Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2020 [1].

Cups (song)

Nominator(s):

talk) 03:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Article looks amazing!!! Defiantly ready for FA. You have my support. LOVI33 01:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• File:WhenI'mgone.gif has an incomplete FUR, and it's not clear that this is justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• The commercial performance is needlessly detailed (
  WP:CHARTTRAJ
  )
• "The original version was usually performed a cappella with a cup used to provide percussion, as in the cup game. It was first performed in a YouTube video by Luisa Gerstein and Heloise Tunstall-Behrens, as Lulu and The Lampshades, in 2009 and entitled "You're Gonna Miss Me". The original became popular after Kendrick performed her version in the musical comedy film, Pitch Perfect (2012)." → confusing flow; how "popular" did the original get?
• "The song received mainly positive reviews from music critics" →
  WP:OR
• "It was commercially successful" → redundant
• "including being certified triple platinum in the US" → why not just "including a 3× Platinum certification"?
• People is not a reliable source for a critical analysis
• "Drew Taylor, writing for Indie Wire, described "Cups (When I'm Gone)" as a "sing-song-y tune"" → what does this have to do with critical reviews?

The issues I raised above are by no means exhaustive. Given the size of the prose, the article should be polished more before proceeding to FAC. HĐ (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This part, "making other musicians to record cover versions of the song", from the lead's first paragraph is grammatical incorrect.
• I think the information in the first paragraph can be presented more clearly. I'd clarify in the second sentence that this is a cover rather than putting it later in the paragraph. I am not familiar with this song or film at all, and I got a little lost while reading this for the first time.
• I'd avoid using passive tense when possible, like with this part: "It was first performed in a YouTube video".
• The lead presents three different versions of the song title – "Cups", "Cups (When I'm Gone)", "Cups (Pitch Perfect's "When I'm Gone")" – and it's rather confusing to read.
• I do not think Jimmy Fallon needs to be mentioned in this part of the lead: "Kendrick explained to Jimmy Fallon that the producers of the film". It is not necessarily to mention that Kendrick said this information to Fallon in the lead as this information is too minor/detail-oriented for the lead.

I do not mean to come across as harsh or overly critical, but after reading through just the lead alone, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a featured article. I'd recommend putting this up for a peer review instead or trying the FAC mentoring system. I agree with HĐ that this nomination should be withdrawn and further work done outside of the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really care if there is a bronze star on top of the article anymore, so you can go ahead and archive this coordinators. This is HUGE waste of time. And

• I am only trying to help you. We have all put time into Wikipedia article, and a lot of editors have put much more than two months of work into an article. A lot of editors have also experienced unsuccessful FACs. I have had plenty of FACs where reviewers opposed them for not being prepared enough for a nomination. The peer review for "Everything I Wanted" only received commentary from one user, and while they were helpful, it would have been more beneficial to get feedback from a larger amount of editors prior to a second FAC. All I can say is that it does take time and work to get an article successfully through the FAC process. It is up to you if you find it worthwhile to spend that time and energy with this or if you would prefer to spend it on something else entirely.

• To be completely honest, I would not be surprised if your attitude puts off a lot of reviewers. I understand that it is frustrating to have nominations not work out. I have reacted extremely poorly in these kinds of situations myself so I can completely understand your point of view. But this continued behavior, like calling the editor who archived the "Let's Fall in Love for the Night" FAC "a real jerk", is not helpful to your end goal. If you want to continue working in the FAC space, I would encourage you to be more mindful of your attitude on here and to try and reach out to more experienced editors who focus on music-related articles for their feedback. If the FAC process is really not worth it to you though, you can always focus on other aspects of Wikipedia, such as improving articles on your own without putting them up for any type of nomination. Either way, I hope you have a good and safe weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:FANCRUFT) with excessive, trivial information, then you should either refresh your state of mind, or leave Wikipedia for the better. Once you are in the right mindset, other members will be glad to offer help. Regards, HĐ (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Pinging the FAC coordinators (@FAC coordinators: ) per the above comments. Statements like "Who knew editors here would be so unforgiving and rude towards novice fac nominators" are not helpful. I have tried to help with this as well as HĐ, but I will just leave it at that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]