Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telephone (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2023 [1].

---

Telephone (song)

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Get ready to be dialed into Lady Gaga's world with "Telephone", where she delivers a phone-tastic performance that's sure to ring in your ears long after the song ends. Another FAC on a Gaga song by me, have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• All of the images appear to be appropriately licensed.
• Usage of the non-free music video screenshot is amply justified by the detailed caption.
• File:Beyonce.jpg is in use on several websites so it is hard to establish who took the picture but assuming good faith that it is the uploader's own work as claimed.--NØ 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• The source link for File:Lady Gaga Telephone cover.png is dead (at least on my end).
• In the lead's first paragraph, there are two sentences that start with the song's title, i.e. ( "Telephone" metaphorically represents) and (Musically, "Telephone" consists), and I think it would be better to vary one instance to avoid repetition.
• Apologies for being super nitpick-y, but I do not think the word "guests" works in this instance (they go to a diner and poison the guests' breakfast). I would consider people eating at a diner to be more customers than guests. I have not just never seen "guests" applied in this context.
• This is a random suggestion so apologies again. I vaguely remember the Kidz Bop cover of this song having something weird, and after doing some research, I found a few sources (The 25 Most Ridiculous and Confusing Kidz Bop Lyric Changes, 7 song lyrics that were rewritten to avoid the censors, and The 13 Most Awkwardly Altered Lyrics On Kidz Bop 18) that focus on how the cover changes lyrics to be more kid-friendly. It might be notable enough to mention in the "Other versions" section.
• For the captions for the Britney Spears, Beyoncé, and Tyrese Gibson images, I would include the years that they were taken to provide a clearer and fuller context to readers without having them click on the image.
• I have a clarification question about this part (but Spears rejected it). I was curious if we knew for certain if Spears was the one to reject it, as she was under her conservatorship and it seemed like a majority of the creative decisions were handled by others and less by her. Have any sources discussed this? I tried to look it up, but all the sources I found attributed the rejection to Spears so it could just be me speculating, but I still wanted to ask you anyway.

All the sources I found related to it only said that Spears rejected it. I didn't see someone else influenced this decision.

That is what I thought too. It is unlikely that we will ever know the exact nature of how this song was rejected (or how songs in general are rejected as a lot of coverage seemingly links these decisions to the artist when it could be the label, the artist's team, etc.). Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• I believe that all of the song's credits not only need to be listed in a separate section, but also need to be incorporated into the actual prose. I did a spot check to judge this, and I only see Paul Foley and Gene Grimaldi mentioned in the "Credits and personnel" section and not in the prose.
• Quentin Tarantino is linked twice in the article.

I hope this review is helpful so far. My above comments cover the lead and the "Background and release" section, and I will read through the rest of the article later in the week. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Aoba. I have resolved them in parts and will get to the rest soon. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. I will read through the article more and post further comments when you are done addressing everything. I hope you are having an enjoyable week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, they all should be done now except for where I have left a reply. I hope you're enjoying your week so far, too. :) FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• For this sentence (It was called an album highlight by Nicki Escuerdo from Phoenix New Times, Michael Hubbard from MusicOMH and Evan Sawdey from PopMatters.), I would put the citations in numeric order. I would encourage you to check the article for other instances of this.

I actually put that in order that the publications are listed.

• I would shorten the start of this sentence (Media outlets The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Belfast Telegraph, Billboard, Vulture and Uproxx ranked "Telephone" as one of Gaga's best songs.) to just Media outlets as I do not think it is necessary to list all of the music publications in the prose.
• Tanner Stransky should be linked in the article and in the citation.
• I find this sentence, (Director Jonas Åkerlund and cinematographer Pär Ekberg had to finish filming in two days that involved multiple locations, dance numbers, many extras and busy schedules of Gaga and Beyoncé.), to be awkwardly constructed. I get the meaning, but I think the information could be conveyed better. For instance, when reading it aloud, I found the "two days that involed" a bit awkward. Plus it was unclear on why there was a two-day limit until the end when the performers's busy schedules were mentioned.
• The cast of Queer Eye did a lip sync performance of "Telephone" on Lip Sync Battle, and it has appeared to have received enough coverage from various sources (Billboard, E! Online, Los Angeles Blade, Out for some examples) to warrant a mention in this article in my opinion.
• "Telephone" was a lip sync song in the season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race. Did it get enough coverage to be considered notable enough to be mentioned here? I could not find any real coverage on this, but I only did a superficial look.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on this either.

