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 Laser brain 22:17, 22 February 2011 [1].

When Love Takes Over[edit]

When Love Takes Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it is well written. I've spent a considerable amount of time cross-referencing all of the information and working thoroughly through each of the sections to ensure that only the most verifiable of information is used. I believe that the article covers all aspects of the song from its creation, to its release, promotion and legacy on both the industry and the artists who collaborated on the song. In essence I believe it now goes beyond the standards of GA articles about songs and hence could be an ideal candidate for FA. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Overall the article seems to be a nice and easy read and doesn't get bogged down in detail, so thank you for that! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.. I'll get to these ASAP. By the way I thought it was Hayley Teal who performed the song on Australian X Factor. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Forgive me, I'm old. :p Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Matthew. To best of my ability, I've addressed all of the issues above. I've clarified that the overall release of the single was handled by both Virgin Records and EMI with EMI being specifically responsible for the UK release, that's why EMI's views on the leak were important. Plus EMI owns Virgin Records. I've added some more dates to the background section to add more context. I'll also add a mention to the music video section too so the release date is mentioned more throughout the article. On both the Aus and UK singles charts, the X Factor performances did not have an impact on the chart positions apart from cause the single to jump on the UK dance chart. Thanks for the useful comments and encouragement. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add (DJ) after 'disc jockey'
  • Add recording location to infobox
  • Write U.S. out in full the first time
  • "Later in 1 2010 interview" - typo? What is '1 2010'?
  • "had to be pushed up" → was brought forward
  • It was agreed at WP:RSN that sheet music interpretations must be attributed in the prose
  • Chords should be linked with en dashes
  • "After gaining Guetta's approval to write vocals for the song, Rowland took the instrumental version to London,[2] where she wrote the bulk of the lyrics with The Nervo Twins (Miriam and Olivia Nervo) before sending the song back to Guetta,[1] who added his own contributions with Frédéric Riesterer." - mentioned in Background and conception
  • "At a later date, Rowland would join Guetta in the recording studio, to finish off the song" - should be in Background and conception
  • Merge Music/Vocals and lyrics
  • "The critics agreed" - remove 'The'
  • referring to "When Love Takes Over being given its own poster on the tube." - WLTO needs inverted commas
  • "Fraser McAlpine from the BBC Online" - remove 'the' (in both Composition and Critical reception)
  • 4.5 → four and a half
  • "David Balls of Digital Spy agreed with "When Love Takes Over"'s anthem credentials" - reword to avoid quote marks and apostrophe clashing
  • Add [Knowles] to Balls' quote
  • "However Mikael Wood" - comma after 'however'
  • The song was nominated for the Best Dance Recording → 'The song was nominated as the Best Dance Recording' or 'The song was nominated for the Best Dance Recording award'
  • Link countries from Czech Republic to chart providers
  • "By the end of 2009 it reached top thirty" - the top thirty
  • "was awarded gold certification" - a gold certification. Be consistent with capitalisation, earlier you have 'Gold'
  • Link music video
  • bmx biker → motocross bicycler?
  • "and then again on the UK daytime show, This Morning on 18 June 2009" - remove 'the', add comma after This Morning
  • Some more images would be nice, maybe of Rowland, Guetta, Venice Beach etc.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW. Inadequate musical analysis. Check Hey Jude for a decent musical analysis and model yours on it. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm guessing the only criteria you're using to make comparisons between the two articles are 1b and c, but "Hey Jude" has got 40 years of airplay, critiques, analysis, trade magazine, scholarly and book writings behind it... It's unreasonable to expect a 2-year old song to have been covered the same way, and I assume the writers of this article have exhausted what they have available. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it seems rude... but you can hardly compare a dance song which was only released two years ago to Hey Jude, released 40 years ago. Remember in terms of books and scholars, dance music tends to get less mainstream coverage. I think that's actually unjustified to withdraw based on inadequate music analysis. I've expanded this article as much as possible using a wide range of industry related publications. Granted there are no book sources a search of my local library in the UK did not find any publication relevant to this article. "When Love Takes Over" should be juddged on its own merits. I will defend it to the extent that the article is higher than the GA standard and speaks about every aspect of the song without getting bogged down in detail. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I urge WITHDRAW. This is an article about a piece of music and it lacks an adequate musical analysis. It's incomplete. It cannot compare to an FA like "Hey Jude" and because it cannot it should be withdrawn. It's fine as a GA but doesn't meet the thoroughness, the comprehensiveness, expected at FA. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better stop the same comments from review pages. You just cannot ask somebody to withdraw on these almost silly reasons. I don't understand why you are choosing to ignore other's suggestions and comments on your reviews, but comments like above seriously don't help anybody. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too was unconvinced by User:Chasewc91 actually advised me to upload the image in place of a standard sourced non-free image. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I've been advised incorrectly, I won't object to its removal. I already know there's some big debate over non-free image use in the infobox... