Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Are the World/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:57, 24 October 2009 .

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/We Are the World/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this comprehensive account of Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie's "We Are the World" meets the FA criteria. The article has received a peer review, and I would love to see it featured for its upcoming 25th anniversary. Pyrrhus16 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph says this was the album's only single. What else was on the album? Humanitarian commentary and donation requests? Please elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the We Are the World album was all music. However, the title track was the only one to gain a release as a single. Pyrrhus16 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can document that it was number one in nine markets, why are there only four succession boxes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The succession boxes were already in the article when I started work on it. I can't create anymore because I simply don't know what "We Are the World" was preceded/succeeded by on the other charts. I don't believe that succession boxes are a requirement either. Pyrrhus16 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Source comments All dabs, links, refs fine. RB88 (T) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Other comments Just a thought: Why not use this for ALL the chart archive refs for more compactness and the fact that Ultratop is probably more known and notable. RB88 (T) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea. Done. Pyrrhus16 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Huge problems with this article - see article talk page. I see that User:Iridescent had similar concerns on the article's talk page, which have not been addressed. 86.172.137.232 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will respond to your concerns on the talk page. And for your information, User:Iridescent's concern was addressed and responded to. Pyrrhus16 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so - he made pretty much the same point ie there was no mention at all of the obvious inspiration for the single, rather than just a simple 'citation required' request. You might have added the cite (i haven't checked) but certainly nothing was added to the text about Band Aid being the spur. 86.158.130.245 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent's specific concern was addressed with this edit. Pyrrhus16 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Media review - Images and clip check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to Support:

An impressive article about a song. I was rockin' the USA for Africa sweatshirt in 9th grade, and for once, folks were all jealous that I was stylin' and profilin'. Short-lived.

• Can you add some backstory about the famine in Ethiopia, please? One sentence to say how long it had lasted and its effects, perhaps. I remember seeing Bob Geldof go on about how horrible it was to see. Images in the news were harrowing.

• Added a bit on the duration and death rate of the famine.

• I don't see a mention that most of the musicians in the room had just attended the American Music Awards and came directly from the ceremony.

• Added a note on the AMA ceremony.

• "Do They Know It's Christmas" was also organized by Geldof, and preceded this song, but it is not mentioned until the Reception section. Was it not at least an inspiration to record this one? --Moni3 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Noted that "Do They Now It's Christmas" was known to the USA for Africa organizer and preceded "We Are the World". Thank you for your suggestions. :) Pyrrhus16 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yah, ok. Well done. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrrhus16 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support In general, this article is strong and well-written, However, I do have a few suggestions and questions:

• The historic event brought together some of the biggest artists in the music industry at the time. - "Biggest" is a vague word - do you mean "most influential" or "most famous" or what?

• Prior to the writing of "We Are the World", American entertainer and social activist Harry Belafonte had sought for some time to have a song recorded by the biggest artists in the music industry at the time. - The same issue arises in this sentence.

• Changed both to "most famous".

• Other individuals were disappointed that the song did not challenge why famines occur in the first place, and felt that the lyrics were self-aggrandizing. - Who are these individuals? Are they critics, too? Again, this is a bit vague.

• Added that it was the rock music community that felt this.

• The guide was shipped by Federal Express, who paid the bill in the spirit of the event. - Is this detail necessary? It feels like an advertisement for FedEx to me.

• Removed.

• The cause of his absence has differed in reports: one claimed that the singer did not want to record with other acts. - Awkward wording

• Split into two sentences.

• Is there more analysis of the music itself that could be presented in the "Music and vocal arrangements" section? I felt that the song itself was not really explained from a musical standpoint.

• I couldn't find any free analysis of the music online, and there is none in my books.

• What kinds of subscription sites would you need to check? Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at other FA music articles, I think some of the analysis comes from sheet music sites. However, most of the sites that provide descriptive analysis (as opposed to just the plain sheet music) focus on the newer pop songs and are written as the track is being released. Pyrrhus16 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too bad! Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "We Are the World" was eventually cited as the biggest selling single in both U.S. and pop music history. - Perhaps "as of yet"?

• Elton John's 1997 version of "Candle in the Wind"—a tribute to Princess Diana—later claimed the status of biggest selling single of all time. - What is the distinction between the above sentence and this one? I don't understand.

• The "Candle in the Wind" footnote should have read "pop single" as well. It eventually surpassed WATW to become the biggest selling pop single.

• A school student, when asked her thoughts on the idea of a charity single, revealed that if she were an Ethiopian, she would be happy that somebody cared for her. - Why are we including this random person's view?

• Removed.

• The third paragraph in "Notable live performances" seems to be more about Jackson than "We Are the World" - it is necessary to have this entire paragraph?

• Removed.