• Thank you for checking into this regardless! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Around the time that "Telephone" was released, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé had a separate and similar collaboration with a "Video Phone" remix. The "Video Phone" Wikipedia article brings up how critics compared the two songs and music videos, but this article does not address any of that. I would think that would be notable enough to mention in some capacity.

This should be all of my comments, but I will take time over the weekend to read through the article a few more times just to make sure I complete my due diligence as a reviewer and make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review as always. I think I have incorporated them all unless stated otherwise, and look forward to your rereading of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would find a way to better incorporate this sentence (Nicola Formichetti outfitted the video, which includes fashion pieces by Thierry Mugler and Atsuko Kudo, as well as Gaga's own creative team, Haus of Gaga.) into the section as I am not sure putting it as its own separate paragraph is the best choice.

I have included this in plot subsection following a sentence which talks about the designer of an outfit. Not sure it goes there but I couldn't think of anywhere else where it works.

• I remember speculation on a sequel to the "Telephone" music video with "Aura" being a popular pick. Gaga teased a follow-up, and it was here and here and here. Have any media outlets further discussed this sequel. To be clear, I am unsure if this should be added to the article. I personally do not see enough coverage even with the three sources I've linked above, but my hesitation is primarily with not wanting to adding speculation or teases that ultimately did not result in anything. With that being said, I still wanted to get your opinion on it either way.

Yeah, I remember that as well but as you said, those were merely speculations, and I don't think this warrants a mention.

These are my last comments. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too much of a pain. I had a lot of fun reading through this article. It gave me a lot of nostalgia and memories. It's wild to think that this song was released over a decade ago lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again, Aoba. Your review was definitely not a pain and was very helpful as always. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it; I also had a lot fun researching the different analyses. It really is strange to think the song/video is now 13 years old; it feels like yesterday when I first listened to it but then again I started listening to Gaga much later. Back then, I was far too young for her stuff and would've been traumatized for life LOL. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything! The responses above make sense, and I agree that mere speculations should not be included in the article. I was in high school when this song was released so it makes me feel crazy old lol. I support this FAC for promotion and best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Heartfox

Have you ever considered splitting the music video into its own article à la "We Found Love"? Granted it is connected to the song, but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are given that it includes five subsections which is essentially an article within an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I've thought about it and also considered it for Alejandro (song) back when I expanded its music video section but at nearly 5k words, I think this article's size is pretty manageable. The WFL article is already at nearly 6k words even with a separate music video article (3k words) so a song article of 9k words would have been far too big. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Eli

Saving a spot ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency with the way you italicize certain italicizable terms in the sources (LA times has the album title italicized, but the MusicOMH one doesn't, for example)
• Some of these references lead to deadlinks, like the MTV source used in the background and the Popmatters review
• Some points for consistency re. lead and body.
  • You use "with additional songwriting by LaShawn Daniels, Lazonate Franklin and Beyoncé" in the prose, but the lead has a more wordy version. It would be nice to make the lead word-for-word to condense it.
  • Is there a reason why "suffocation" is in quotation marks in the body but not in the lead?

