Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laundromat (song)/archive1

< 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 promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2022 [1].

Laundromat (song) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Laundromat" is a R&B/pop song with lyrics that use the laundromat as a metaphor for the washing away of an old relationship. While I love these gimmicky songs, I am far less happy that R. Kelly was involved in pretty much every aspect of this one (to the point that even his absence from the music video was discussed). "Laundromat" is a single from Nivea's 2002 self-titled debut album, but I first heard about it when Solange Knowles covered it at an actual laundromat in 2013. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The Knowles image is causing some layout issues, displacing the heading and causing whitespace before the table
  • That is interesting. I am not having that issue in my browser, but I have removed the image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song version from which the sample was taken should be identified in the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the image review. The sample uses the album version of the song. How would you recommend representing that in the sample? Also, thank you for moving the "External links" section to the right position. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest putting a full citation in the source field, specifying the album details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Apologies for that as I had a brain fart. I believe that I have addressed this, but let me know if this information can be better represented. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "in which Nivea breaks up her boyfriend" => "in which Nivea breaks up with her boyfriend"
  • "to show 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse" => "to show that 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse"
  • "number 89 on the Scottish Single Chart" => "number 89 on the Scottish Singles Chart"
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs Ya Ya Ya"" - opening quote mark missing
  • "but noted Nivea did not follow" => "but noted that Nivea did not follow"
  • "Taylor wrote after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers"" => "Taylor wrote that, after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers""
  • There's so sentences at the end of the music and lyrics section which link back to reviews which were mentioned earlier. Would it not make sense to put these sentences with the earlier ones? I stopped for a minute and thought "who's Taylor?" before realising that his review had already been mentioned much earlier in the section.
  • That is a very good point. I have rearranged this section to address this point, and I have split the first paragraph to avoid it from being overly long, but please let me know if further work would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according Billboard's Carla Hay" => "according to Billboard's Carla Hay"
  • "Nivea did not perform the single with Kelly and told audiences" - audiences at concerts?
  • I decide to ultimately cut this part as I do not think the quote adds that much. The sentence already says Kelly was not present at her performances of this song, and her quote for the performances does not really add anything further about the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a semi-colon after Hot Wax but then you start a new sentence
  • "AllMusic's Any Kellman" - his name is Andy
  • "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote Nivea" => "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote that Nivea"
  • "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said "Laundromat"" => "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said that "Laundromat""
  • "Music journalists pointed to the single's success to discuss how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career" => "Music journalists pointed to the single's success when discussing how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career"
  • "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported the song" => "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported that the song"
  • "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said 14 months" => "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said tahat, 14 months"
  • "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its single chart" => "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its singles chart"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review! I made a great deal of rather silly mistakes while writing this article. Please let me know if there is anything that could improve the article further and I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

  • "In 2013, Solange Knowles covered "Laundromat" in a laundromat; her performance was praised by critics, who enjoyed the song choice and the laundromat venue." Perhaps try to vary this sentence a bit to avoid the use of "laundromat" three times.
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs "Ya Ya Ya", "The One for Me", and "Laundromat" for the album; these were the last songs to be added to Nivea prior to its release." Songs ... songs
  • "While writing for Vibe, Laura Checkoway referred to "Laundromat" as "an R&B jam-meets-detergent jingle"." You can lose the "While".
  • "While reviewing the former, AllMusic's Andy Kellman praised "Laundromat" as one of the album's highlights." Same as above.
  • "While discussing Kelly's absence, author Mark Anthony Neal wrote; "A man accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with minors obviously cannot show up in a music video cooing in the ear of a teenager"." Same case here. Nothing wrong with its use in any of the cases but if they convey the same meaning, then we should opt for less words. Also why the semi-colon instead of a comma before the quote? One more thing, if the sentence within the quote also ends in the quote, the full stop should be placed inside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ.
