Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive2

• Skipping a head a little bit to the reception section, did not one reviewer have a negative take on the song? I find that hard to believe.
  • See above.
• "In 2009, the song received a Grammy nomination in the Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals category." Try and avoid the passive voice the "In 2009" part.
  • Removed "in 2009".
• "with the sounds of a great big marching band" this sounds like a direct quote?
  • Quoted.
• The section in Music and lyrics where you describe each passage of the song seems really unnecessary, especially in the detail provided. I'm not sure if there's any encyclopedic value to reading a plot-summary of the music, so to speak.
  • Removed the too much of details. Just a gist.
• The section is a little heavy on the music side of things, and barely even scratches the surface of the lyrics. The quote kind of skirts around the topic, but doesn't really address the lyrics much at all.
  • changed the section name to "Composition".
• "for the issue dated ___" This is used 4 times I think. Is this a necessary detail? Seems very trivial to the topic at hand. In the latter three instances, it's not clear what the issue is of.
  • Corrected.
• "Thus, the song became Madonna's first top-ten since her 2005 single "Hung Up," and was her thirty-seventh Hot 100 top-ten hit; thus breaking Elvis Presley's record as the artist with the most top ten hits.[6] "" Two thus's in the same sentence.
  • Removed two thus's to one thus.
• Why is the Canadian stuff in the paragraph that seems focused on Oceania?
  • Rearranged the paragraphs.
• "conceptualistic" Huh? is this a direct quote?
  • Quoted.
• "the video was shot like a march past" What does that mean?
  • Wikilinked to Parade.
• "understand the concept of black screen" THE black screen? A black screen? Something is missing here.
  • Inserted "THE".
• "starts engulfing all the musical device present" devices?
  • Devices
• "Timbaland's voice break into the encore" breaks? And is it really an encore? I don't think an encore is something that happens in a music video, since it's usually an audience demanding more. The audience is passive in this case.
  • Correct. Removed line.
• "The song has a chord progression like D—G—C—F—A♯—D." What do you mean like?
  • Included "of"
• "the song debuted at number twenty-seven on April 5, 2008" Does this date have any relevance to anything? I think the exact date is unnecessary detail.
• There is way too much detail about Miley Cyrus' parody video. Why do we care about her grandmother?
  • briefed to one line.
• For multi-platinum certifications, don't use the letter "x", use the multiplication sign: "×".
• "2008-2009" needs an en-dash (–), not a hyphen.
• In the same section, I believe you're a little unclear on what certifications are based on: not sales, but numbers of copies shipped (see
  List of music recording sales certifications
  , since some of figures are off, I believe.
  • Corrected
• In the Charts section, "Peak Position" isn't a proper noun, so the second word (position) shouldn't be capitalized. Drewcifer (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The second section of Writing and inspiration (after the Madonna block quote) seems very out of place. I think I know what you were going for: that it was written with a global frame of mind, but the way it's written doesn't really get there. So, not only does it not seem to have any relevance to the writing or inspiration of the song, but the three sentences and one quote seem to have nothing to do with each other. So basically that little section seems a little undernourished. And I'm not sure what the second quote provides that the first didn't already say.
  • You are right. Hence the quote is removed. Only the part about the song being one of the inspirations for Madonna to direct the documentary is kept.
    • Better, but the two sentences remaining still seem a little unrelated. Perhaps the problem is that we don't necessarily know what I Am Because We Are is or what it's about, so to the uneducated (like me), the connection isn't clear.
      • Included a one line description about I Am Because We Are.
• "which made the song enter" "made" seems like an odd word choice here.
  • Changed the construction.
• "After choreographed dancing Madonna strips down to her corset and do a back arching." Poor grammar here.
  • Do -> does
    • Still seems poorly worded. Whatabout "does a back arch"?
      • Included.
• "Madonna agreed with Ingrid" Did she specifically agree with Ingrid? Or did she just seem express a similar viewpoint?
  • She specifically agreed. She said "Yes" when Ingrid described the song as stated above. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Reviewers called the song one of the most thrilling things Madonna has done in decades and one of Hard Candy's best moments. Some noted that Madonna, rather than Timberlake, appeared more of a featured artist in the song. Timberlake's vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's.[4]" I have a problem with this whole passage. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole, and so when summarizing critical reception it's important not to make it sound like one critic's viewpoint is summarizing every critic's viewpoint. As it is written, it sounds like every reviewer called the song "one of the most thrilling things Madonna has done in decades" (actually a very specific critique, which I'm sure only one or two reviewers actually said). The rest of that passage is somewhat similar in that it paints a broad stroke with a fairly specific opinion. I would recommend being a little vaguer here in the lead, and leave the nitty-gritty details to the reception section itself. The same could be said for the passage "The video was described as "heart-pounding", and was compared to the music video of Michael Jackson's "Thriller"."
  • Removed unnecessary details. However, amongst the reviewers, negative comments were due to the fact that MAdonna appeared as a featured artist in the song, more so than Timberlake. Hence that is kept.
    • It's hard to tell what you've changed, but the same problem remains: the opinion of a single reviewer is presented as a summary for all critical reception. Stuff like "loud, busy, energetic track with a great hook, chorus and a futuristic sound", followed by a single reference. This is obviously fine in the main article, but the lead summarizes the topic as a whole, so it's really not the place for such a glowing review.