Background

• Re. the "fear of suffocation" bit
  • You write in the lead that the song is about her fear of suffocation "from the media", but I think it's a slightly off summary of what she said ("Paparazzi" acts as a better metaphor for this). With "Telephone", Gaga was simply fearing that she could not find time for fun given all her work as an artist, media scrutiny or not
  • You can paraphrase the quotations here to avoid repeating the phrase "fear of suffocation" by describing it as
    • "fear of not finding time for fun given the increasing pressure for her to work harder as an artist" in the lead.
    • "fear of not finding enough time for fun because of her work life. She described it as a feeling of suffocation: 'something...' " in the background.

Music and lyrics

• Is there a reason why we are repeating the Personnel subsection here? Seems a little redundant. IMO I'd just stick to mentioning the songwriters, moving that part to the tailend of the succeeding paragraph.
• "Musically, 'Telephone' has been described as dance-pop." by whom? Also, if there are other sources that describe the genre and none of them contradict what your initial source says, I'd remove the attribution; it seems way too convoluted for what should be a simple declaration of genre.
• "appears ... in a rapid fire way".
  • Perhaps you mean Bey delivers her verse in a rapid fire way?
  • Shouldn't this be hyphenated? And I feel like this isn't a really encyclopedic term; if this is quoted from the cited source, I'd add the quotation marks.
• Musicnotes.com is not a reliable source for chord progressions and such.
• What are Colton's credentials?

Critical reception

• Wood's comment is less of praise and more of an analysis of the lyrics that you can include in the prior section. If you go through with moving this, I'd split the Colton analysis into its own paragraph
• You can add onto the MusicOMH commentary
  • The source also praises Bey's rapping part in the bridge apart from the bridge itself + the ending, so you may wanna include that too
  • After that, you can add onto the sentence: "saying it was 'briliant [and] maddeningly great'."
• "believing that the track exudes an excitement that suggests potential derailment" what does this mean? The "most fundamental" bit from the Independent could also use clearer wording
• You might want to consider mentioning that Independent ranked "Telephone" as Gaga's 7th best song; makes the commentary you mention in the article more valuable

This is already included in the final paragraph. -FrB

• "Melanie Bertoldi from Billboard..." this is a lengthy quotation, and the only thing worth including here is the "Gaga and Beyoncé have left the listener with just one option: surrender to the dancefloor" bit. Which you can easily paraphrase, e.g. "Sawdey wrote that this elevated the song [...] Billboard's Melanie Bertolodi wrote that this chemistry creates an atmosphere catchy enough to elicit some dancing from the listener."

Music video

• Perhaps links for "original negative", "contrast", and "grain" as used in the article would be beneficial given they're technical film terms that the average reader of song articles isn't really expected to know
• I synthesized some comments there by merging them into the first sentence of the reception section. Feel free to revert if you wish.
  • You can also add in a footnote which critic from which publication made those comments, to keep it consistent with the prose which lists the authors instead of just the publications.
• Everything in the first paragraph starting from "Matt Donnelly from the LA Times" fits better into its own paragraph.
• I don't think Ganz's comments on the feminism count as praise ? Would it be better to make the opening paragraph "Some critics commentated on the video's feminist themes."
  • I also feel like it works better as a second sentence given the "is certainly cinematic and oddly feminist" bit
• Sandy Rios is a talk host for the oh-so-conservative Fox News, and they aren't exactly what I would call respectable music critics ... I'd remove this.
• "Yebra wrote that Gaga is criminalized although she is a victim of domestic abuse." I assume his analysis means to say "not only is Gaga a victim of domestic abuse, she has to find herself shackled by the prison system" ? I'd rewrite the sentence as such if that's the case

The source only says "Despite being the victim of an abusive partner, she is treated like a criminal".