  • I agree with you that it is important to be concise. I have responded to the point on the semi-colon and MOS:LQ points in the comment below. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason for the use of semi-colon before the quotes? The common punctuations I know that precede are either a comma or a colon. I don't know if it's wrong to use a semicolon like that but I haven't seen this usage before.
  • I am actually not sure how this got there. I usually use a colon before full quotations so I am not sure how the semi-colons got there (or why I would have used them). I have revised all the instances to make the colons instead, and I have hopefully fixed the MOS:LQ issues, but let me know if I somehow overlooked anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a USA Today" - either a noun needs to follow USA Today ("article", "review"...) or lose the "a".
  • That's a very silly mistake on my part. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The contributor for Fuse said they may have enjoyed it "mostly for the fact it was performed in an actual laundromat".[42]" I think this quote can easily be paraphrased.
  • Revised. Let me know if further revision would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should conclude my review. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review and apologies for some of the rather silly mistakes in the article. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else that could be improved in the article, I would be more than happy to address it. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your changes and replies. Happy to support this. FrB.TG (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Realmaxxver edit

  • I am not going to do a full review; but I just want to ask something. So, with the caption for the R. Kelly image; what exactly did critics praise him for? Realmaxxver (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I appreciate any feedback. Critics praised R. Kelly for various things. Some reviewers said that his songs were highlights from the album, another specifically pointed to the production in regards to how Nivea sounded on the song, and yet another talked about his vocals on the track. I do understand your point and I have expanded the caption to hopefully further clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Heartfox—pass edit

  • What makes the Phoenix New Times a high-quality source? (e.g., what about Troy Farah makes their opinion relevant for an encyclopedic article?)
  • Removed. The citation does not add much to the article so it was not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious for Music Week 2003a why via= is present when there is no link? You can add the link by using the accession number of the article. e.g. |id=EBSCOhost 9835914. Then you don't need via= at all.
  • To be honest, I was unaware of how to format EBSCOhost citations as I have only started to use that resource recently. I have used your suggestion. Thank you for that as it clears up a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • checked fn 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 24, 31, 32, and all were good
  • I would add via= for the URLs from Google Books and World Radio History
  • Good point. I have added this part to the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nick Cannon plays Nivea's boyfriend and lip syncs to Kelly's vocals." not seeing this in the source cited
  • Page 278 says that Cannon was Kelly's stand-in for the music. I have revised this part to be reflect that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can make generalizations like "received mixed reviews from critics" or "Kelly was praised by reviewers" or "Critics praised Knowles's performance" without a specific source that says so. It's frustrating for me too, but ultimately there are some reviews we can't access.
  • I see your point about the mixed reviews. It is a generalization and I have removed that part from the lead and the article. But, I do think the part on Kelly's contributions and Knowles's performance is supported as the article has positive reviews focusing on these aspects. The article is not saying that everyone loves these parts or they are universally loved, but that they were praised by some critics who are included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hay article (published in February 2003) says "Laundromat" "has been released" but the release date given in the article is the UK one of April 28.
  • It is likely that the US release date was different, but the citation does not give an exact date. Revised this part to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand wanting to only provide the available specific date in the infobox and prose, but then the sentence should indicate that April 28 is the UK release.
  • Good point. I have revised the prose and the infobox to be more specific. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Laundromat" was made available as a 12-inch single and a CD single" → Music Week 2003b says a cassette was also released (MC 9254824)
  • Thank your catching this. I have added this to the article. I could not find further information on the cassette unfortunately, but it could just be lost to time. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It reached number 98 on the European Hot 100 Singles chart" → in the "previous week" column it was number 89.
  • Good catch. I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the previous weeks' issues only list "Don't Mess With My Man" so I would stick with the 98.
  • Thank you for catching this. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When discussing her performance with Fuse she said: "This laundromat has me feeling the drama queen, so excuse my theatrics."" → the article seems like she said that during the performance, not in an interview afterwards
  • Fuse 2013 the writer is Nicole James
  • I am not sure how I missed that. Apologies for that. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her record label Jive delayed the release of her self-titled debut album to the following year" → the Nivea 2001 ref cites the inlay cover from an album that wasn't released until a year later?
