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

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 06:53, 22 April 2012 [1].

Unfaithful (song)

Featured article candidates/Unfaithful (song)/archive1

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is my second Rihanna article on which I have worked and heavily and with all my efforts. I know that is not perfect when it comes to prose, but I just want to try the first nomination and see comments with which I can improve and eventually satisfy them. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on incomprehensibility issues in the Info box and Lead alone. This many mistakes in one prose sections leads me to believe that it is highly probable that countless more are present in the other 10 sections.

Why is the "Recorded" parameter blank? You have stated the recording location in the credits section so why not here?
- Now is. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the formats in the Format section be alphabetised like the genres are
- Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certifications section is also blank.
- Certifications are not more written in the box. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Says? They are allowed to be there. That, or remove the parameter. Simple. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
by the Stargate duo → Poor phrasing
- Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
co-written by American singer Ne-Yo → It was co-written by all of them. You haven't said that Ne-Yo is listed as a co-writer in the credits.
- Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
contains prominent R&B characteristics → "prominent R&B characteristics" ? So, it's simply an R&B song, as you have put it in the info box.
- Its not specifically R&B, its Pop and R&B. It was same with "Rehab". — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's not specifically R&B, then it shouldn't be there. Did a critic say it is an R&B song? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
by the works → I would associate this phrasing describing a piece of artwork by an artist, not the songs of a group. Wrong context.
- Read the source. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you've copied it then? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
cheating → This is quite a colloquial word, couldn't you use something a bit more encyclopedic? deceitful, even unfaithful.
- If I re-word it, the phrase will be poor. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already poor, so you might as well. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
    - I guess the more formal term would be infidelity, but there's no verb for that. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
received → "garnered" would be a more preferable choice of word.
- Okay. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
powerful ballad style → This isn't working for me. Why not use "powerful balladry" ?
- Same here. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
The song reached the top ten → The song peaked inside the top ten
- Same thing. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But worse. Reached sounds like it struggled. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
of more than 15 countries → Why not just list the actual amount? It's clearly not more than 20 otherwise you would have said so, so it's between 16 and 19. Might as well just say so.
including the UK Singles Chart, on which it became Rihanna's third top ten single. → This seems a bit out of place and didn't seem to flow when I read it. Why is just the UK Singles Chart so important? It would be better to write two or three countries.
- UK is a big music market. So its worth of mentioning. Don't see the problem with flowing. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem with include two others though, as it wasn't just the UK. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
having sold more than one million digital copies. → Didn't you read List of music recording certifications? US singles are based on shipments, not sales. So change to "denoting shipments of over 1,000,000 copies."
- Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
dangerous love triangle → Dangerous doesn't work here. And link Love triangle, as some people may not know what it means.
- Done. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's her husband specifically? Could just be her boyfriend.
- It was not written by me. Some of users (possibly Jivesh or Legolas) wrote it when c/e the Synopsis. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. You've nominated this article, so you have to make the changes. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
"Unfaithful" has become a staple of Rihanna's live performances. → Why?
- Because it did. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there's no reason for why. Have any critics said it is a "staple" of her live performances? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
In 2006, she performed it → Shouldn't this be "As part of promotion" or something similar?
- And why just not performed?— Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I presume she was only there to promote it? Aaron • ^{You Da One}
The song was in the set list → "in"? You mean "on".
- Done by Penguin. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, three general comments. Why is the there an unneeded and unsightly clear in the Background and release section? And nine of the Digital remixes countries in the Release history table are missing a Label box. The "A Girl like Me" book link should also be included.

Done those too. — Tomica (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1) One does not ask a sourcing question[2] about an article at WP:RSN and then ignore the input there when submitting an article for FA status. The source is not a RS and should not be used in a Wikipedia article (2) Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect.[3]Fladrif (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I mean maybe you are right for the first one. Obviously I am looking for an alternative source to replace the Artistdirect one (howevr, is still not proved that the source is FA unreliable). But, blaming Legolas here (or better said everywhere)??? Legolas made only couple of edits and just made the prose better. I wrote the whole article and sourced everywhere. You check that ! — Tomica (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Legolas barely did some copy-edits here. So, it's unfair to say Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Why like this article will never get promoted because Legolas did two edits on it. Plus I don't see how he that he false references. Check them If you want. And Btw maybe I am collecting sources to defend ARTISTdirect. Yourp oppose is childish and on purpose. — Tomica (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current status of this review? It has been abandoned for six weeks now. Till I Go Home 09:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why still is not archived as not promoted. I don't have time to work on it, plus I can't approve that ARTISTdirect is FA reliable source. So it will probably fail. — Tomica (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Yes, with two opposes and no serious movement on the review for some time, this FAC will have to be archived. If and when all outstanding comments are addressed, and a minimum of two weeks have passed following archiving, the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.