Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

S&M (song) edit

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 User:GrahamColm 16:19, 13 August 2013 [1].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) & AARON• TALK 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This article has had a troubled time at FAC and may now be the record holder for the most attempts for gain the gold star: this is number ten. Since attempt nine, there has been something of a re-vamp of the article from fresh eyes and a different viewpoint, including an excellent PR from Cassianto; the page has had a good clean and polish and should now read more freely then it did previously. Fingers crossed that this tenth attempt will be the last. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) & AARON• TALK 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has been through a significant amount of review. It is meticulously sourced. The writing quality is clear and understandable for the reader. The article is of a high level of quality. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're both quite welcome. Thanks for contributing to this quality improvement project on Wikipedia. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source and media checks edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Long quotes like "When I go out to make..." should be blockquoted or split up/shortened
    • That's not very long. If anything, it's too short to be a block quote.  — AARON • TALK
      • I've trimmed slightly, getting rid of one of the superfluous sub-clauses. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1 appears incomplete - date, label, etc?
  • Dead links (note that most shown there aren't actually dead, but the non-Apple ones are)
  • FN58 and similar: should use endash in title
  • Check consistency of wikilinking - most are first-time-only, a few aren't
  • FN100: why include location here when other newspapers don't?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  • FN103: no publisher here, but most have it
  • Fn114: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your time and thoughts NM: much obliged, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (fair-use, OTRS, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

  • Fair-use is OK - infobox, sound-sample and illustration of a controversial court case subject. Appropriate resolution / length.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • 2 images have been replaced for better copyright and fair-use situation - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great: many thanks GJ for all your time and effort here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - This song may be bad, but you're perfectly good at it. (and if the delegates want more than a lame joke: after so many attempts, don't think it can get any better.) igordebraga ≠ 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks.  — AARON • TALK 10:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto! Many thanks Igor: much appreciated!. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow edit

Mostly prose nitpicks:

  • "The American songwriter Ester Dean wrote the song in collaboration with the producers Stargate and Sandy Vee. " - "The American songwriter" makes her sound like someone of utmost importance; drop the "the". Also, perhaps "in collaboration with the song's producers"?
  • Having the article before American is correct English: dropping it is loose journalese; song's added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A subsequent remix that features Britney Spears was released" - iffy prose. Why is the remix subsequent? You could say 'A remix that features Britney Spears was later released'
  • "The song peaked at number one in Australia, Canada and Poland, number three on the UK Singles Chart, and reached the top five in France, Germany, Ireland and Spain." - awkward special treatment of the UK. Why not include the UK in the "top five" countries?
  • Don't know why: now moved to the "top five" group. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a moderate dance groove of 128 beats per minute" - I may be wrong here (I have very little musical knowledge), but the article for groove (music) states that a groove is a "feel" or sense of swing; don't you mean tempo of 128 bpm?
  • Is MTV Buzzworthy even a separate entity worth mentioning? I know some newspapers (I can't think of any off the top of my head) give their various sections exotic names - isn't this similar? I suggest just attributing the review to "Chris Ryan of MTV".
  • "A remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on the internet on January 17, 2011." - this sentence is fine but IMHO it would flow better without the commas. (Just my personal preference)
  • Yeah, mine too: removed to improve flow - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both commented that the song continued the themes featured on Rihanna's previous album, Rated R" - The Cinquemani review actually describes the song as a showcase of "the R-rated Rihanna". This is a censorship/age concept, not actually relating to Rated R. For the Conner review, please elaborate on how elements of Rated R are continued (boasting etc).
    • I've expanded on the point. I hope it's okay.  — AARON • TALK 16:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reviewers are not referring to the Rated R album, but to an "R-rated Rihanna": a mature or explicit singer. To include the idea of Rated R here is slightly OR. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the "chart-friendly moments" of Rated R" - no he didn't: he was writing about the Loud album as a whole
    • Re-worded to say as such.  — AARON • TALK 16:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song the second-biggest selling urban single of 2011 in the UK" - be careful about the use of "urban". I know what you mean, but technically it means a radio format. Perhaps describe it as the "second-biggest selling R&B or hip hop single"?
  • Thanks for that - R&B now in place - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list actually includes R&B and hip hop singles, not just R&B. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NZ Singles Chart ref (currently #53) takes me to the old site. Please amend to a direct link that chart at the new site.
    • I can't find a substitute for it so I've had to remove it.  — AARON • TALK 15:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2]. Note that in the certifications table the broken link citation is still there. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix featuring Spears sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads" - this doesn't actually make sense. You mean in the week preceding the publication of this issue, right?
  • "Rihanna became the quickest solo artist to achieve the record" - what record? Slightly confusing
  • "In the final scene, she lies on a newsroom desk, a smiley face over one eye and a Rolling Stones tongue logo over her mouth" - with a smiley face? There should probably be a citation to verify the Rolling Stones tongue logo.