  • Nivea was released in 2001 internationally with a different (and in my opinion better) track list, and the album had a US release in 2002. The Kelly tracks, such as "Laundromat", are only on the US release. I could include this information in the article, with a citation to the international version of the album as I could not find coverage that explicitly discussed Kelly's tracks only appearing on certain releases. I wanted to get your opinion about this first. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence should specify it is referring to the US release.
  • Revised and I have added a sentence with a citation to the international version about these differences. Maybe one day, I will come back and work on the album article as its development is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it so far :) Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the source review! I appreciate it a lot, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. Apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. I am not sure how I missed those lol. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I have addressed most of them, and I have tried to leave responses for everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Apologies for the second ping. Just doing this as a follow-up as it has been roughly five days since your last message and I wanted to check in on the status of the source review. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 3 link appears to be malformed Heartfox (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how that happened. I have revised the citation. I will address your other (very helpful) responses later tonight. Apologies again for the double-ping and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the responses. I believe that I have address everything, but please let me know if there is anything else that would benefit from further revision. Thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laundromat" is a four-minute, 24-second R&B and pop song" → in the track listing section, none of the lengths shown are 4:24, which is what is cited from AllMusic. Also, Billboard gave 4:25 in the same sentence's ref. If the physical single/album has track lengths then that would be more reliable to put in the infobox/prose
  • Thank you for bringing this up. I went with your suggestion and used the physical album as the ultimate deciding factor on the length, which also matches the Billboard citation so that makes me more comfortable with this decision. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor 2003 title → Nivea is misspelled as "Niva".
  • Good catch. There were a few other "Niva" misspellings so apparently I couldn't spell that day lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay and continued comments! Also these are just simple things listed above and thanks for being a great editor to work with :) Heartfox (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: There's no need to apologize. I appreciate the comments. I want the article to be in the best possible shape so I am more than happy to work on anything for that purpose. Take as much time as you need with the review. Thank you for being a wonderful editor to work with and I hope that we continue to work together in the future :) Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for the source review. Heartfox (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by RunningTiger123 edit

  • Thank you for catching that. I am not sure how that happened tbh. I have fixed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything from "Kelly mixed the song with Ian Mereness..." to the end of the paragraph duplicates info from the "Personnel" section – why?
  • It is standard practice in song article to put the credits/personal in the prose of the article as well as in a separate section. That's why there is a separate section for charts and the charts are mentioned in the prose. In my opinion, it is done because it would be somewhat jarring to not include credits in the prose, but a separate section is helpful for readers who just want to look at that information at a glance. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on music articles, so if that's the standard, definitely stick with that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nivea did not perform the single with Kelly" – maybe I'm missing something, but if he didn't perform on the single, what did he perform on? (The album version, perhaps? It just seems unclear.)
  • Nivea and Kelly never performed the song together live. They just recorded the song together. I thought the performed part clarified that, but I have revised it to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced that its inclusion on Flow 93.5 Hot Wax is notable based on the sourcing provided
  • Fair point. I thought it may be notable because it was mentioned in the review of the album, but that alone does not make it particularly noteworthy. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you removed the reference to Totally R&B as well – I think that one merited mention since the album was covered elsewhere. My concern was that Flow didn't have any external coverage, so it didn't seem like a meaningful detail. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I misinterpreted this for some reason even your original comment was clear. I have added Totally R&B back into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2002" repeated twice in one sentence
  • Apparently, I really liked that year. I have removed one of the instances. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several places, "Don't Mess with..." is written as "Don't Mess With..." (note capitalization)
  • Apologies for that. Thank you for noticing as that is less than ideal as consistency is important. I decided to go with "Don't Mess With My Man" as that is the format used in Billboard articles. I originally tried to look at the album itself, but it presents all the songs in lowercase on the back so it was less than helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming this is the same article, replace the NYT source from ProQuest with this
  • Thank you for the link. Somehow, I must have overlooked this during my web search. I have replaced the ProQuest citation as it is better to have something that is more readily available to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still seems to switch back and forth – earlier mentions in the article tend to use "with", while later mentions use "With". RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I must not have published this edit, but now it should be implemented throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not directly related to the article, but should Template:Nivea at the bottom say "Feature singles" or "Featured singles"?