• In the Sales and certifications, spell out the certifying body, rather than just providing abbreviations.
  • Spelling out the whole body, don't you think it will elongate the table further? I am fine with spelling it out but just thought that problems can come regarding screen resolutions for those who donot watch the site with screen greater than 640x480. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're absolutely right, but you should avoid using abbreviations if the abbreviation isn't explained before hand. So, what I recommend is to redo the table a bit, based mainly on the current standard for discography articles. I recommend doing something such as what is done on With Teeth, though you could keep the two-column format if you wish. This boils down the table to its essential ingredients (country and award), while still providing more information if the reader wants it (certifying body and what the certification means in numbers of copies shipped). Drewcifer (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wonderful suggestion. I'll go and update the table now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Updated. Please take a look and see if anything else is missing. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Madonna performed the song in the Hard Candy Promo Tour and the Sticky & Sweet Tour" on the or during the.
• Also, was the Hard Candy tour really called the "Hard Candy Promo Tour"? Same with the "Stick & Sweet Tour"?
  • Sticky & Sweet Tour was called that only even in the official release. The Hard Candy Promo Tour was not called that officially. There is actually no official name. Hence I find it best to restructure the sentence as "the promotional tour for Hard Candy and the Sticky & Sweet Tour." What do you think?
• "4:04 (Album Version)" Album version isn't really a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized.Drewcifer (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the song also presents Timbaland's characteristic bhangra beats" does it present anything? I think present implies some sort of faculty or action or intention, which a song cannot do.
  • Changed to incorporated.
• "Madonna's witness" poor verbage here.
• "of the suffering of the people of Africa" of the, of the. Try and rewrite this, since it doesn't flow very well at the moment.
  • Changed the structure of the sentence to "Madonna's visit to Africa and witnessing the suffering of the people there".

• "giant black screen that devours everything on its path" everything in its path.
  • Changed.

