance section. Crystal Clear x3 06:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• musicnotes.com indicates the song is written in A not A♭ and other details. Check your sources. I'm altering the text until you produce evidence the song is composed in A♭. SoniaSyle (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've done some copyedit and please don't revert. In the music subsection, try to link or explain in parentheses what a "middle breakdown" is for those unfamiliar with the term. I prefer the first sentence in the lead to reflect the song's composition, then Jackson's recording. Songs are written, then recorded. SoniaSyle (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing copy-edits on the article as well as tweaking things in the article. Crystal Clear x3 09:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I like the "Critical Analysis" section. This should remain as is. No problems. SoniaSyle (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• ....So are you going to pass the article? Crystal Clear x3 04:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm working on it. I think the article needs to be cut back a bit, especially in the "Critical reception" area. It is not necessary to cite quite so many reviews. The article is top-heavy with "quotations" and this is unencyclopedic. Try to paraphrase these quotations. SoniaSyle (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

: Doing... I'm currently working on paraphrasing quotes in the article. Crystal Clear x3 10:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• @SoniaStyle; Ok, so I've fixed all of the concerns you've listed above, are there anymore problems with the article that you would like addressed so that you could pass the article for GA status? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• I see a word misspelled in the Chart Performance section. Is there a chance you could merge this section with the chart lower down by creating more fields such as "Number of weeks on charts" or "Number of weeks in this position"? See if you can work something out here. Such a revision would be easier to read and this chart information need not be replicated twice. The "personnel" bulleted list needs a source. else it appears to be OR. SoniaSyle (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm, care to say which word is misspelled in the chart performance section? It'd be helpful because I read that section twice and could not find a misspelt word. Regarding the chart performance section, song article's are not suppose to be formatted the way you made it with a bullet point list, see FA examples 4 Minutes (Madonna song) and Irreplaceable. I've added a source for the personnel section. Is there anything else you would like addressed in the article so then you could GA pass it? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the "Chart performance" section in a table and merged it with other info. Please look for more info here such as chart performances in Japan, Korea, and other nations. Add to table. SoniaSyle (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could you tell me how you arranged the Chart Performance section? Are the nations arranged alphabetically within the prose or best to worst rating for the song or what? I haven't been able to detect a pattern. Why is the chart placed further down? Should it be placed in this section? Why did you not include Brazil, Japan, Korea, or China. As I recall Jackson was very popular in those countries. Are these records unavailable? I think this section could present a more global view as Jackson was known and loved worldwide. I, for one, am interested in knowing how this song rated in Japan. Also the overall prose could be upgraded and tidied. I notice that once I do this, it is inexplicably reverted. For example, is it really necessary to write, ""Cry" received generally mixed reviews from contemporary music critics." Why "generally"? "Mixed reviews" implies this. And why "contemporary music critics"? Who else would be reviewing the song? ""Cry" received mixed reviews" is more than adequate because it's encyclopedic. It's consise and says everything that needs to be said. I'd like to see the prose trimmed a bit but every time I work on this I find it inexplicably reverted. SoniaSyle (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding your posts to edits above, User:Kww has reverted your 'chart' that you put in the article. Secondly, I do not now how to obtain chart information from places like Korea or Japan. If you know the website where I can find the countries archived charts than thanks, If not It should not cause a problems with the GA review because the article is broad in coverage pertaining to the song's domestic and international chart performance; also, not every single country needs to be listed for an article to be GA status, just sayin'. Thirdly, I've removed "contemporary" and "generally" from the lead. So, do you have anymore problems you would like addressed with the article so it can pass its GA review? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Butting in for a moment: WP:GOODCHARTS is the normal reference for reliable charts. No reliable Chinese charts are known. This song didn't make the Japan Hot 100 from Billboard (http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/michael-jackson/chart-history/4902?f=848&g=Singles) or Oricon (http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/result.php?kbn=js&types=rnk&year=2001&month=12&week=4&submit4.x=23&submit4.y=7). The online Korean archive doesn't go back that far.