Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The One (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2023 [1].

The One (Tamar Braxton song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second single from Tamar Braxton's 2013 album Love and War, "The One" uses a sample of Mtume's "Juicy Fruit" (1983) and a portion of the Notorious B.I.G.'s "Juicy" (1994). These samples received criticism as derivative and overdone by past songs, although critics did have positive reviews for the single. "The One" was very recently certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and by very recently I mean October 5, 2023 so now seems like an apt time to nominate it for a FAC.

Thank you to @Damien Linnane: for doing the GAN review all the way back in 2018. I have brought a few Tamar Braxton articles through the FAC process recently, with my last two being "My Man" and "Hot Sugar", but I plan on taking an extended break from music articles to focus on other subjects. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
Comments
  • "The lyrics are about committed to a romantic partner" => "The lyrics are about being (or similar) committed to a romantic partner"
  • "The single peaked at number four on Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100, number 34 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and was" => "The single peaked at number four on Billboard's Bubbling Under Hot 100 and number 34 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and was"
  • "he explained that additional scrutiny was placed on the song since it seen" => "he explained that additional scrutiny was placed on the song since it was seen"
  • "The lyrics are being dedicated to a romantic partner" => "The lyrics are about being dedicated to a romantic partner"
  • "The lyrics [...] in which Braxton sings with what Vibe's Kathy Iandoli interpreted as breathy vocals" - don't think this really works. Maybe replace "in which" with simply "and"
  • "Braxton said it was based on going out on a date in high school; she likened to when" => "Braxton said it was based on going out on a date in high school; she likened it to when"
  • "Braxton performed "The One" at an industry showcase in Los Angeles.[note 5] For the song, she was accompanied by four male back-up dancers"=> "Braxton performed "The One" at an industry showcase in Los Angeles,[note 5] accompanied by four male back-up dancers" removes unnecessary verbiage
  • "Phoebe Robinson for Glamour praised the single as "breezy, easy, and catchy", comparing to a song of the summer" => "Phoebe Robinson for Glamour praised the single as "breezy, easy, and catchy", comparing it to a song of the summer"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review. It is always greatly appreciated. Apologies for the very, very dumb mistakes. I believe that I have addressed everything. Feel free to let me know if there is anything that needs further revision and improvement. Hope you are having a good start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • "Braxton co-wrote the song with its producer K.E. on the Track as well as with" - I believe you can do commas before and after "K.E. on the Track" since he is the sole producer and the word could only be referring to him.
  • "Epic Records and Streamline Records released it as the album's second single" - Very nitpicky but you can hide the word "Records" the first time and go with something like "Epic and Streamline Records released it ..."
  • "Critics praised "The One" as reminiscent of summer, but believed the samples had already been overused in past songs." - Either the comma can be removed here or you can change this to "reminiscent of summer, but they believed" (WP:CINS). There's a small issue related to that with the following sentence as well.
  • The article uses "LaShawn Daniels" but the note uses "LaShawn Daniel"
  • "Braxton would either suggest further revisions or change small parts" - Is the "would" part necessary?
  • "Donaldson recorded the track, and Gene Grimaldi mastered it, along with all the other tracks on Love and War, at the Oasis Mastering recording studio in Burbank." - This sentence has quite a few commas and might benefit from some type of splitting or rearrangement if possible.
  • I removed the part that Grimaldi mastered the rest of the album as well because I do not think it is really pertinent here and it would cut down on the awkwardness of the sentence, but I can revisit this again if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Braxton sings with what Vibe's Kathy Iandoli interpreted as breathy vocals" - I'd go with something simpler like "and Braxton sings with breathy vocals according to Vibe's Kathy Iandoli"
  • Assuming "TV" is still short for television in "WE TV", I am not sure it should be lowercased.
  • The channel's article seems to suggest they at least briefly branded as "Women's Entertainment" (which would make "WE" an initialism). I am honestly not that familiar with the channel and will leave this to your judgement.--NØ 15:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Braxton's quote about the video being based on going out on a date in high school should appear earlier in the paragraph and not next to the critical reviews to avoid any confusion.
  • "It was the opening song for Braxton's 2014 Love and War Tour, and the same year, she sang it at the Essence Music Festival in New Orleans." - These might be better as different sentences since there does not seem to be a major connection between the performances.
  • Yoh Phillips appears to be a reputed critic (she has written for Rolling Stone) but do you think saying the song was well-received might be a non-subjective opinion and Tidal should not be used? I have no strong opinion on this and just wanted to bring this to your attention.
  • I agree it is not a subjective opinion. I attributed in the prose and pulled it as a quote to emphasize that it was the writer's personal opinion. I thought that it would be informative for readers as a writer would look back on this single years later and view it as well-received, and that it would pair well with K.E. on the Track's quote on why he thought the song did well. I would be more than willing to remove it, but I tried to go out of my way (i.e. attributing the writer/publication, using a direct quote) to avoid having this presented in Wikipedia's voice or as a fact (because "success" is very relative and I could see and understand why a lot of readers may not find this song to be that successful). Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RIAA abbreviation does not need to be included since it is not used again.
