Wikipedia:Featured article review/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria 15:48, 9 August 2012 [1].

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

Featured article review/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive1

Notified: JKW111, Ericorbit, Legolas2186, Madonna WP, Song WP, Electronic music WP, R&B and Soul Music WP, Malawi WP

I am nominating this featured article for review because in February of this year, it was found that User:Legolas2186 had performed a significant number of source falsifications and copyright violations. This article was one of his that was featured (the other was Madonna (entertainer), already delisted), and when checked, was found to have major problems with sourcing. The initial list of issues can be found at Talk:4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Partial source audit, and includes numerous instances of copyright violation, close paraphrasing and failed verification in the first five sources alone. Nothing has been done to correct these problems, and so, now that the Madonna FAR has finished, this article is the next to be brought here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the experience at the FAR for Madonna (entertainer), I lost any remaining confidence that the articles expanded by Legolas were easily salvageable as GAs or FAs. This article about a song has too many problems with copyvio, too-close paraphrasing, and failed verification. It should be delisted without any more drama. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me read the article, check the references and correct any copyvio and falsification in it. It may take me some days considering its lenght. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think the FAR process should be slowed to allow time for repairs and rewriting. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed the paraphrasing and changed it to quotes, removed unnecessary/unsourced/false information, original research, replace dead links, and a basic copyedit. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the recording studio lingo bits, for instance clipping, plugins, outboard gear and audio compression were misrepresented. I noticed that the Sound On Sound source did not carry a quote saying that Castellon employed "an eighth-note delay from a PCM42 to give their voice some space". This supposed quote truncates and combines two sentences, and it only applies to Madonna, not "their" vocals (Madonna and Timberlake). Also, the SOS source did not contain the quoted phrase "help [him to] achieve the beat level". I corrected some misspellings. I noticed that there is inconsistency in the way ellipses are treated. There is inconsistency in the way that initial capital letters are treated in quoted sentences, that is, whether they are put in lower case and bracketed, or left in upper case. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like quite a bit of work has been done here. Can we get some opinions on whether this can be kept without a FARC or whether it should be moved? Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks okay to me: keep. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The sources have all been cleaned up, and it looks like Binksternet et al. have done enough work to remove the falsifications from Legolas2186. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbhotch did most of the heavy lifting, saving the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Tbhotch et al. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It seems that the article has been through an edit overhaul, however for my opinion regarding its assessment (points out to the R&B assess), I need to read it entirely, but the question is, why is it receiving an R&B FAC (along general FAC) if there is no real R&B or Soul information on the actual article? It is styled as Dance-Pop and Hip-Hop, so it is correctly tagged as an Electronic song, and nowhere near having any actual information which define it as a R&B or Soul song, so unless some reference provides a background (influence or song's sub-genre), I'll remove its r&b assesment. I firmly believe this article is within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hip_hop scope. Best regards Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I removed the WP. I don't know why it was added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.
This discussion has been stale for the last several weeks. I think the consensus is that it should be kept. Can we close this now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the same sense as you do. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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