• "authors Lori Burns and Marc Lafrance" ditto wrt credentials

Accolades / live performances

• Looks good to me

Other versions

• "He denied leaking it despite demands" what does this mean?
• Pempengco is deadnamed; please change his name to Jake Zyrus.
• Per WP:SONGTRIVIA take good care of including "usage in media" type sentences here. Look at Shake It Off for a good example. Reese Witherspoon's Sing cover has been discussed in depth by multiple RS, and Lupita Nyong'o reached out to TS herself to get approval to use the song (which she attributes to getting her out of a career slump) for a film, a fact also widely covered in media. Which makes these "usage in media" coverage worth nothing in the article. Now, let's look at the "Telephone" one
  • For the Kidz Bop one: the E! ranking is interesting, and it does provide some foundation for possibly including this factoid, being considered a ridiculous lyric change and all. But apart from Idolator, this lyric change is not really covered much, so I'm giving you the choice to remove it or not. I personally prefer removing it because of the scarcity in sources, quite unlike the examples I mentioned.
  • Little Mix. I doubt unofficial poll results from a third-party website regarding the X Factor week count as proper coverage for this cover. There has to be more to this than just a passing "so-and-so covered it". Being released as a single does not make it notable either. Please remove.
  • The one for Glee is definitely worth mentioning here, however.
    • Look at this ABS-CBN piece that summarizes critical and celebrity response to Zyrus's and Michele's cover. There are also some additional details on the commercial performance. If you need some Filipino phrases here translated, just ask me.
    • Here's a BBC piece summarizing how Zyrus introduced his debut appearance in Glee.
    • And another article of a similar nature, this time from GMA.
    • And a Philippine Star article that summarizes how the episode went down, plus more critical response to the episode. (You got LA Times, Billboard, and EW dishing out takes on Zyrus's performance, so definitely worth using this.)
  • Apart from the Glee cover, the one in Queer Eye is the only one here that warrants mentioning IMO. Apart from the Billboard reference, which has some opinions to say about it. You have Entertainment Weekly, Out, Gay Times, PinkNews, and ET Canada that provide you with supple commentary about the cover. Use them to their fullest potential; include details on the performance apart from just saying it existed, and include reactions to the looks, the showmanship, the singing.
• In summation, I would advise not mentioning how Little Mix and Kidz Bop covered the song and instead focus on fleshing out Glee's and Queer Eye's attempts to do so.

To wrap

I have thoroughly copyedited the article in full to address some minor issues in the prose - primarily cohesion, concision, flow, redundancy, and clarity. Nothing about the content has been changed in a major way, which I hope should be fine with you. Feel free to revert any changes with which you disagree.

Those are all the comments I have. Sorry that I've said a lot lol. It's already a pretty solid article; most of it involves tweaking with the prose, anyway. Once all of my comments are addressed, I'll take a look at the article again and see if it merits my support.

And if you have the time and energy, I would appreciate a review of my current FAC, but as always, you are in no circumstances under any obligation to do so. I hope Wiki-life and off-wiki life are treating you well, FrB.TG. Have a nice week ahead! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 04:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Your Power:, thank you for your thorough review and copy-edits. I believe I have addressed all your comments now. Let me know what you think. I will definitely review your FAC very soon.

Regarding the credits in prose form in "Music and lyrics" section, it was suggested by @Aoba47:. Before I consider removing it, I would like him to weigh in. FrB.TG (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The credits need to be presented in prose form alongside the separate section. There is no ambiguity on this matter. It's similar to the charts. Chart performance of a song is presented in the prose and through tables, not just through tables alone. This section should not be removed for similar reasons. This is a standard aspect of any song article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@FrB.TG, thank you for getting to everything; your effort with this article is phenomenal. Looking back I should probably have restrained myself with my comments - I gave you a lot to work with, and I apologize. Nothing is left for me that holds back a support. Great work. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 03:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. No apologies needed. If anything, your meticulous review really helped improve the article. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