  • I believe the certification table should have a caption as well. Unrelated to the review, but it is such a cool coincidence the song got certified just a few days before the FAC!
That should be it from my part. I had been prepping a review for this before the PR was archived so I am glad you decided to bring this to FAC anyways! I will read through the article again once these are addressed but should not have much to add.--NØ 15:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Thank you for the review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything except for one point which I noted (and I would be more than happy to revise if necessary). I was on the fence about putting this article through the FAC process, but at the end of the day, the recent certification really inspired me to give it an attempt at least. I hope you are doing well, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to support this article for promotion. I would appreciate any help with my nomination above (that article is much longer though so only if you have the time). Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 15:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the help. I will look through your article later today. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go! As always, open to discussion on any points.
  • "did the backing vocals" maybe sub "performed backing vocals"? "did" sounds a little informal
  • Maybe link Mastering (audio)?
  • Nothing to gripe about through Music and Lyrics, and Release
  • "comparing it to a song of the summer" - not sure about the phrasing here. They didn't compare it to, they said it was one. Maybe "calling it one of their top 20 songs for that summer"?
  • "proved Braxton's capability to have" - bit awkward here. Maybe "Proved Braxton was capable of having"?
  • I suggest reorganizing the second paragraph in Reception a bit. We go from two sentences about the samples being overused, to someone who liked it, then someone who was ambivalent, then someone who really hated it. I think it might make more sense to cluster by attitude - start with X Y and Z who didn't like it, then segue into "however, A and B were less critical, saying blah blah".
  • In the same paragraph, we've also got Lipshutz getting into the vocals, which is not quite on-theme for the paragraph, which focuses on the samples
  • Paragraph 3 is mostly chart and streaming performance, but has a few random critical quotes. Can they be moved to the first paragraph?

Really, aside from the couple of things in the Reception section, there's not much to gripe about here. Well done :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have rewritten most of the "Reception" section to hopefully be more cohesive. Let me know me if there is anything that can be improved, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Google Books says that the Weissman book was published by Routledge. I don't see a mention of Taylor & Francis anywhere.
  • Thank you for catching this one. I have corrected it here and when I used it in the "Hot Sugar" (song) article. I think that I probably just relied on the Google Books metadata, which lists Taylor & Francis as the publisher, without double-checking in the actual book. Apologies for that. Taylor & Francis are mentioned for copyright in the front matter, and that obviously does not make them the publisher for this book. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VH1 source (ref# 28) redirects to their Facebook page.
  • I am not having that issue on my end. I am adding in the link (here) just to make sure we are talking about the same source. It leads directly to the VH1 source for me, but I could mark the link as dead if there is still an issue so the archived link would take priority. Interestingly enough, when I was looking through this citation, I found that it did have an author (which was listed at the bottom of the page) so I have updated it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a location thing. I suppose the website is not available here in Germany? When I opened it with a US VPN, it worked for me so I guess you could mark it as dead so everyone can access it. FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out for me. I will be more mindful of this in the future. I find it interesting that certain websites are not available in other countries. I shouldn't be surprised though, but that is one of the many benefits of archiving citations. Hopefully, you can access the archived version. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears you are using title case for the sources titles. Generally, small words like "and" (e.g. source 7, 35 etc.) and "in" (the PR Newswire source) are not capitalized unless they are the first or last word of the title. I understand you are reproducing them but MOS:CONFORMTITLE?
  • I fully admit that this is one of my weak spots, and I will actively work on improving it in the future. I believe that I have updated this, but apologies if some instances have still slipped through the cracks here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PR Newswire is generally considered an unreliable source but I understand it's an official press release by Epic Records.
  • I can understand why PR Newswire is not considered reliable, but since it is an official press release by the record label, I thought it would be appropriate. I have found the same press release (here), but it was published by Sony Music Entertainment. That might be a better one, but I wanted to check in about it first before doing a substitution. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I thought, but I wanted to check in first. I have swapped the sources, and I will be more mindful of finding alternatives for PR Newswire in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for the review. I really do appreciate it. I have a quick question about the press release as I found the same one published by a more credible publisher, but I wanted to check in about it first before swapping things around. Also, apologies again in advance if I had missed anything with putting the citations in title case as again, I fully acknowledge that this is a weak spot for me. Hope you are having a good end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Any reason why in the lead we get a precise date for the release of the single, but not the album?
  • The best thing I can think of is it would keep the lead focused on the single rather than the album, and the year could help to situate when the single came out in relation to the album (especially in situations like "No Excuses" (Meghan Trainor song) where a single came out two years before the parent album was released. I wish I had a more exact reason though, but that is my best guess at it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the date the album was released is not known? Or are you saying "The One" was released before the album? Or both? (I think you can see why I would prefer some clarity in the lead. And the article.)
