Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Got That/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [1].

I Got That

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, American rapper Amil seemed poised for stardom. By this time, she had already been featured on a string of successful Jay-Z singles. Her album, All Money Is Legal, seemed to be the moment to build on this momentum. This article is about that album's lead single, which includes Beyoncé in one of her earliest features outside of her girl group Destiny's Child. However, the single and the album underperformed, and Amil dropped out of the public eye. This song is now just a footnote in Jay-Z and Beyonce's larger careers.

I have always been interested in reading about artists who are seemingly so close to success, but things just do not work out for them. Thank you to @Courcelles: who did the GAN review back in 2018 and to @Medxvo:, @MaranoFan:, and @Heartfox: for their help during the peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]
  • File:IGotThatSingleCover.jpg Recommend providing more detail in the source field, to ensure that we have sufficient detail to find it should it go missing.

Prose comments:

  • Worth mentioning why Eve featured in the music video when none of the other female rappers mentioned appeared?
  • The article does not connect the other female rappers with the music video. The comment about them is a critic's opinion about why this song might have underperformed, as there was was a lot of competition with female rappers at the time, and it even comes after the discussion about the music video. There would be no reason to assume or wonder why anyone else is not present in the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the source just says that Eve makes a cameo appearance in the music video without going into further detail. I would guess that she was included as the song is all about female independence so there was a decision to include more women, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything both in the image and prose reviews. Let me know if there is anything that could be improved upon. I hope that you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • I think chorus can be wikilinked in the article (since we're already linking verse)
  • "Beyoncé's vocals were described as breathy by Unterberger, and as "buttery" by Camille Augustin in Vibe" - why quotation marks for "buttery" but not "breathy"?
  • I did not use quotation marks for "breathy" as from what I have read, it is a more common description for a vocal performance, while "buttery" seemed like a more uniquie description so I kept the quotation marks for that one. Hopefully, that makes sense, but let me know if this could be improved upon further. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all. Amazing work :) Thanks for pinging. Medxvo (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Medxvo: Thank you for your help and for your kind words. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there was something that I either missed or that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]
  • "She co-wrote the track with its producers" I think "wrote" should suffice
  • "being promoted as its First Lady" is the First Lady moniker supposed to be in quotation marks?
  • "still a part of the girl group Destiny's Child" inconsistent use of false titles
  • Unrelated but I listened to the sample and this song has "Y2K" written all over it lol, so nostalgic
  • "shopping at stores, including René Lezard" is this French-sounding store notable?
  • Probably not. This store was singled out in the source, which is why I included it here, but since it does not have a Wikipedia article or appear to be notable on its own, I have removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Billboard reviewer" only "Billboard" would do imo
  • I would prefer to keep it if possible. I do understand and appreciate your suggestion, but I was trying to keep the prose consistent as in other instances I used the critic name when it is known so I was trying to avoid going between using the name and work/publisher to just the work/publisher and back if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Says Who of the Michigan Chronicle" is this a pseudonym?
  • I believe that it is a pseudonym. Weirdly enough, the clipping, and the entire newspaper issue, are no longer available on Newspapers.com. I have removed the link from the citation. I still see the preview of it in my clippings on Newspapers.com, but clicking on it leads to an error screen. Do you think I should remove the citation because of this? I was honestly quite surprised by this, but it did help me to find an additional source in ProQuest. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have run into some issues with Newspapers.com where it seems like an entire newspaper issue was pulled so I did ask above about what you think the best course of action would be for this. I could not find this article on other newspaper archives or on other places online. It is quite frustrating and odd as I was able to access this just fine only a week or two ago. Apologies for ranting about that. I hope that you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link was archived. Heartfox (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, and I am sorry for not thinking about checking for an archived version of it. I was just more so surprised and confused by this change. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my comments and kudos to Heartfox for the archived URL. Support on prose. If you are available, I'd appreciate your comments at my latest FAC :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for the kind words. I will look at your FAC in the near future, but please message me on my talk page if for whatever reason, I have not posted anything by this time next week. I hope you are have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Two reviews on GenealogyBank may be of use:

Heartfox (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I am not missing another Aoba nom :) comments within the week hopefully! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi! Sorry for the delay, I got a cold and my brain was full of goop that made me stupid. Been slowly working through my backlog of stuff I'd said I'd do, and here I finally am.
  • No need to apologize. I hope that you are feeling better. There has been a lot of cold and flu going around in my area, and it is always best to prioritize your health and well-being first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as with Jay-Z" - "along with" might flow a little more smoothly
  • Suggest moving the lyrical content earlier, perhaps before the production and sampling details
  • I might revise the sentence about Beyonce a bit. For the first half, I thought it was saying Amil had been in DC, and was surprised to see Beyonce. It might also be worth noting that it was her management lending her. Something like "Beyoncé performs the song's chorus and backing vocals, as her label was trying to assess her viability as a solo artist outside of her girl group Destiny's Child." maybe?
  • That does makes sense. It is better to not bury the subject of the sentence, especially when introducing a new person and making such a strong pivot from one person to the other. I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest trimming the retrospective sentence a bit, perhaps to something like "According to retrospective articles, the song has largely been forgotten or overlooked since its release"? "not well-remembered" is fairly redundant to both of those
  • I reorganized para 2 a bit so it went song info, chart performance, then reception; feel free to revert if you don't like it
  • Thank you for that. It looks much better to me. I have changed some of it as the reviews on Beyoncé are actually all retrospective and not contemporary to the song's release. I have tried to clarify that in the lead, but please let me know if it needs further work. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " would continue to collaborate with" can probably be trimmed to "collaborated with"
  • You could probably trim "during this time", I think it's clear from context
  • Not sure the vocals for "Girlfriend" need to be called out, since DeLuca was also referring to this song
  • I might give some context for Eve, since if you don't know she's an early 2000s rapper, you might think of the Biblical Eve and have lots of questions
  • Agreed. I have added "American rapper" as the description. I was on the fence between that or "female rapper", as her being a woman seems more relevant to her appearance in a music video for a song about female independence, so let me know if that would be a better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! It's a nice tight little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. I've been told once that the via parameter shouldn't say Google Books, but I am not sure that it is correct at all. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the source review. I would be more than happy to remove the Google Books via parameter if necessary. I just thought it would be nice to fully inform readers about the citation before they click on it so they are not surprised by anything, in a similar way to how I have used the Newspapers.com via parameter. But, again, I would be okay with removing it if there is a consensus against it. Thank you again for your help, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess that I am not sure myself if that parameter use is right or wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • I read through the article and didn't notice any prose concerns.
  • I checked the lead and infobox: the only thing that wasn't cited is "Work It Out" as Beyonce's next single chronologically, but I don't think that is incredibly important for this article.
  • I could add a part about this in the article, but that single is quite removed from this particular song so it would feel a bit random. From my experience, song articles really do not cite the information about the preceding and following singles, especially when they are from unrelated albums. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Release and reception" section is a little large, both in the content it covers and its prose size. I suggest splitting this section into two: "Release and music video" (first two paragraphs) and "Reception" (last three paragraphs).
  • That is fair. I had gone back-and-forth with this one. I kept the chart information in the release section as that has always seemed more tied into how a song is released as a single and is promoted as opposed to the critical response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third and fourth paragraphs of the "Release and reception" fall into the "X says Y" pattern. I think that these paragraphs can be better formatted, and rely less extensively on the quotes. WP:RECEPTION is an essay I constantly re-read for ideas on how to do this.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything else that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed and resolved. I like the split into "Release and promotion" and "Critical reception" and the latter fixes the "X says Y" concerns. Thanks for your responses. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I am glad that you liked my edits. I find reception sections to be difficult to write in general so I am always happy when I go in the right direction when revising them. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I_Got_That/archive1&oldid=1267630232"