*Oppose
Resolved comments from
Courcelles
19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
:"which included the title track, "1, 2 Step" with rapper Missy Elliot, and "Oh" with rapper Ludacris. " Why link Missy Elliot, and not Ludacris, whatever or whoever that is? If t doesn't have an article, is it even worth mentioning?
- I forgot to link Ludacris. Even if Ludacris weren't mentioned, a number one hit in several countries shouldn't be mentioned in a discog?
- "The titular track remained atop the Billboard Hot 100 for over a month.[5] " The source given verifies that it reached number one, not how long it stayed there.
- Added Billboard source, the only verifiable source for how many weeks. I know you're going to have a problem with it so I'll tell you beforehand to use the visualizer gadget.
- "Two years later in 2006, Ciara returned with her sophomore effort, Ciara: The Evolution, which saw her remain consistent to her urban roots, and R&B and hip-hop driven dance while experimenting with old school songs combined with huge pop hooks." Your source doesn't back this up, at all. This is dangerously close to original research without better sourcing.
- Fine, removing.
- "and charting in the top thirty of most international markets" Really? Of the ones you give in the table, it is 5 to 4 in being at or over #30. And there are many more markets than the ones given in the table. Needs a source, or it is definitely POV.
- Will change most to "several" then.
- "Ciara's fourth studio album, Basic Instinct, set for a October 29, 2010, release, will see the singer returning to her urban roots.[13] " Not in citation given.
- Added source
- "It album is preceded by the lead single" It album?
- Fixed to "the"
- No charts for the guest appearances?
- Um, Well the are "apperances" on album tracks not singles, that's why they dont chart...:Same for ref 57
- Same as 64, these are sites that report on video booking.
- I can figure out what they do. That wasn't the question. Why are they a reliable source? Entirely different question.
Courcelles
03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Giving a new source since it seems to be such a big deal.
Candy
o32 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Candy
o32
23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- What makes ref 64 a reliable source?
- Well its used in the FA
Kesha discography without a problem, so I assume it was used.
- That's not an argument. Not every FAC/FLC catches/questions the things it ought to have.
Courcelles
03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Considering the detailed
FLC it went through, I'm sure it was brought up. It'll have do now because it is the most reputable source other than blogs.
- Then you're saying you can't defend it as reliable? Oppose stands. Unreliable sources, promotional language, POV problems.
Courcelles
19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Will this help with the reliability issue? articles about the magazine from The Daily News
[2], and The New York Times
[3].
Frcm1988 (
talk)
18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This is why I should have linked to the version I was using ref numbers from. I was questioning video static, now ref 65, not Rap up.
Courcelles
18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- What is the status on these sourcing concerns?
Dabomb87 (
talk)
21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Can all other reviewers comment on the sourcing issues?
Dabomb87 (
talk)
21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
Why not just use
[4] instead of Video Static?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
03:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Good idea! I forgot the video was just released.
Candy
o32
03:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
- "The album's fourth single, "And I" achieved little chart success in the United States." 27th rank is "little" success? This is too POV-ish for my taste. Later on, something that never got over 30 is a "moderate success"
- I assume your not familiar with the music industry. 96th on the Hot 100 its not successful. The 27 was on a COMPONENT CHART. I never had any complaints like this in the first review, so I believe you may be going a little overboard with the POV.
- Read
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR and
WP:SYN. Is there a source saying this is little success, or are you saying it? If you can source it, fine. If you can't, it's two of those three.
- This is crazy. I need a source to say a song received little chart success when it was 96 on the Hot 100?
- Yes, you do. Being one of the 100 most popular songs sounds successful, you are saying it is not. So is it sourceable, or is it original research?
Courcelles
19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This has been reworded. Can you please revisit this, Courcelles?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- ""—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory." I'll pass along the information that New Zealand has been demoted to a "territory".
- Well it used in
Kesha discography,
Lady Gaga discography,
Rihanna discography, and every other FA discography on Wikipedia, so pass that information along too.
- Gah. A bad phrasing doesn't become good phrasing just because it is multiplied by four.
Courcelles
03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Since FL's are "believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia," its not changing. Seems like if it were a big problem, someone would have been let know in every single other FL candidacy that uses the same phrase.
- Nominator is uncooperative. Stare decisis doesn't govern Wikipedia.
Courcelles
19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with Courcelles here. Why not simply use: '"—" denotes albums/singles which did not chart in that country.' (or something similar?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This has been changed.
Candy
o32
11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- "However it spawned the highly successful worldwide top ten hit," Again with POV problems
- How is it POV, again? I'll remove highly, but it was successful and worldwide, indicates it had worldwide success rather than US only or international.
- Okay, POV might have been the wrong thing... actually, no, it is right, but
WP:PEACOCK is more directly related. You seem to be making lots of analysis of the numbers without using sources to back up your analysis.
Courcelles
03:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Numbers are sourced in the charts below. Per
WP:LEAD citations should not appear again.
Candy
o32
18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- When info is likely to be challenged, you absolutely do repeat citations. I'm challenging this as POV.
Courcelles
19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- How about "However it spawned the international top ten single,"?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This has been changed also.
Candy
o32
11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- ""Work" had moderate success in few international markets." What does it take to not sound promotional? Charted in four countries, none over #30? Source for the "moderate success"
- Again, how POV? Wasn't a big chart topper, therefore "moderate."
- You're providing analysis. That is not allowed. This article is written almost entirely non-neutrally and promotionally.
- Something like ""Work" appeared on a few international charts."?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- This hasn't been changed, considering your suggestion, appearing on a few international charts means the song could have topped the chart, or appeared at so and so position, while moderately denotes it charted moderately.
Candy
o32
11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Per Lil-unique's comments below mine, I still think that the POV is fine and OR is not in action. I have made some corrections but per other FLs, terms such as "moderate" and indicated highly successful and less than successful singles and or albums is acceptable.
Candy
o32
20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
|