GagaNutella

• Infobox is fine per Template:Infobox song
• Add the "Paparazzi"'s release year in brackets in the lead and synopsis section
• I don't think we need to put so much emphasis on its production. Just leave it for the credits and personnel section. You can trim the first music and lyrics' paragraph
• Wikilink Billboard correctly (lead and "Billboard's Jason Lipshutz named")
• Melanie Bertoldi from Billboard wrote → Melanie Bertoldi, also from Billboard, wrote
• In the US, the song peaked at number 3 → In the US, the song peaked at three per MOS:NUM
• and number 1 on the → and one on the
• It climbed to number 1 → It climbed to number one
• moved up to number 2 before → moved up to two before
• "Telephone" peaked at number 2 in Sweden and number 3 in Hungary. → "Telephone" peaked at two in Sweden and three in Hungary
• reached a peak of number 3 → reached a peak of three
• and peaked at number 3 → and peaked at three
• On February 15, → On February 15, 2010
• Wikilink MTV and Entertainment Weekly in the reception section
• placed "Telephone" at number 3 → placed "Telephone" at number three
• NME placed it at number 17 → NME placed it at 17
• only performance of "Telephone" → only performance of the song
• On March 3, 2010, she performed "Telephone" → On March 3, 2010, she performed it
• In the credits and personnel section, don't wikilink famous cities/countries per MOS:OL
• I think you should wikilink all the magazines in the footnotes
• Ref 7: just Yahoo! Music is fine
• Refs 111, 138, 149-157, 159-160, 176, 208-209, 214, 218, 225, 231-235, 246, 252-256: wikilink the publishers, don't consider if it's a template
• Refs 155-156, 159-160: wikilink Amazon and the correct way is publisher=Amazon
• Ref 183: does it have an archive-link?

This is my quick review. The article looks great and despite copyvio score is at 44.1%, it's because of the blockquote. GagaNutella^talk 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@GagaNutella: thank you for your review. All done except for the credits in prose form (it was suggested by Aoba and I'd like to wait for his comments before I consider removing it) and the changes suggesting the removal of "number" (e.g. "and number 1 on the → and one on the") as I think it is needed. FrB.TG (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it gets repetitive, that's why I suggested to remove some of them. But no big deal. I support this FAC. Another excellent article, congrats! GagaNutella^talk 15:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Shahid

Support - I saved this page on my phone to give it a thorough read when I have more free time. This article is unsurprisingly excellent. Good job, FrB.TG. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Recusing from source review by ErnestKrause (see below)

I'm not sure if this article has received a source review; ping me if a Source review is still needed for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ErnestKrause, it needs a source review. :) FrB.TG (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm planning now to address the nearly 250 citations by grouping them into groups of twenty each and then randomly selecting one citation from each group to test the consistency of the citations. It should take about a day or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm also going to add 2-3 short comments. First that the Live performance section first paragraph could us a paragraph break; likely a good spot would be right after the McQueen tribute. After you consider a paragraph break, it would be nice to hear more about the acoustic Gaga version: Did the song alter any lyrics to connote McQueen, like Elton John did with Candle in the Wind; there was a significant pause after the first few verses of singing at the 2010 Brits and was this pause in the lyrics directed at the memory of McQueen; The 2010 Brits awards version in on Youtube and maybe a 30-second video sample might be nice to see in this article of the acoustic version? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a paragraph break after the McQueen tribute but having removed some superfluous info, it's a little shorter. As for your questions, I didn't see any change of lyrics in her performance. And the "pause" interpretation wasn't covered by any reliable source so I'm afraid we cannot note that. As for a video sample, I'm not comfortable adding a third non-free media file unless there is a very solid justification. FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Starting source review per comments above:

• Footnotes 2 and 3 are paired; footer 3 does document the sentence it cites and I'm not sure that footer 2 does anything here. Also, the primary link for footer three is subscription blocked which should be noted.

• Footnotes 23 and 24 are linked; footer 23 primary link seems to be to Alejandro, not to Telephone, and its back-up link is to the TLS and no related Gaga material. Footer 24 does confirm the negative Beyonce comment being made in the article.

• Footnote 50 does point to Telephone as on the top 10 list.