Adabow (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now tweaked - 'with' added and supporting ref included. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done - we'll follow up on the last couple shortly. Many thanks Adabow: your time and efforts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there information on what happened in the Paulus case?
  • Nothing I can see on Lexis news search, on his own website or a general internet search. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the track listings, the digital download "single version" and EP and CD single "album version" are of the same length. Are they actually different versions?
    • No, it just meant that the single version is the same as the one on the album. I've changed to single version, as it is a single.  — AARON • TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why do you need to specify the "version"? Why not simply '"S&M" (single version) – 4:03'? Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • Rap-Up linked 2 out of 4 times. Be consistent in linking all occurrences or just one.
    • MTV Buzzworthy here again, and pipelinked to MTV. Confusing, especially when there is another ref with MTV only linked as the publisher.
    • MTV News has an article
    • MTV Germany is italicised, but other MTV refs have MTV not italicised.
      • It was in a different field: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent formatting for Hung Medien refs
      • They are all the same now.  — AARON • TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • " "Digital Singles Charts – Greece". Billboard." (ref 111) has no access date
    • Very inconsistent formatting of Billboard refs in general
      • But they are all formatted as |work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media| ?  — AARON • TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think these are all covered. There is a slight difference between them, but this difference lies where a writer's name is known and where it isn't (I think!) - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • e.g. 128 and 129 ("Rihanna Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Latin Tropical Airplay for Rihanna. Retrieved 2011-07-20.) - linking, no publisher, etc, while other Billboard refs are unlinked and include publisher. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Got it: a problem with the auto-formatting imposed by the template: now tweaked to provide consistency. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • e.g. 112 ("Digital Singles Charts – Greece". Billboard.biz. Prometheus Global Media. 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2013-08-04.) - Billboard.biz isn't a separate entity from Billboard. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what the BPI "Certified Awards Search" (ref 159) is verifying, but the link is broken.
      • Corrected.  — AARON • TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reference says the song was certified silver in the UK, but this is mentioned in neither the table nor prose.Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images are used well: criterion 3 is met.
  • ""Riff Off" was released as a single in 2012, and reached no. 86 on the US Billboard chart." - for consistency you should probably spell out 'number' in full. Also, specify which US chart.

Many thanks for your further comments, Adabow. I think we've covered all these now, but please let us know if there are any we have missed, or any new points you'd like looked into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work; I'm nearly there. Just the Billboard refs, BPI cert and the clarification of the single/album "versions" to go. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All now corrected. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted the silver certification. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice job, meets the criteria. Adabow (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great, many thanks Adabow. You've spent a lot of time on this and we appreciate it hugely: the article is much tighter than it was previously, with the consistent sources a massive improvement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone edit

I think I recall giving this a fairly hard time in its eighth FAC :-) Looking better. Still have some questions.

  • "Instrumentation" is referred to twice in the second para of the concept section. I just about get it the first time, though I would have thought it would refer to "instrumental parts" perhaps. But the second reference eludes me ("All instrumentation was completed by Eriksen, Hermansen and Vee"). What is meant by "instrumentation" being "completed"?
  • Tweaked (Aaron, can you check I've used the right terminology for the second occurrence?) - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that they played/performed all the instruments for the instrumentation as a whole.  — AARON • TALK 15:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related subject, the same word crops up, hyperlinked, in the next section. Has anyone clicked on that link? I did and laughed. Were you meaning to pipe it somewhere??
  • PMSL (couldn't you hear the engines in the background...?) Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source check and nitpick: "Rihanna first performed "S&M" at the BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011, as part of a medley,..." I checked both citations and could find nothing regarding this being a "first" performance. One of those cites is also the reference for this: "Rihanna performed one verse and one chorus from "S&M", in between shortened versions of "Only Girl (in the World)" and "What's My Name?"". The source certainly indicates there was a medley of those three works, but don't think i could find a reference to "one verse and one chorus". Source says "But for her stage show, she changed into a red hooded dress to perform a three-song medley...Rihanna performed a routine to The Only Girl In The World, What's My Name and S&M..."
    • That was the first time she performed it then, as she had never performed it before. If she had of performed it before the BRITs, then it would be in the section labelled as her first performance. I've removed the bit about them being shortened works.  — AARON • TALK 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a additional source to support that "first live performance" aspect of this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good. I don't normally review popular music articles, and I don't know if all the tables of data at the end are standard, but assuming they are, I'm probably close to supporting, once someone's done some other source checking.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your thoughts (again) hamiltonstone - much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thank you for following those up. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your time and efforts here: this is certainly much stronger for your input. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything looks in a great order. Great job! — HĐ (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage edit

  • Support. Moved the resolved comments to Talk. No further objections. Thanks for the hard work at polishing the edges! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per resolved comments at the peer review. This article has significantly improved since the previous FACs and is proof that perseverance really does pay off. -- CassiantoTalk 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you.  — ₳aron 18:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Cass: much obliged!, as always - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Did we ever get round to spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing? If not, I would like to see some before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, there have been some cursory verification checks done, but Tim riley has succumbed to arm-twisting and pleading and has kindly agreed to do this for us. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – apologies that I won't be able to do a thorough review, but the repetition of "song" in the intro's first paragraph kinda gets to you.

"'S&M' is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). The song was released on January 21, 2011, as the fourth single from the album. The American songwriter Ester Dean wrote the song in collaboration with the song's producers Stargate and Sandy Vee."

Maybe this could be amended? Best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • 6a – fine
  • 6b – fine
  • 6c – fine
  • 6d – fine
  • 6e – fine
  • 16a – fine
  • 16b – fine
  • 26 – fine
  • 36a – fine
  • 36b – fine
  • 46a – fine
  • 46b – fine
  • 56a – fine
  • 56b – fine
  • 66 – fine
  • 76 – fine
  • 86a – fine
  • 86b – fine
  • 86c – fine
  • 96 – fine
  • 106 – fine
  • 116 – fine
  • 126 – fine
  • 136 – not on the page the link takes me to, as far as I can see
    • It had been moved from Billboard to Music Canada, which is the new source for info, so I've changed it to that.  — ₳aron
  • 146 – fine
  • 156 – fine

Quotations duly acknowledged. No problem with close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks  — ₳aron 16:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim: very much appreciated indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2013 (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/S%26M_(song)/archive10&oldid=1140156658"