Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive4

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [1].

Cups (song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 hit single by Anna Kendrick. I want to give huge thanks to Ceoil; because of them, the article looks way better than before. Any feedback would be appreciated! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

I have to say the nominator is irresponsible with their own article, as they brought this back to FAC after Ceoil helped out on prose issues, which has nowhere near been exhaustive. This nominator did not engage in the comments brought by other reviewers in the last FAC, but now is requesting for another review without consideration of comments regarding prose issues, most notably the unorganized structure of the reception section (WP:RECEPTION) and the lengthy commercial performance section (WP:CHARTTRAJ). I also have concerns regarding the thoroughness of research, given that there could be more in-depth commentary on the significance of this song and the viral video.

If the nominator is willing to respond to comments and suggestions, then I am more than pleased to review this FAC. If things turned out to be like the last time, when the nominator straight-up called other editors "jerks" when they pointed out prose issues, then this is not going anywhere. HĐ (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ, I'm have matured a bit and am ready to hear any criticism for the artlce. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HĐ; I don't think they were irresponsible in re-noming necessarily, as the last FAC ended with two near supports, and they were encouraged to continue. The temperament issues were, as noted previously, regrettable, but of frustration, and frankly understandable in the circumstances. I think another go is fair, all round, espically as as Ultimate Boss has been asked to do so. I have high hopes myself, and note they are are far more responsive to feedback this time around. Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the nominator has been responsive the feedback, I am happy to review this article. Some quick comments:
  • Per my previous comments, the commercial performance section is needlessly detailed. (i.e. At that point, sixty-nine percent of its chart points were from digital sales, thirty-one percent from streaming, and none from radio / "Cups" completed the fourth-longest rise to the top 10 for a woman in the Hot 100's 55-year history; Kendrick was only beaten by Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats" (2006), and Faith Hill's singles "This Kiss" (1998) and "The Way You Love Me" (2000)) Keeping in mind that Billboard chart records can be easily broken because of the volatile streaming market, I would suggest keeping the following details only: chart debut; peak position; certifications; and possibly some factors that contributed to the song's popularity
  • It shows Kendrick looking around the room in disbelief before breathing heavily. What does this have to do with the song's chart success?
  • There are four references for "Cups" incorporates lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" by the Carter Family. Wouldn't one only would suffix?
  • The first paragraph of the "Background and composition" section largely deals with the covers of "When I'm Gone" (i.e. what does Charlie Monroe have to do with this?) Unless a cover is directly influential on Kendrick's version (such as the Lampshades' cover), then I'd consider removing them all.
  • the film's producers liked her performance, they wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teacup" grammar
  • I don't think sources like People or Elite Daily are reliable in terms of music commentary
  • Is there any response from Lulu and the Lampshades, the ones who first thought of the cup game? HĐ (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Claiming. Hog Farm Bacon 20:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both of the YouTube links. They both are from the official channels of the performing groups, so they are in compliance with WP:COPYLINK

  • Is the information cited to the Russell source really on all three of those very widely separated pages?
I would think so. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
  • WP:RSP lists that there is no consensus that Business Insider is a reliable source, and the ongoing RFC about the source at WP:RSN isn't too promising at the moment. Not convinced that it's the sort of high-quality RS needed for FAC.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure about OK! - Looks to be a little tabloidish, has had some scandals in the past, and is owned by the company that published the incredibly low-quality tabloid National Enquirer for many years.
There is an article about the david letterman performance on the Huffpost [2]. Would that be a better source? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RSP says that there's no consensus as to whether Bustle is reliable or not. For FAC, we need sources of the highest quality.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate that the Pressparty source is a press release. I believe there's a parameter in the cite web template that handles that.
  • Cosmopolitan is listed as a situational source at WP:RSP. I think that source is a bit below the high-quality RS needed for FAs, and the Cosmo usages in this article don't seem to be that publication's best work, either.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consensus about the reliability of Vice as well, according to RSP. Again, the sourcing standard for FA is higher than that of GA.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News isn't the best source for determining due weight, so when it's the only thing cited for "In January 2015, Jim Huish, a member of the Tennessee band Amber's Drive, performed "Cups (When I'm Gone)" with guns, which he fired at red containers" I have to question as to whether or not that detail is WP:UNDUE
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate that the UMG source is a press release
Done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with whether you use sentence case or title case in the reference titles.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but we're getting there. See [3] for an example edit. It's not a major sticking point for me, but some editors will take WP:FACR #2c to mean that the titles have to be formatted consistently. From the looks of the article, it'll probably be easier to use sentence case on all of them, where only the first word and any proper nouns are capitalized in the titles. I would do it myself, but I've got another article I want to work on tonight, (and will be away from a computer for a lot of the next week), so I probably won't be able to get to that myself. Hog Farm Bacon 23:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I have fixed the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "The original song was written by A. P. Carter, and later adapted by British musician Luisa Gerstein of Deep Throat Choir" - Not in the source that I can find
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kendrick recorded a 76-second cover version titled "Cups (Movie Version)", which was released on January 1, 2013, for the "Pitch Perfect soundtrack"" - Source gives the 1/1/13 date, but the page is not for the Movie Version cover, and I don't see where 76 seconds is. The length of the track linked to on the Apple store is 2 minutes 6 second, or 126 seconds.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Kendrick was asked to show her singing ability before filming began, she performed "Cups"; the film's producers liked her performance so they wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teapot"" - Strays from the source, which names the song as "I'm a Little Teacup"
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mash-up was later released on the soundtrack Pitch Perfect 3 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)" - Pass
What do you mean when you say pass?. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By pass, I mean that there were no issues there.
  • "Digital download[17] "Cups (Movie Version)" – 1:16" - Source is about a different version, so cannot be used to cite that detail.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song spent 44 weeks on the US Hot 100" - Checks out
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove it. "Checks out" was my (unclear) way of saying that there was no issues there.