• Footnote 68 does link the Rolling Stone article summary. The Rolling Stone article does point more directly to some of the more extreme LGBT symbolism used in the video, which the current Wikipedia article does not do; is this worth exploring, as in making the Wikipedia article more on point for the edgy qualities of the video production.

• Footnote 86 from Haddow I'm finding more ambiguous rather than a full criticism of Gaga. He seems to find ups and downs in the production.

I would definitely say the following is a criticism more than anything: "Telephone is thoroughly mediocre. Every second of its sprawling nine and a half minutes is a patent reproduction of superior work, and its tired attempts at controversy fall flat for anyone old enough to remember Madonna or Marilyn Manson." At the same time, the critic acknowledges Gaga's influence through some clever marketing but the video's quality is criticized.

• Footnote 119 does document the song with Dancer as a top 15 video performance.

• Footnote 132 does document the Chromatica tour but not the mention of the Joanna world tour.

It's not supposed to mention Joanne Tour anyway. That's what ref. 131 is for.

• Footnote 148 does document Beyonce as one both tracks of this UK single release.

• Footnote 168 for CIS links the song at TopHit offering 3 tabs for Global, Ukraine, and Russia. The table given on the right does not change at all when the 3 tabs are clicked and alternated; its just the same data for all three. Does not seem all that promising for providing verifiable data.

• Footnote 199 does verify as Billboard reported Telephone as a dance hit at the top of the list.

• Footnote 209 does not verify Telephone on its Canadian list but seems to list "Bad Romance" instead.

• Footnote 224 does verify Telephone at number 90 of 200 listed hits.

• Footnote 246 does verify Telephone as Gold/Platinum on their list.

That's the trial for the random selection as described above with thirteen samples for the 255 footnotes in the current version of the article. As I read the report I've just typed in above, then footnotes #209, #168, #23, #24, #2 appear to raise issues. I'm still giving you credit for the ambiguous one I mentioned and not counting it as raising issues. That means 5 out of 13 not returning results as expected for source check verification. That actually is normally considered as too high of a missed citation rate to not cause issues with the FAC coordinators. I'll need some comment from you before continuing since at present for the random sample as I've listed them here, then the issues problems are too high for a direct pass at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, none of these issues are related to source-to-text integrity. They are merely issues with links, but if you are still not convinced, I can go through all the sources once again.

Ref. 2: It partly supports the claim and is supposed to be double verification (but ref. 3 fully does); I don't see an issue here.

Ref. 23: there must have been a bug with the archive tool. I have corrected the link.

Ref. 24: I'm not sure what the issue is here. It criticizes Beyoncé's part as in the article ("Beyonce falls victim to some particularly wack lyrics here. Does it really feel like she's 'living in Grand Central Station?'")

Ref. 168: Corrected link

Ref. 209: It actually does confirm Telephone at number 15. Bad Romance is placed at number 3. FrB.TG (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The statistics from a random sample of 2 failed links out of 13 tested needing correction will require the go through for all sources. I'll then have to repeat the random sample test for the selection of a similarly chosen new random sample for verification. The current statistics are inferring that about 38-41 links may be in need of attention for the full list of citations. Let me know when you are ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: I have gone through the sources again now and fixed some irregularities here and there. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll need a day or two to prepare a second random sample for this; I'll try to get it in by Monday or Tuesday. Possibly do a second pass on this since another repeat of 2 out of 13 missed link citations might not be very good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding FN 168 (now 171) not showing chart data, it turns out that the original link was also correct after all. You just need to scroll to the peak date of the chart. FrB.TG (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Second source review following same guidelines