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Striking all but one - see question above. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am now supporting this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. The first section ("background and writing") features a picture of Michael Jackson. I am aware that this picture is from the public domain, which is an indication that it can be used eagerly and freely, but what significance does it add to the section? Jackson is simply waving to the crowd, not doing something that could visually enhance the reader's understanding of the song's conception. Could it possibly be added to the credits akin to the other pictures?
2. In the charts section, a citation follows each "peak position". These citations are clunky and repetitive, which basically makes them eyesores. I noticed that only two references are used, and would recommend that both be placed next to "peak position" in the column, reducing their appearances.
3. The writing is not up to par in places throughout the article. For example, in the final paragraph in the "notable live performances" section (in which Jackson's death is described), there is a comma splice in the first sentence. The second sentence states his memorial service was "several weeks later"; is it possible to clarify exactly how many weeks later? His death was exceptionally momentous and I am positive the date of the memorial can be located. A few sentences later: "The singalong of "We Are the World" was lead by Darryl Phinnessee, who had worked with Jackson since the Dangerous era". The album was evidently titled Dangerous, but the article does not state it as such. This sentence otherwise reads strangely (the era was dangerous?).
4. The writing is overall good, but there are other weak areas here and there, such as referring to "We Are the World" as a song, a single, an anthem, a track... too many names. The recording section is unbelievably lengthy and begins reading like a diary entry: "At 10.30 pm, each of the performers took his or her position". Another paragraph in that section describes Stevie Wonder and a heated debate which provides so much insight that it diverges from the primary information and becomes extra "fodder"; if people were interested in all the arguments and details that transpired during the recording process, we could write a book. We are, however, writing an encyclopaedia.
5. Excess writing in other places.
6. Comma splices and minor punctuation errors.

—Major Seventh (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I feel that a picture of a song writer does help a reader understand the composition of a track. If they know what the musician looked like at the time of writing, it aids them in picturing the individual at work. Jackson songs in particular are associated with specific looks and eras. The image in this article allows the reader to pinpoint which time period the song was written in within Jackson's career, as well as within the music industry. For that reason, I'm against removing the picture.
2. Done.
3. Fixed your highlighted concerns and looking for any other grammatical errors. I'm terrible with punctuation though, so I may not notice all of them.
4. Trimmed some of the info, but don't want to drastically shorten it; a lot of the detail is well documented and important to the history of the song.
5. Could you give specific areas of concern if you have the time? Again, I don't want drastically shorten important details.
6. Will try to find them.

Thanks for your suggestions. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support placeholder oppose Comments - beginning a lookover now. The prose is repetitive in places with a far bit of redundancy which I am trying to address. Ditto overuse of passive tense. Very nearly there but I feel there are some issues below which really need to be dealt with before it gets over the line. Improved, the prose could do with some tightening and I will make another run-through, but not enough to oppose now. I will make some straightforward changes and note queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As Wonder was rarely available to work on the project, - flows oddly, why not "As Wonder had limited time to work on the project,"

Done.

Performed live on numerous occasions, "We Are the World" demonstrated that diverse musicians could productively work together - unnecessary statement - no precedent has been set here. Diverse large groups of people have been playing together for centuries. I'd actually drop this whole sentence (see next).

Done.

and started a movement within the pop music industry to create songs that address humanitarian issues. - is untrue as Band-aid's effort preceded this.

Removed sentence.

Several members of the public bought more than one copy of the single, some buying up to five copies of the record - this just sounds bizarre - maybe "People reported they bought more than one copy of the single, some buying up to five copies of the record" or something similar.

Done. Pyrrhus16 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Still oppose (I am IP 86.172 above). Still nothing in the lede about DTKIC: its mention comes far too late in the text. It's like writing about Michael Jackson without mentioning the Jackson Five: the career and progress of the one came directly out of the other. I'm not trying to turn this into a competition between DTKIC and WATW. I just think that for this to be a featured article, and yet to omit a massive part of the story of the genesis of WATW, would be a travesty.

• DTKIC was not omitted; it was mentioned in the appropriate section. I have now added a further mention in the lead. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have major problems, still. Pyrrhus seems to have brushed aside various objections on the articles talk page with an 'oh well, it's what the cites say so it must be true.' But if the cited "facts" are clearly no such thing, should they be allowed to remain - or at least remain unchallenged, without caveats? To read this article, you'd think WATW achieved everything and DTKIC nothing in raising global awareness. WATW has to be set in its proper historical perspective. This just reads like a hagiography, and is seriously unbalanced.86.147.162.146 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't brushed aside anything; I've responded to your objections by stating that everything in the article is factually accurate. This article is about WATW, not a novel about what DTKIC achieved. If I wanted a hagiography, I wouldn't have mentioned the negative reviews the song received. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

86.147.162.146, if there are points of vew you feel are missing from the article, please find reliable sources that express them. Wikipedia's articles are built using already-published sources, not the opinions of its editors. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Could the year be added to the first sentence (i.e., "...is a 1985 song and charity single..."). I had to search for a bit; it's in the infobox but it should be in the prose as well, and easier to find. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I understand the concerns about US-centrism, but it appears to me that the text has been improved to address issues of the relationship between DTKIC and WATW, while it is not clear to me, per comment by Awadewit, that any reliable source info has been brought forward that would necessitate more radical change to the text on this point. The article is otherwise detailed and well-written. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The toolbox reveals a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead links removed. Pyrrhus16 23:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Article uses both US and U.S.; please make it consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "To date, it has sold more than 20 million units and raised over $63 million for humanitarian aid in Africa and the US." What does "to date" mean? Please use a date instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  See WP:MOSDATE#Precise language: far too often overlooked at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Changed to "as of 2009". Pyrrhus16 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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