  • The template is on the article so it should be in good shape. It should be "featured singles". Unfortunately, the Nivea articles are in pretty rough shape, but that is too be expected for an artist who is not particularly popular. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123: Thank you for the comments. I greatly appreciate your help and apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article more, I would be more than happy to do so. I hope you are having a great end to your week and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great now! I knew nothing about this song beforehand and it's always cool to read about an entirely new topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. It is always fun to read about a new topic. I need to go outside of my comfort zone on here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak edit

  • is a song that was recorded by American singer → is "that was" really necessary?
  • I went with something simpler and just say "is a song by American singer". I have seen the "that was recorded by" sentence structure used in song FAs, but I agree that being concise is important. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • released on her 2002 self-titled debut album. Jive released → repetition of "released"
  • was one of the last songs to be produced for the album. The song → repetition of "song"
  • Link "credits"
  • I do not think the link is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laundromat" reached number 33 → for a better flow, add something by the lines of "further" after "Laundromat"
  • "Laundromat" was supported through live performances and a music video. Nivea did not perform the song with Kelly. → the second sentence could be combined with the first one for a better flow
  • In 2013, Solange Knowles covered "Laundromat" in a laundromat → the repeition seems a little poor here
  • I disagree. I think it is important to emphasize why the venue is important/relevant to the conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • under-performed → isn't it "underperformed"?
  • Billboard's Chuck Taylor reviewed the single as a pop track → just "viewed" would be better
  • I disagree as those words mean different things. I used reviewed here because the song was reviewed under a specific genre, I think that it is important to note. I do not think "viewed" would work in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chorus" could be linked
  • You can link Billboard and AllMusic in the description of the audio sample
  • who is referenced as Keith → this sounds weird to me; wouldn't something by the lines of "referred to as" or "who plays the role of" be better?
  • as having "a half-spoken and half-sung arrangement", and likened the chorus to a Burt Bacharach arrangement → repetition of "arrangement"
  • for "Laundromat" in a laundromat → repetition
  • As with the sentence about Solange's performance in the lead, I think it is important to emphasize that a song called "Laundromat" is being specifically tied to the venue in the promotion (and in the cover performance). Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were my comments for the article. The other sections look fine as the are, however, do scan for further repetitions. I did not list them here because I viewed them as way too being issues of a way too minor nature, but fixing them would be nice. Other than that, this is a really great article and I also appreciate your work on making a "Citations" and "Footnotes" section Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help. I have implemented most of your suggestion, except the ones that I noted above. I hope you are having a great weekend so far, and if there is anything I can do to further improve the article, I would be more than happy to do so. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adressing everything, I also see your point where you commented. I support the article for promotion and wish a lot of luck Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and for your review as a whole. You have helped a lot and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "Journalists cited the single's heavy airplay and its appearance on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart as evidence that the allegations in 2003 that Kelly carried out sexual abuse did not hurt his career." I tweaked the wording a bit but it's a complicated sentence and it would be nice to simplify it. How about moving the success to the front so it can be referred to in a simpler clause, like this: "The single received heavy airplay and appeared on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart; journalists cited this success as evidence that the allegations in 2003 that Kelly had sexually abused an underage girl did not hurt his career." That's assuming that the sources are referring to that instance, but from what I can see in the R. Kelly article there were scandals and an arrest in 2002 as well -- are your sources definitely not referring to those? I see in the body we're less specific than this about exactly which allegations are meant.