• Footnote 11 does state its a 'good pop dance' song. No link to direct article at MTV, only their home page. The archive and the main article are also reversed in order of access from the footnote.
• Footnote 26 does verify the top 30 listing. Archive works.
• Footnote 56 does verify the quote. Archive works.
• Footnote 65 does verify the designer. Archive works (its only a partial lock and it does provide the preview you need here).
• Footnote 99 links on the archive but not on the direct link. Link fail.
• Footnote 110 links correctly to archive. Backup to original also works.
• Footnote 130 Time magazine and archive seem to link correctly.
• Footnote 158 You are linking Amazon UK for the remix. This is not an original source. I'm not sure your archive of the Amazon playlist is much better. This is the best source for this remix?
• Footnote 171 Peak position at 3 verified.
• Footnote 192 Peaks at 4 in Romania.
• Footnote 207 "Adobe Flash player not supported" for your archive of the Australia list. Cannot link your archive.
• Footnote 240 Datenbank in Germany requires cookies to be accepted. You can read in the highlighted sections in the background, however, that its certified gold.

This is not what I'm expecting to see for a pass and its closing in on a 'no pass' for me at this time. I'm able to recuse my myself at this time, since on the second test of a random sample there appear to be 3 bad tests out of twelve. My belief was that you would check each and every link after the fail of the first random sample, which I cannot verify for the second random set of samples. Possibly another editor can find a way to verify this since I'm now recused. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm really failing to see the issue here. The original MTV and PopMatters links don’t work and are accordingly marked as dead; given that it’s issue from the websites, it’s not something I can "fix" (well, I have fixed it by adding the back-up archive links), and it’s the reason why they redirect to their respective index pages. It is something that happens regularly with old articles but the archived links are there and working. All the three sources are verifiable. Thank you for your input; I will request another source reviewer to look at it. FrB.TG (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Okay, I see that the previous user has recused themselves. I'm gonna review the sources they have deemed problematic and then provide a spotcheck of my own. First, looking at the list by ErnestKrause and going one by one:

• 11 - OK
• 99 - the link is fine and it works well. That said, I can't see why the reference mentions "page" - I do not think it's needed (and it's not the correct page anyway, the page we see there is page 4). So either change it or remove completely (better remove, I see other such refs where page is not mentioned when it could have been).

Yeah, I suppose you are right about removing it altogether considering each page has a different URL.

• 158 - OK
• 207 - OK - works just fine and no flash player problems for me.
• 240 - OK

I see no problem with these source, I can't recall that tehnical issues such as cookies and flash player support is a prerequisite, especially not for archives links. Now to my spotcheck:

• 6 - OK, but should you not name it "Radio and Records"? (same goes for source 250+1, not a big deal, just wondering)
• 31 - OK
• 67 - OK
• 74 - the title as I see it is: "The Top 100 Tracks of 2010" so please remove the rest.
• 89 - Good, pages and content is correct, but please provide a link for the article. Here's the full PDF link provided by Google scholar.
• 94-96 - I would recommend that you add links to the book and the individual chapters, especially because you do have a preview on Google books.

I have added a Google Books link to the book itself. I don't think linking the chapters is necessary since the user can just scroll up and down in the preview.

• 97-98 - same, link exists.
• 100 - OK.
• 104 - please add the date - December 7, 2010 - it's there.

It says the article was updated that day though. Considering the URL was accessed on December 2 as per the |access-date= parameter, I would say it was definitely posted before December 7.

• 111 - the title is "The Top Music Videos of 2010", remove the rest.
• 121 - OK
• 125 - OK
• 150 - OK
• 190 - 08.05. - 14.05.2010 - shouldn't it be used as a date? Or at least the year?

Well, that was the week the song charted in so I'm not sure that is the actual date it was posted. Plus, the source is generated by the {{single chart}}, which cannot be modified, unfortunately.

• 230 - title is incorrect. It's either "TOP 40 UK SINGLES OF 2010" or "THE BIGGEST TRACKS OF 2010".
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Shshshsh, thank you so much for taking a second look. I have done all of the above except where I have stated otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Good. Passing source review. And you gave me even stronger reasoning for my support above, which was based on prose and now on your good work with sourcing the article as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: May I open another nomination? FrB.TG (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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