That's it for now. I'll take another look once all of this is fixed or addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hope I have been able to address your concerns. Write back if you feel it's still not done.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "and how people could have fun during the saving process" a little awkward. Howabout "and how people could have fun in the process." Simple and smoother, I think.
• ""4 Minutes" has been praised by contemporary critics." This still bothers me a bit, since it sounds like opinion as fact. A think a simple fix would be "many contemporary critics".
• "Timberlake's vocals were compared to Michael Jackson's." I'm not sure this should be in the lead, since it doesn't seem like a major point in the article itself (it's only mentioned once). Being in the lead makes it sound like a bigger deal then I think it was (one reviewer making the connection, as opposed to many).
• "Madonna performed the song at the promotional tour for Hard Candy and the Sticky & Sweet Tour." Again, "on" or "during" instead of "at".
• "It received a first airing" awkward way of stating this. Consider rephrasing.
• ""4 Minutes" is a collaboration between Madonna, Justin Timberlake and Timbaland." I think this statement needs to come sooner, perhaps the very first sentence of the section. The previous sentence, about Timbaland debuting the song comes out of nowhere because we have no idea what Timbaland has to do with the song.
• "through mutual sessions and brain-stormings" what is a mutual session? and brain-stomrings is poor verbiage.
• "When asked about the meaning of the song and whether it was trying to convey a message" If they were asking about the meaning of the song, weren't they aksing about the message too? This statement seems very redundant.
• "Madonna agreed with Ingrid" refer to the interviewer by her last name, not her first.
• "The documentary dealt with the acute suffering and food-shortage of the population of Malawi." Very awkwardly phrased. Consider "The documentary dealt with the acute suffering and food-shortages afflicting the African nation of Malawi." This also helps describe what Malawi is, and links this sentence back to the global thing.
• This seems minor, I know, but for fair-use rules, album covers need to be less than 300x300 pixels. So the picture in the infobox needs to be shrunk just a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed your concerns. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning through the article a bit more.... Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink Jon Pareles.
• "According to Jon Pareles of The New York Times, lyrically the song sounds as if four minutes is the time taken for a song to be a guaranteed pop hit or the time required for a quick sexual intercourse. However, he felt that in reality it is the only song from Hard Candy album which contains a message of social awareness in it." This is written much like a quote, so I'm assuming it is. So quote directly, rather than incorporating it into the prose.
• The Madonna quote at the end of the composition section seems to get a little off-topic. The beginning of it makes sense, but it goes on so long it kind of starts talking about stuff unrelated to lyrics or the composition of the song. As an exercise, read the sentence before the quote, then the quote, then the sentence before the quote again. Drewcifer (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "sometimes brilliantly.".[" two periods here. not sure which one is the right one.
• " "Touch My Body." " the period belongs outside of the quote. Not sure if you're aware of this (and I haven't been checking for this so far, but if a quote ends a sentence of yours, the punctuation should only come inside the quote if the quote itself ended with similar punctuation. So, if your quoting something mid-phrase from the source, but it ends your sentence, the period would go outside of the quote. So in this case, since a song's name has no punctuation, the period should go on the outside. You have alot of quotations ending sentences in this article, so it would be worth checking. Drewcifer (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others are done. Checking the quotes. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see instructions at

WP:FAC, do not add collapsible headers as they bomb out archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll be happy to remove the headers once all of my concerns are addressed or once the nomination succeeds/fails. But for the moment there's a pretty long list of comments I've made, and this helps organize them to show which have been addressed and which are pending. So I'd like to keep it as is, for the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "On August 18, 2008 the single was certified two times platinum" Again, I don't think the date is important here. Also, rephrase to "double platinum" rather than "two times platinum".
  • I believe for certification the date is important. It denotes how long a song or album took to get certified from the day it got released. This will reflect more about its commercial reception.
    • I see, well at least you have a reason behind it. So, I have two suggestions, choose whichever you think is more appropriate. On one hand, at least take the years off the dates. The year it was certified is obvious. Or, what I would suggest, is instead of providing a specific date, reword to say something like "after three days" or "four days after its release", or something like that. Providing the date doesn't necessarily tell the reader how long it took, since they'd have to make the connection themselves. Drewcifer (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I incorporated your second suggestion, looked good to me. So removed the dated and made the sentence like "Four months after its release, the song..." --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ""4 Minutes" made its debut on the official UK Singles Chart at number-seven on March 23, 2008 based on download sales alone." and "On the issue dated, April 20, 2008" same thing, why are these dates important?
  • Done
• ""4 Minutes" has been certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association" Don't need to wikify platinum here, since you already did so previously. Same with ""4 Minutes" has been certified gold" later on.
• "for sales of 70,000 copies" copies shipped, not sold. same with "for sales in excess of 7,500 copies."
  • Done.
• "The music video was directed by French duo Jonas & François who had previously directed Justice's video for the single "D.A.N.C.E."." Why do we care about the Justice video? If we want to find out more, we'll click the link.
  • Done.
• Why does "gentle lighting" wikilink to Lighting control console? Drewcifer (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to stage lighting. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]