Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together3)

We Belong Together

edit

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.

Raul654 had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object per the grounds I used on the previous three nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That is actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -Mask   19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. joturner 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The actionable items (especially the ones listed by User:Tsavage) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too hollow. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, people don't have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections weren't addressed in the first place. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is not to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature Tsavage, since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save you reading them? Please be more reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
        • You need to stop bothering me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -Mask   22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, Bishonen... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where are the nomination archives? I see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1, but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? joturner 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

  • Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
  • Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
  • Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.
  • Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
  • Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.
  • Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.
  • Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.
  • Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.
  • Object For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. HeyNow10029 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson.
      Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you suggesting, Eternal? HeyNow10029 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson. HeyNow10029 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I would appreciate it if you borught to my attention what you think is not brilliant writing. I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Excuse me? What discussion are you talking about that happened "last time" that makes you believe I voted oppose on any grounds other then the quality of the article? I don't like where you're going with this Eternal. I don't care what your intuition tells you but should keep it to yourself because those are some heavy allegations you're throwing around. You're being very rude and frankly, I don't appreciate it. HeyNow10029 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • All right, if it is not based on our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, please provide a few sentences which you believe are not featured article writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please refrain from making allegations about people, Eternal_Equinox. And as per my objection, see my previous post in the last candidacy page, I'm not going to go back and fish it out, that's your job. HeyNow10029 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • They were not allegations, so please refrain from making me look like I did something wrong. Intution is not shameful. Anyway, I did fish out your previous objections, and the ones concerning the images has been taken care of, since they are no longer here. However, your other objection is: "the writing lacks flavour, kathputz" (I'm not sure what you exactly wrote, but it was something like that). One problem: "kathputz" is not written at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Therefore, I don't believe from my opinion that this vote is any longer objectionable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This is your M.O. on the FAC, you pick and pick at people who object until they give in and change their vote. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I don't think the writing in the article is featured article worthy. I'm done with responding to you because this has gotten way too personal and out of hand. (Like most things to, when you're involved.) And please don't quote me unless you plan on actually re-writing my quote, word for word. You misspelled chutzpah and I don't spell flavor with a u. . HeyNow10029 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I did not intend to quote you word-for-word. Anyway, I can't improve the writing further if you believe it is lacking chutzpah because no such guideline is written at WP:WIAFA?. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes. What should be removed/added? Please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Well done --darkliight[πalk] 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, poor quality of scholarship. For instance, one of the broadest claims in the article, that WBT has become Carey's signture song, is referenced to 411hype.com, which is simply not an acceptable source for this sort of claim. It is not a reputable source of music scholarship. Similarly, the genre tags at Yahoo Music are not an acceptable source for a list of genres and music styles that the song employs. Yahoo Music is not a reputable source of music scholarship. The fact that the nomination has been relisted without any genuine attempt to remedy the previously addressed problems is also a mark against the nominator's integrity. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Some of the writing is just plain weird and reads like someone resorting to a thesaurus to try to find more "intelligent" sounding words instead of just stating what they mean. For example: "an elongated discussion," "solicited to radio" and other such phrasing that has me going, "huh?" Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't acquiesce more exceedingly. Those are the words I paramountly wanted to emancipate from my computer keyboard, but I was having vexation conveying them. HeyNow10029 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Solicited to radio" is a term frequently used when a song is sent to radio. The other sentence I have changed. You could have said it yourself, HeyNow, but I see that you didn't. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it a frequently used phrase? There's only 10 distinct (of 50 total) Google hits for that phrase (and 4 for "Solicit to radio") and most, if not all, seem to be mirrors of this and another Wikipedia article you worked on. It certainly does not seem to be a commonly used phrase. I appreciate the effort you are making but sections of the writing are just too bizarre for me to support it as a FAC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Object I've been reading this page for months, I find it interesting to see what people see as the qualities a feature article needs. This article is good but not well written enough per users above. Also, the user that keeps putting this article up for nomination has got to be one of the most annoying on wikipedia. He actually tried to get posters to switch their votes, saying Please reconsider voting "object". Once people have objected, let it stand. I really don't like the aggressive aproach about these articles. It's just wikipedia and it's not worth making yourself look like an idiot and alienating half of the users, especially good ones like Bishonen who has done great work here. But all these discussions are pretty entertaining I will give you that, EE. Bremen 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So... besides insulting me, is there anything besides the writing that you find needs improvement? And no, I am becoming rather irritated with all of the ganging up on me. I am trying my best here, and it appears that everybody else finds Bishonen did something right; she's merely ganging up on myself as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the writing is the main problem. But I did say it was a good article...just not ready yet. I still think you're pushy but you are trying hard that's for sure. By the way it looks like there isn't enough support for featured status yet. If I were you I'd take the next month to work on it or so and see what happens. Bremen 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly support. I have concerns about this article (mainly that I wish it was longer, and some parts are too weak on referencing), but ultimately I feel like I have to vote to support it simply to counter the horrible reasons given by some of the objectors here ("fancruft", nominating too soon, nominator "aggressive" or "annoying", and worst of all the notion that previous objections—which are essential but shall not be repeated!—were not addressed: I have encountered that old trick before, and it is one of the most obnoxious tactics people use in this whole process). Everyking 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Noting Everyking's comments above - How often do people have to keep stating their objections before this sinks in. The page is not good enough. Sarah Ewart makes some erudite objections, as does HeyNow10029 and Christopher Parham. I objected in the original nomination too. This user is attempting to have this page FAd not by significantly improving it, but by browbeating and wearing down the opposition. I for one am sick to death of seeing this page here, throw it out, and lets never see or hear of it again. Giano | talk 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no evidence at all that the user is trying to wear down the opposition. On the contrary, the user is always engaging the opposition and making concessions, some of which I believe are in fact harmful. And moreover it is absurd to say that FAC efforts on an article should cease just because you are tired of seeing it here. Everyking 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes way beyond what I've seen from other nominators...really pushing people to see things his way. Bremen 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's a perfectly sound argument, written rather politely. Everyking 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we see things differently. By the way I didn't mean to object to the article because the nominator is annoying, I did because of other reasons which I stated. I just felt I had to mention what I felt were bad tactics and rude behaviour. Bremen 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming more and more frustrated with each user who is consistently blaming and/or insulting me for bringing this page back to FAC every few weeks. I believe that it is ready, and I am absolutely not attempting to sway users to change their votes. I have addressed nearly all of Tsavage's complaints to the best of my ability and myself and Journalist and have our best to improve the writing as well as we could! Everyone should read up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility; as it stands, I did not insult people or refer to them as "annoying" or Bishonen as a good user for whatever reason it may be. The writing is supposed to be incredibly good in an article, and at this point, I believe as per my opinion that everyone is expecting perfection. I will not edit this article any further following this FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the following objections: the fancruft (to the best of my ability), the graph which is now a scatterplot, a good majority of Tsavage's complaints, and a few other nit-picky edits. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/We_Belong_Together/archive3&oldid=1140219037"