Talk:Criminal (Britney Spears song)

	Criminal (Britney Spears song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 18, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles Britney Spears Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Britney Spears, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Britney Spears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Britney SpearsWikipedia:WikiProject Britney SpearsTemplate:WikiProject Britney SpearsBritney Spears articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unfortunately, there aren't any sources for an specific genre. But Carl Wilson of the LA Times wrote that it is "awkwardly pitched between rock and ballad" here, so I thought soft rock would be appropiate based on the page's lead section:

Soft rock is a style of music which uses the techniques of rock music (often combined with elements from folk rock and singer-songwriter pop) to compose a softer, more toned-down sound. Soft rock songs generally tend to focus on themes like love, everyday life and relationships.

The flute is described by reviewers as folk-like so I think it's even more appropiate. --Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's as accurate as we can get it. Good find! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of

WP:SYNTH. The source doesn't explicitly state "soft rock". I think you're better off saying it's a ballad influenced by rock music. Just an opinion though. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with that but "ballad" is not a genre. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think soft rock would fit better, just as it does in Everytime and Not Like the Movies. - Sauloviegas (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Like the Movies has "pop, teen pop" as genres though, lol. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't realized that, sorry. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding "soft rock", but I think others might take it as SYNTH as Ipodnano said. Maybe, just "rock" as the genre? We can describe the song is a rock ballad in the composition section?

I agree. Seems like the most appropriate genre. Of course if we get a better source stating the genre specifically later on, it can certainly be changed. Per the definition of soft rock: "Soft rock is a style of music which uses the techniques of rock music to compose a softer, more toned-down sound", it seems like an accurate assumption. — Status {^talk_contribs  07:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, it's a pop, not a Soft Rock song. I've been listening to Soft Rock songs for the last years, and this is not Soft Rock. It could be a dance-pop, but with a slower tempo.Lucas0707 (talk)

Neither citation says pop or soft rock, and folk-style flute which is not same as genre. Genre remains unknown but need reliable source for genre.

The WP article Lead vocalist says "the lead vocalist (or lead singer) is the member of a band who sings the main vocal portions of a song," as Britney Spears isn't a band then the term "lead vocals" would be incorrect. Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - Sauloviegas (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Vocals, background vocals" makes no sense either. Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, but the wording should be agreed, not just reverted with the edit summary of "what is the problem with you people?" --Richhoncho (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The release date was pushed up from October 11 to October 4.

186.4.45.190 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itunes clearly says RCA is releasing the single, but shouldn't we list Jive too since Jive was the label that originally released the song via the whole album? Actually, isn't Jive just part of RCA now...so wouldn't Jive still apply? --Shadow (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding RCA. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Prettybeautifulnailsalon keeps removing several sources from the section and replacing them with unformatted references. Although both Amazon and iTunes list the single's release date in the US as September 30th, [1] [2] the user has replaced it several times with a source from 7digital that lists it as October 4th. It's common knowledge in music articles that the first release date for a format is used, regardless of the store. The user has done the same with the release dates for Canada. A minor issue is the add date for American mainstream radios: FMQB lists it as October 4th, and AllAccess as October 11th. Both are reliable, but I think the earlier date should be used. Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that September 30th is the best choice. I think the sites that provide the download are far more reliable then sites reporting on those sites. --Shadow (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you both. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 08:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the article says Criminal is a single from Femme Fatale but iTunes lists Criminal (Radio Mix) as a single from B In The Mix: The Remixes Vol.2. Most editions of the remix album contain the radio mix (first track on the record) of Criminal.

Should this article also lists Criminal as a single off the B In The Mix Vol.2? I believe so. Israell (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to open a thread asking if it should be a single just from BITM and not from FF, but the FF version was used for the video so now I have no idea. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is just intended to be a FF single. It is the parent album and the album version was used for the video. Also, the radio mix of Criminal was a last minute addition of the remix album. Prior to the radio mix just a plan old remix of Criminal was planned for the album. --Shadow (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, VEVO used the Radio Mix, while iTunes used the album version. It is a single from FF only, however. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revisit this again if there are no more singles from FF after this one. Then it would totally mean that it was a single from BITM. Xwomanizerx (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does that make sense? Britney and her label usually only release 4 or 5 singles off a studio album. So no fifth Femme Fatale single doesn't automatically make this a BITM single. --Shadow (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't exactly a good source for Wikipedia, but I am signed up for updates from Britney's website and the e-mail announcing the release of the Criminal says "The brand new music video for Britney's 4th Femme Fatale single". --Shadow (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not from BITM2. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the car in the video is a Citroën DS3. Source:http://www.landingpage.citroen.com/ Artkennyb (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC) artkennyb[reply]