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Jackson was universally loved and appreciated. Perhaps we need a few lines in the article such as "Chart performances in Asia, South America, and Africa are unknown, unavailable, or unarchived." SoniaSyle (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to state that the information is unavailable or unknown. Crystal Clear x3 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to know what method was used in listing the Credits and Personnel. Should they be listed separately as musicians and technicians? The three on 'recorder'...are these musical instruments or something else? In grade school I took lessons on an instrument called the recorder. Is that what is referred to here? An instrument? How am I to know by reading this? If this section was taken verbatim from the liner notes or other source is that copyvio? Perhaps the names should be alphabetized. Should this section be transformed into prose? SoniaSyle (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of GA status article's have separate sections for the credits and personnel that are not arrange in any particular order (see here: Just_Dance and Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song), among others). The credits and personnel section is soured via the albums liner notes. Also, GA status articles are not required to go into detail about the instruments and such, if another article does then okay, but Its not a requirement. Regarding the recorder thing, I've linked the word to the instrument. Are there anymore problems with the article you want a addressed so it can be GA passed? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the names alphabetized. Just because a few other articles didn't do this doesn't mean it cannot be done here. Are you sure the three are playing 'recorders' or does this refer to some aspect of the production process such as running a recording machine? I don't know the song. Are there recorders being played? If not, the word should not be linked to the instrument article. SoniaSyle (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as though you have a problem with a lot of aspects of that section, I've completely removed it. Crystal Clear x3 05:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Composition" section...I've corrected mistakes and please do not revert. I've dropped some things like the George Michael-ish reference because not everyone is going to know what this means. No explanation is offered here why it sounds George Michael-ish. The assumption is being made here that "George Michael-ish" is a metaphor the whole world understands. It's not. SoniaSyle (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• FAILED. I've failed this article because of the incessant reverts and editorializations. First, your own source says the vocal range is A3 to G5 but you are continually reverting this to E♭4 to A♭5. It certainly is possible the song is written in one key and Jackson sings it in another but this is not established in the article and your cited source writes A3 to G5. I don't understand your behavior here. You can take the article back to GA, or article reassessment if you think it improperly failed, and hope someone comes around who thinks along your lines. Good luck! SoniaSyle (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for re-wording what you just wrote. Crystal Clear x3 06:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify the failure I will note that I do not consider it well-written. The prose can be reworked and trimmed. I mentioned this several times. Any corrections or edits I made in this direction were inexplicably reverted. There is still one misspelled word in the Chart section. It fails on factual accuracy regarding the vocal range. We discussed this and I corrected the information only to find it reverted to the incorrect version. The article in my opinion is not broad in coverage. Jackson was a world figure yet the chart section focuses solely on Europe -- with the exception of Australia, which is very much European in background anyway. Info about the song's charting and reception in South America, Asia, Russia, and Africa should be noted before this article can be considered "broad in coverage". This is because Jackson was a world figure and this article should reflect that. Please take these recommendations into consideration before you attempt another run at GAN. SoniaSyle (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I will restrict my replies to the charting issue: it's a case of systemic bias, and not one to hold this particular article hostage to. There are no reliable South American charts from this era, so you won't find any good articles that make reference to them. There are no reliable African charts whatsoever. Not a one. I searched the available Asian charts and came up with nothing. There is a Russian airplay chart, and this particular song didn't make it. You attempted to make changes to the chart table that contradict the MOS for charts. I'm not going to say this article is perfect, but the charting section seems to be quite good.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• That may be, but the nominator apparently never investigated this aspect before requesting GAN or during this review process. Apparently there are charts but not "reliable" ones. What about Asian, African, and South American reviews? What about Canadian reviews or British reviews or Aussie reviews? This is "critical reception" not "chart peformance". Surely the song was reviewed in Asia, Africa, and South America. Mexico? The Hispanic world? As I said, Jackson was a world figure and this article should reflect that in order to be broad in coverage and as far as I'm concerned the article is not broad in coverage. Focused solely on Europe and America. Additionally, it was failed for prose issues (flow, cutting the redundancies, etc.) but I was frustrated at every turn on this score. Secondly, the nominator apparently knows nothing about the technical aspects of music such as key signatures, meter, tempo indications, etc.. When I corrected an error in this area, it was inexplicably reverted to the incorrect version! I don't think the nominator understands the role of the reviewer. The reviewer is here to help the article not damage it. This was a frustrating experience for me and one that has turned me off to reviewing forever. SoniaSyle (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)