I'm going to be opposing on the sourcing for now. A large number of the sources used do not rise to high-quality RS, and about two-thirds of my spot checks had issues. As SandyGeorgia warned you in the peer review, source reliability will be strongly questioned in another FAC. This doesn't seem to have been prepared for. If these are quickly addressed, I'll strike the oppose and give formatting another look, but this is not close as of the moment. Hog Farm Bacon 20:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thanks a lot for the review. I have addressed all of the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss - I'm striking my oppose, as significant work is being made to correcting the sourcing stuff. Please bear with me, as I'll be a bit picky as I go along, but the biggest issues look to have been resolved. If we can get a passed source review out of the way, that'll hopefully go a long way towards getting this passed. I'm willing to work with you in spots where you're unsure of how to handle this. Hog Farm Bacon 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thanks a bunch! I’m off from school until the 4th of January, so I’ll have no problem when it comes to responding on time. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take another look later tonight. Hog Farm Bacon 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • I'm not convinced ref 83 has the exact correct title. Maybe try a teahouse question about finding an editor who speaks Dutch to perform a better translation for you
I will bring it to the teahouse. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title for ref 87 should be Pop Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 85 should be title Adult Contemporary Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86 should be Adult Pop Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is "The original song was written by A. P. Carter and British musician Luisa Gerstein." in the Tidal source? I can't find it. I may just be not seeing it, though.
Changed the source. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 and 46 are dead. I tried to use the IAbot to fix it, but I couldn't get it to fix those links, so I guess someone will have to go through the WP:WAYBACK to fix those.
Ref 45 works for me, but ref 46 doesn't. I don't know how to fix it through wayback. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something must not be working with that Tidal ref on my computer. It's used to cite complex text in three spots, but all I'm getting to show up is a link to play the song online and a link to another album by Kendrick. Is the stuff with all those details showing up for you? Rich media pages sometimes don't load right for me cause I have iffy rural internet.
It works for me. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's another batch. I think this is it from a formatting standpoint; I'll go through later and do some more spotchecks. You've put quite a bit of effort into the sourcing just during this FAC, and it's commendable. I've made a couple minor adjustments myself, revert if you don't like them. Hog Farm Bacon 05:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I think that should cover the issues for now :) The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 06:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here's an archive link for the Adult Pop Songs chart reference, which is dead [4]. Put this in as |archive-url= and then for |archive-date use December 21, 2019.
For the Pop Songs chart reference, which is also dead, use the url [5] and the same archive date as the other one.
HĐ - These dead references are invoked in a chart citing template down in the chart history section, but they are now dead. I'm half-asleep and not feeling like messing around with templates tonight, and I'm about to go on wikibreak, so would you be able to try to work those templates to allow the archive so it functions? You're a music-area editor, so you're probably more familiar with those templates than I am. Hog Farm Bacon 01:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Sadly, I don't think you can add archiveurls to the template {{single chart}}. In this case, the nominator will have to manually update the archive-urls, HĐ (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that additional spot checks should probably be conducted, but my internet is running too slow today to effectively load most of those websites due to too many images and such on them, and since I'm going to be gone for about a week, somebody else will probably have to step up to the plate for those. Hog Farm Bacon 01:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Will resume copyedit by the weekend. Place holder for now. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cups (When I'm Gone)" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 in the week ending January 12, 2013.[4] Sixty-nine percent of its chart points were from digital sales, thirty-one percent from streaming, and none from radio.[4] With radio playing the remixed version of "Cups (When I'm Gone)" the song reached the top 40 in its 21st week on the Hot 100, rising from number 44 to number 36. - I don't understand how that works.
I put down what the sources said. The chart keeps track of the song streams, radio plays, and digital sales. The song was even more popular when it was remixed and sent to radio. That's why it was a sleeper hit. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. P. Carter and later recorded by the Carter Family.[1][2][3] - implies that Carter never realsed the track. Is that true. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give update here when you have resolved these, so can resume review. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, resolved the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was released on April 12, 2013, via Kendrick's YouTube channel.[15] Because of the song's success, record company executives asked Kendrick to make its music video.[58']]. This sound a little bit backwardly stated. First he his receiving awards, then he is being asked to produce the video in the first place. Or maybe I'm mixed up, but can you make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. The section still starts with video was directed by Moore and choreographed by Jones, and then Kendrick was asked "to make its music video" because the track was so successful. Or am I missing something. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the article tiled Cups, when you refer(ed) to it in the body a number of times as "Cups (When I'm Gone)". Note, I have edited a few of these out, double checking that that was right. Ceoil (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, it is known for its name as "Cups". The reason it's named "Cups (When I'm Gone)" is because that is the most popular version of the song though. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go with what the sources say, which is Cups. Full stop. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reinstate Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it as support by a record label high boss is no small thing. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the quality of sources are e dramatically improved. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cups" incorporates lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" by the Carter Family. - Lyrics and melody? Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, it just incorporates the lyrics. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers — Prose edit