 Done Thanks. mabdul 18:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Is #14 in France Chart

Philipe.bs (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

source for this edit? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Remove the October 25th Rhythmic radio date from the Release history section, cause the October 25th date has been scrapped, the source in the article is outdated,..as seen in this screen capture of All Access dated October 19, it's been removed from the Oct 25 list Source 1, Also its been removed from Radio and Records Source 2, and from FMQB Source 3" Israell (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I request to edit Britney Spears's Criminal song page? Thanks! HarryjSunderland (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is for making specific requests to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be

Confirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Does there really need to be a picture of Rihanna in this article just because the video for the song was compared to "We Found Love"? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Criminal (Britney Spears song)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 11:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Generally very good, as I expected. A few small things:

• Images are fine (I accept the FURs); however, the captions could do with more focus on the image and less on the accompanying text (particularly the Rhianna one)

  It's the same thing as the We Found Love music video article and several others, no need to change it. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well,

  criterion 6

  . However I dn't feel particularly strongly, but I am surprised previous reviewers didn't mention it.

  But WP:CAPTION clearly states, "Different people read articles different ways. ... For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they will not find it unless it is in the caption". I don't really know how to write another better caption, since "Rihanna performing at the V Festival. Her music video for we found love..." would be not only too big, but it wouldn't make sense regarding the section's context. Do you have any ideas on how this can be re-written? - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The italics on "just once" must be an addition and I don't think they're warranted as emphasis. In fact there are a few uses which need closer consideration.

  The phrase from the source is exactly like this, the reviewer emphasized it. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some spaced em-dashes are present. They should either be spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes (not really a GA thing but I imagine you might want to take this on).
• "Radio Mix": why the capitals?

  Why not? It is the remix title. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Radio mix" is just a generic title for a radio edit, no? You've put The Radio Mix of "Criminal", not "Criminal (Radio Mix)" which would suggest you're using it in a generic way as well.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #88, I assume something's wrong there

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Critical reception" section is a bit of a list. Were you going with a theme per paragraph?

  I could paraphrase it more if you few like it's needed. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the paraphrasing, it's identifying a flow. How does the content of each paragraph differ?

  It doesn't. I have shortened it to two paragraphs just so the visual of the page can look better. Or is it needed to be on huge paragraph with all those reviews? - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Oh, and the previous abandoned review: I assume there were no outstanding comments?)

  I don't think the other reviewer even started it. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placing article on hold, I'd hope to get this wrapped up quickly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but I have a couple problems with the article, particularly the references. There is a random ] in the second reference. Ref. 10 and 125 are the same website but have a different publisher format, plus all the citations from 99 to 124 need proper publishers. There is inconsistency with date formats (i.e January 1, 1901 or 1901-01-01). And what makes this a reliable source? Till 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say that "proper publishers" were GA criteria, in the sense that enough material is provided for verifiability at the moment, nor is date consistency. However the other things need looking at (thanks Till). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sound Alliance, "an insight driven strategic and creative agency focused on effective digital, experiential and promotional work." The company works with several others such as Last.fm, Pitchfork, Hypem Machine, and more. I think this is realiable enough. And the references issues you've addressed were fixed. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Seems pretty good. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The SameSame source isn't reliable. It was written by a user of the website. Till 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC

   Removed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 02:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay good. All my concerns have been addressed. Till 04:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find anything else to say, so passing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criminal (Britney Spears song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 5 external links on Criminal (Britney Spears song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518073607/https://www.samesame.com.au:80/reviews/6541/CD-Britney--Femme-Fatale.htm to http://www.samesame.com.au/reviews/6541/CD-Britney--Femme-Fatale.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025012401/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com:80/reverb/2011/10/nice_hits_is_a_reverb_1.php to http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2011/10/nice_hits_is_a_reverb_1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225020403/http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2011/03/cd_review_britney_spears_femme.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2011/03/cd_review_britney_spears_femme.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.landingpage.citroen.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criminal (Britney Spears song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samesame.com.au/reviews/6541/CD-Britney--Femme-Fatale.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2011/10/nice_hits_is_a_reverb_1.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.promusicae.org/files/listasradio/historial/TOP%2020%20RADIOS%2012_10.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EBsfYEaa?url=http://charts.billboard.ru.msn.com/ to http://charts.billboard.ru.msn.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]