  • I had some difficulty with this part as it is rather complicated and builds on a lot of sensitive information and history. I prefer your suggestion, and I have implemented that in the article if that is okay with you. Articles that specifically tied the allegations against Kelly and his commercial success focused on the 2002 child pornography charges. While some articles mentioned his illegal marriage with Aaliyah, the focus was mostly kept on the then-recent charges. I tried to be specific in the article with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution sentence, but I would be more than happy to revise this part to clarify it more. Aoba47 (talk)
  • "and releases had varying track listings": this is the single we're talking about, not the album? So what does "track listing" mean? Isn't there just the one track, maybe plus a B-side for the vinyl?
    Good question. The track listing for a majority of the releases are very similar (i.e. "Laundromat" and "Don't Mess With My Man" being released together), but there are some minor differences like the inclusion of the instrumental, the remix, or the music video so the track listings across formats had subtle differences. I ultimately decided to remove this part completely as I am uncertain if the differences are notable enough to specify in the prose and I could see how it is confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since you've cut it; I think it would be OK to re-add it if you wanted to, perhaps with an explanatory clause such as you give here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. I will think about it further in the future. I actually think the article works better without it as I am uncertain if the rather minor variations across formats is notable enough to mention in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelly and Cannon collaborated on videos..." Why is the information about their collaboration relevant to "Laundromat"?
    I was on the fence about this myself. My rationale was to explain that Kelly and Cannon had a history of working together that was not isolated to just the singular music video. I had added this information to the article in case readers were curious on why Cannon was selected for the music video. However, I would be more than happy to remove this information if it is too off-topic. I could understand that concern, especially since I did not mention in this article that Cannon is a featured artist on the Nivea album for a different song. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since I think it's OK to leave it in, but I also think you might compress this a little if you wanted to make it clearer why you're mentioning it -- perhaps "Nick Cannon, who had previously collaborated with Kelly, was a stand-in for Kelly in the video" and then cut the last two sentences in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the suggestion. I have implemented it into the article with a minor adjustment to avoid repeating "Kelly" twice. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention in the first sentence of the section about Solange Knowles that it was a partial performance? Just 'performed part of "Laundromat" ' would work. Without that I was a bit surprised to see further on in the section that she segued out of it in only 90 seconds.
    That is a good point. I agree that it would come across as a surprise as the article does read as if Solange performed the entire song (and while I wish that was the case, it was obviously not true). I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have; looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for the review! I honestly did not expect it this quickly. I have revised the bits about R. Kelly's charges, the track listings, and the Solange cover. I would be more than happy to look at how R. Kelly's charges are discussed in the article again. The focus was on the 2002 child pornography charges as journalists were discussing how such a recent occurrence did not negatively impact his career. I have left an explanation about the Kelly/Cannon collaboration parts. I am honestly on the fence about it as I can see why it would be read as irrelevant to this particular article, but I wanted to leave my rationale and hear your opinion about it before doing anything further. Again, I hope you are doing well, and thank you for taking the time to look through this article. I greatly appreciate that as always! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the one point about the allegations left; the only concern I have now is that we still say 2003 in the lead, but you say above that the focus was on the 2002 charges. Would it be best to just remove the year and make it "evidence that the sexual abuse allegations against Kelly did not hurt his career"? If we remove the date and just say "sexual abuse allegations" instead of specifying the charge, it can refer to any charge prior to that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: Thank you for the comments. I went back and forth on this one. I ultimately decided to keep the more specific 2002 child pornography arrest in the lead and I have copy-edit the part in the "Commercial performance" section to more clearly reflect that. Since the articles were quite specific with this, I think it would best to reflect that as readers may think more weight was either given to past allegations (such as the Aaliyah marriage) or allegations that came afterwards. I hope that clears things up and apologies for the confusion there. I wanted to really think this through carefully as it is a sensitive issue and I wanted to give it the time and respect it deserved. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good; it's now consistent and I think the phrasing is a little smoother. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will re-examine this part again tomorrow when I have some more time/distance to see if any further revisions would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and your support. You have helped me to improve the article a lot, and I appreciate the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (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/Laundromat_(song)/archive1&oldid=1070233823"