Hi there. Thanks for nominating. I've only carried out a few reviews in the past because I'm really new to the process, so I hope you understand that this is a learning process for me. I'm writing this after having read the article, and I feel bad but this will be my first oppose. Although it's been noted that there are problems with the article's structure. I'm only going to comment on the prose, which is the primary basis for my opposition. I don't think it meets the criteria required for a Featured Article. Understand that this is not a comment on your abilities as an editor—but as an article, this isn't ready.

The first point of concern was the presence of really obvious mistakes, like this: It also peaked within the top of the US Billboard Adult Contemporary chart, becoming Kendrick's first track to top any Billboard chart It was certified triple platinum [...] There's a missing period there. There are other typos, for example Wrtiing for the Chicago Reader' [...]. There's also unnecessary italics (given for a listicle). I don't understand why "Cup Clap technique" is capitalised; I thought maybe that was from the sources, but it isn't.

The typos are obfuscating the fact that the writing does not satisfy criteria 1a: "engaging and of a professional standard." Even with those fixed, the writing is jilted; all three sentences in that paragraph open with a consecutive "it". The lead should generally be the strongest part of an article—it’s the part which most readers will take in most. A glaring problem like that only sets me up to read the rest of the article with extreme caution.

The jilted quality of the prose continues throughout. I had to repeatedly re-read things throughout. For example:

[...] Kendrick said she taught herself to play the cup song: "[very long, superfluous quotation omitted]." When she appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Kendrick said that she came up with Beca Mitchell's "Cups" audition scene. Pitch Perfect's original script called for Mitchell to perform the nursery rhyme "I'm a Little Teacup" (1939) for her audition. When Kendrick was asked to show her singing ability before filming, she performed "Cups"; the film's producers liked her performance, and wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teacup"

There's just so many double words in these sentence. There's double, triple "cups"; there's double Mitchell; there's no natural flow to the sentences. It’s jagged. It is really hard to describe what good prose is, but I recommend reading Tony1's tips for good writing. The Reception heading really does need work. It’s really reliant on quotations. There's an excellent essay about copyediting Reception sections that I recommend, too. Both have been really helpful to me.

If another reviewer feels that the writing is much improved by the end of this process, then they should let me know and I can reconsider. As it stands, I think the article needs to go back to the workshop for a while. That won't be what you want to hear, because I see that the article has been through a number of attempts, but I do agree with the first commenter that it’s still not ready. Wishing you the best. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, thanks for your review. I did re-write the lead and get rid of a lot of quotes in the critical reception. Although, I totally understand what you mean and respect your oppose. Maybe my abilities to write here are bad. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this FA doesn't pass, then don't be dissuaded. I've watch-listed this page, so if it doesn't pass, then I will do my absolute very best to talk with you on the article's talk page. If you have spare time over the holidays, I really recommend reading those two guides I linked at the end. Open the one on reception side-by-side with your article, and try to follow its advice. It will really help. Don't be dissuaded, The Ultimate Boss. I know you're young, and in a few years I know you'll look back on this and think it’s all very silly. You'll get there, and you're really trying. Nobody's out to get you here at all—I hope you know that. FA is a really high bar. It’s the highest bar Wikipedia has. Keep your chin up! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Please see and respond to my comments in the previous review, and ping me when this is done, including explaining why any of my comments have not been actioned. I am not going to re-review given the frequency with which the article has been nominated, and the nominator's conduct in the previous nomination. As it looks like some of my comments haven't been actioned from a quick check, I am oppose for now but happy to be convinced otherwise when my comments are acted on and/or adequately responded to. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the nominator has self-requested (and received) an indefinite block. That's a shame, but probably also a cue that this should be archived. Hog Farm Bacon 05:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I agree that this nomination should be archived given that the nominator is no longer active. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cups_(song)/archive4&oldid=1208331781"