Jump to content

Talk:7 Rings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

My Favourite Things

Resolved

Why it is not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Маргарита Бабовникова (talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The article has been updated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Number-one singles in Switzerland

Resolved

@Sixinchboca: Is there a reason you removed Category:Number-one singles in Switzerland? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Accident, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixinchboca (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. I've added the category back. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Personnel / credits section

Resolved

Reminder: This article needs a personnel / credits section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I might as well do it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Trillfendi, Please and thank you. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Saw that there wasn't personnel on the page and decided to add it, with credits adapted from Tidal. Nice4What (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice4What, Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 02:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference in "Thank U, Next" (song) music video

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of 7 Rings

Hip Hop artist Princess Nokia claimed in an Instagram video that the chorus was borrowed from her 2016 hit Mine. [1]

Soulja Boy also criticized Grande accusing her of stealing his song Pretty Boy Swag.[2]

(Coderbih (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

  • Isn’t it funny how every time I put that information in the article “somebody” removed it? 🙂 Trillfendi (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Three sources (there's actually more) are more than enough to warrant at least a mention in the article. I agree that it should be considered as disruptive behaviour if anyone removes it without discussing it again.--NØ 05:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKgGnoj3NQk
  2. ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/4870664/ariana-grande-7-rings-plagiarism/
@Trillfendi: These are unsubstantiated and unfounded claims that were deleted within hours. Unless legal action is taken, these aren't significant controversies and don't warrant inclusion in the article. Also, these claims don't even aledge anything that legal action could possibly be taken over. Fan4Life (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter, Arianator. She probably deleted it after so called fans bullied her into doing it. The fact is that reliable sources picked the story up based on her initial post. “Flow” isn’t copyrighed but expression is. Nobody knows if legal action shall be taken but the controversy warrants inclusion in the article because this story happened as soon as the video was released and multiple artists have accused her of misappropriation in several different forms. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Princess Nokia deleted the video and retracted her statement where she claimed Ariana borrowed her chorus after backlash and claims of Princess Nokia stealing from Kali Uchis' "Honey Baby".[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2019/01/20/ariana-grande-plagio-7-rings/


Many people and artists claim that Ariana copied previous existent songs and copied them in her song "7 rings", Wayne Marshall, a writer from Vulture New York says otherwise: "While it’s possible that one or all of these songs could have been a model for “7 Rings,” taken together, the claims start to undermine each other, suggesting a broader stylistic trend is at play. If a copyright infringement case were to proceed from any of these allegations, an expert witness would likely argue that the rhythms in question are so generic as to be unprotectable." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danel216 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

critical reception

criticism was more mixed than negative. someone add rolling stone's positive review to the article: https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1088835907636080640?s=21 Sixinchboca (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done--NØ 13:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Fan4Life, Can you point me to a guideline which says that "takedown"s can't be included? No, there is none. Stop removing negative criticism from the article just because you don't like it. It is disruptive and you've been pointed to WP:NPOV which is the relevant guideline considering your actions here. I will suggest that you restore it yourself, unless you want another visit to the edit warring noticeboard. This is not a fan site and yes we do include negative commentary from reliable sources.--NØ 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Including ping for Trillfendi, since you reported this user for edit warring on this same page less than a week ago and it's happening again, once again to remove criticism and push a fancruft agenda. [1][2].--NØ 15:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I warned them it would happen again within days... but this time someone else should report. Trillfendi (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic article

The article from The Atlantic isn't a review and offers no critique or opinion on the song itself, it's completely malicious and a personal attack on Ariana, it shouldn't be included in the critical reception section. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, including libelous articles and treating them as legitimate reviews isn't being neutral. Fan4Life (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Spencer Kornhaber is definitely a critic. Who btw, raved about "thank u, next" in his review of that [3]. There's no reason to exclude his review of 7 rings just because it is negative. Its not a "takedown" nor a "personal attack", Kornhaber is a respected critic and Atlantic is a reliable source. We need to represent every reliably sourced opinion in the article, not just the fan favorite one.--NØ 20:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
But the article doesn't offer any opinion or critique on the song itself, it isn't a review, so including it in the critical reception section is incorrect. Fan4Life (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Grammy performance?