I have added the album's exact release date to the lead and the article (with a citation in the latter case). Just to be clear, I do not have any issue with putting this information in. I can see how it is helpful and adding context and clarity is always beneficial. My response was focused on saying that all the song FAs I have seen do not put in the album's exact release in the lead, instead opting just for year. I do not know if there is an exact reason for this so I was just brainstorming different ideas. The album's exact release date is known and "The One" was one of the singles released prior to the album's release. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, work note 4 into the main text.
  • Perhaps link back-up dancers?
  • "he attributed the song's short length as preventing it from becoming stale". I don't think this is grammatical. Perhaps 'suggested' or 'felt' instead of "attributed"?
  • "The track was at number 88 on the Year-End version of the latter chart". Perhaps a footnote explaining that this is based on the cumulative sales for the year and not the "year-end" position?
  • Very good point. I have added a note and a citation for this part. I have gone with a 2012 Billboard article since I thought it would be best to go for a citation that was close to the single's release (i.e. 2013). Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. It's short, but as a non-subject expert it seems comprehensive. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good to me. Just the first point to go back and forth over. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your patience with the review. I have added in the exact date in the lead as I do not understand that clarity and context are important. It is important to make sure readers have a clear understanding of the subject matter and to remove any sources of potential misinterpretation or confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need patience. You are a very on-the-ball editor, I could only find a couple of minor nit picks, and you addressed those remarkably quickly. Thank you. It makes me want to review more of your nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I try my best to stay on top of things, and I always appreciate more reviews and getting different perspectives. It helps to make me a better editor (or at least hopefully) and improves the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "positive reviews from critics who positively" → I am positive this is repetitive :P
  • I found it really interesting how the article starts off with the producer first, and goes into Braxton later. This seems to be the right choice as the song was more his creation than Braxton's. However, a sentence or two giving context about where Braxton is in her career at the time of the recording seems to be missing
  • That makes sense. I added a part after the first mention of Love and War to try and encapsulate her past music career and how the album stood out as something she had more creative control on (or at least that is what she says). Please let me know if this needs to revisited though as I am open to moving it around to a different part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 2 starts with "Donaldson", but we aren't introduced to Donaldson yet
  • no genre and/or influences available?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any sources that discuss the song's genre or even its influences. To be honest, most of the coverage focuses on the samples and a broad description of the song's premise. Reviewers did not really go further into the lyrics or the instruments or much in general, which is unfortunate and a tad odd. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • wake you up", → but good and plenty." has quote outside of punctuation?
  • I put a period at the end of the first instance. I put punctuation on the inside of both quotes as they are complete sentences from the sources. It wouldn't make much sense to move the comma into the quotation marks as it is not a part of the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praised the video's upbeat atmosphere" → praised the video's atmosphere as ubpeat
  • kathy Iandoli should not be listed as "Vibe's" as she is writing for Idolator
  • Tamar Braxton - Fillmore Miami Beach → Tamar Brazton – Filmore Miami Beach. there are a few other hyphens that should be converted to en dashes, and an em dash that should be converted to en dash per MOS:DASH
  • I have attempted to revise this, but I honestly know that I likely messed it up more. I am addressing these comments before bed, and for whatever reason, I am struggling to get this through my head. This has always been a weak spot for me so the timing of my responses probably does not help. Apologies in advance, and I would be more than willing to try again when I have a clear head (or at least hopefully). Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khan is identified as "Yahoo! Contributor Network" in the review, which seems akin to a self-published source like WP:FORBESCON
  • That is a good catch, and I completely understand your concern. I did some digging on the author (Shehnaz Khan) and I believe she has the credentials to be considered notable. I noticed that on her Twitter account (here), she says she is a journalist for other publications. I did some further digging to verify that of course, and I found things like profiles on The Independent (here) and HuffPost (here) and articles in publications like Bustle (here).
  • Khan appears to be a freelance journalist. Just to be clear, I would be more than willing to remove this citation if necessary and if you believe this information is not enough to make this citation appropriate for a FA, but I just wanted to address this and check with you first before making any major changes. Besides, I know I messed up the dash stuff so I will likely be revisiting your comments again in the very near future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's okay to be a freelance journalist but it is not clear that the Yahoo! Contributor Network has editorial oversight processes. It seems to be similar to WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. I don't feel that it has been demonstrated that Khan is a subject-matter expert in terms of music criticism. Heartfox (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: That makes sense to me. I have removed Khan as I agree that editorial oversight is important, particularly when determining if a source is appropriate for a potential FA. I just wanted to double-check with you before removing it. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome as always, Heartfox (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the review! I appreciate it as always. I have addressed everything, except for where noted above. Apologies again for not getting the dash parts. I am just being incredibly dense with it right now. It probably doesn't help that I am editing when I am tired and before sleeping. Please let me know if anything requires further improvement. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, I don't know her is currently at DYK and GAN, and would benefit from your thoughts. Heartfox (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and help with the article in general. I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status update request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was just curious if I could get a status update on this nomination. I just do not want it to get lost as more nominations are being added and this one is pushed further down the list. I hope you all have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty good, I expect we'll be looking to close this weekend. Start another if you like. Cheers, I.
Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2023 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_One_(Tamar_Braxton_song)/archive1&oldid=1182547172"