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this image might be inappropriate for storage on Commons. It was uploaded on the justification of ((PD-textlogo)), which states simple geometric shapes and typeface are not eligible for copyright. This is true under United States law, but Commons' policy demands compliance with the laws of both the United States and the work's country of origin. In this case, the cover is "(C) 2009 Gum Prod license exclusive EMI Music France",[2] which means it is a French publication. Unlike the US, several countries grant copyright to works of simple geometric shapes and typeface if they are artistic. See one of the proposed rules on Commons for reference, commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. I think there should be further discussion to evaluate what status such works have on Commons. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay to host locally with the same license? Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that hosting on Wikipedia takes into account US copyright law only, that might solve the issue. Do note the possible copyright issue (French publication and copyright laws) when uploading to here (along putting a ((Do not move to Commons)) on it). Jappalang (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to do that... would one of you mind doing it on my behalf?
I've uploaded the image locally, and have put the commons one up for deletion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've now added some missing information about the recording and production. Those who've commented already may wish to comment again! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot, see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed those issues. See Checklinks. Note ref 68 is an offline reference to an episode while in ref 20 (review from MusicOMH) the reference/website is temporarily down. there's not much I can do to fix that as of this minute. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 03:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check of three indicates adherence to sources and appropriate use of quote marks for material imported verbatim. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments. I'll address each of them in turn. First of all the album booklet, Guetta or anyone else actually involved in the song do not discuss or note an legal samples or interpolations of the Coldplay song. In fact no one other than the music critics have noted the piano riff. Of those who have, they've just said it is "similar to" or "taken from". None of the usual sources actually mention a full blown sample or interpolation. Equally under the music credits and writing credits in the album booklet and at ASCAP, none of the musicians who worked on the Coldplay song are listed for the Guetta song. This makes me assume that there is no actual intention to create a similarity between the songs, thus Guetta did not address the issue. Nor did Coldplay because the reception to the comparison was not negative, as far as I can tell. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not noted as such in the lead, and there are too many direct quotes in this article. They need to be kneaded into prose. I will try to do a few more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed this was correct as I've seen singer-songwriter hyphenated and its the same context... singer-come-songwriter / disc jockey (DJ)-come-music producer. Is that incorrect? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no biggie. I am not really familiar with it and they are good examples. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • per other FAs this appears to be correct. Recording and production specifically deals with the ins and outs of mastering and producing the vocals for the song. Background deals more with how the song was conceived and particularly, how Rowland's vocals ended up on what would have otherwise been an instrumental song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, that may well be, but it still reads awkwardly that paragraph 2 (apart from teh first sentence) isn't "background" as such and should be removed or secreted in the next section...and that leaves us with a very stubby background section, which clearly needs some beefing up. My question then is some info on the instrumental that Guetta played nad she heard - did Guetta have a name for it? was it just some interlude he used alot? when did he come up with it? This is material which could beef up this section and would be interesting in the overall development of the song. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help if the background section was renamed Background and release? Also I'll re-look at the information in this section and the following one to see if there is some repetition or wrong placement etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check methology for release date information:

  1. The released date in the infobox is ambiguous to the reader. As it somewhat implies it's the date released everywhere which the article release history section shows it's not.
    • With respect to yourself, I have argued this in the past which is why I usually include (release history) along with the first release date. Would that solve the problem here...? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Assuming that it's suppose to mean the first date of release then the released date in the infobox is not suitably referenced, as it's not referenced at all. Just because all blackbird's you've seen are black doesn't mean they are all black, what about the early release in Japan and Portugal for example.
    • Well the label has referred to April 21, 2009 as the official release date and the release history section contains all the major release markets. April 21, 2009 is the first date. I will look for an earlier release date if one exists however I don't agree with the comment that "its not suitably referenced". Are you expect me to find a source which explicitly says "When Love Takes Over was first released..." because we know the likelihood of such a reference is slim. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What makes the use of Amazon references, which is information pertaining to only one specific retailer a high-quality reliable source for a release date?
    • Well considering that the single was released to the same dates in the countries mentioned across Amazon, iTunes and 7Digital (three of the largest digital retailers) I don't see an issue with this. 4 Minutes (Madonna song) is an example of a FA article which also uses retailers for the release history. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing


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