Should this article mention her scheduled, but canceled, performance at the Grammy Awards? Sources mentioning 7 Rings:

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No. It didn’t happen therefore it’s not relevant. Trillfendi (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:7 Rings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AppleWormBoy (talk · contribs) 21:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey, there. I'll be reviewing this article whether or not it's up to GA status. The song came out recently this year, so of course the information displayed in the article may be small. But hopefully, it will meet all of the criteria for good articles nonetheless. I'll see if I can get my analysis completed within a few days (or less). -AppleWormBoy (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

  • ""7 Rings" (stylized in all lowercase), is a song"..... Remove the comma between the right parenthesis and "is".
  • Minimize the amount of countries in the part about the chart performances (for both number one and top 10 spots).
  • "The song was written by Grande, Kaydence, Njomza Vitia, Tayla Parx and Victoria Monét alongside its producers Tommy Brown, Charles Anderson and Michael Foster, with the interpolation of "My Favorite Things" by Rodgers and Hammerstein." I feel as if the sentence has an unnecessary run-on. If you can separate the writing personnel and the interpolation parts into two sentences, that'd be great.
@AppleWormBoy: Comment the references for trap-pop and R&B in the infobox aren't needed as that information is stated in the article's body. Same with ref 5 in the lead; it can be mentioned as the second single in the Background and release section. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Background and release

  • Elaborate on the moment that Grande had the idea for the song through an encyclopedic tone.
  • I think you should remove the duplicate "a friendship anthem" citation and transfer it to the "Composition and lyrics" section.

Composition and lyrics

  • "Billboard magazine noted it's "the most hip-hop-leaning song Grande has released in the post-Sweetener era yet, with Grande almost rapping the song's verses""; add "that" before "it's" to make the sentence sound more complete, and either capitalize the "magazine" and italicize it, or insert the "The" before "Billboard magazine".

Commercial performance

  • "In Australia, the song debuted at number one, becoming Grande's 3rd number one single." - add "in the country" after "single". Also expand further on Australian performance (just don't go WP:QUOTEFARM), or incorporate the short sentence into the previous paragraph.

Critical reception

  • Segregate the positive, mixed, and negative reviews from each other.

Music video

  • "The video begins with and intro and pick undertone, outside a house that involved other sounds such as police sirens and helicopters, while at the same time showing many women posing on cars and caressing each other." Grammatically incorrect. Here's a better sentence: "The video begins with a montage of pink objects, including a car and a bicycle; sounds of police sirens and helicopters can also be heard. At the same time, a group of women are shown posing on cars and caressing each other." Add in the source bracket from Pitchfork. > [2]
  • "The final change is of Grande in a room with green lights giving resemblance to Wicked". I didn't see any green lights while Grande was in the room by herself, but rather blue lights; the Wicked comparison is unneeded.
  • "In conclusion it shows Grande saying "My bitches right here" which leads to the ending of the music video." Add in a comma after "In conclusion".

References

  1. ^ https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/did-ariana-grande-copy-7-rings.html
  2. ^ Yoo, Noah. "Watch Ariana Grande's Video for New Song "7 Rings"". Pitchfork. Retrieved March 9, 2019.

Controversy

  • I think you should also add the cultural appropriation concerns from the music video by critics, but with an unbiased point of view, of course.

Release history

  • Where are the references for the vinyl and cassette tape???
  • No dead links! Congrats on that. :)

Summary

This article is very well-sourced, but you must also address and fix my concerns aforementioned above. Thank you in advance. :) I will give you at least two days to respond with some sort of progress, but if not, I will put it on hold for a week. If you fail on the one-week time limit, then this nomination is null and void (hopefully, that won't be the case ;)). -AppleWormBoy (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

2nd Opinion

Hello, nominator and reviewer of 7 Rings

I have some concerns regarding certain sections. To begin with, there is no paragraph mentioning the Personnel or studios (taking into consideration the artist it will be easy to find). The Background and reception section of the music video have three paragraphs when it should be two and I'm pretty sure more information could be added to the reception.

However, what strikes me the most is the commercial performance. It only mentions the US, Uk, and Australia. The song has reached the top of other countries such as Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand and many more so I'm sure these countries or others could and should be mentioned along with a couple of certifications. The Critical reception only has four critics, I'm sure album critics and others can be found easily on the web taking only the song and also mentioned during an album review.

Moreover, the Composition and lyrics have more paragraphs than key information. The background and release section makes no mention of the release history, which is in the last section! This article needs massive re-work and more search and information in order to pass. Once such information is added, the lead will need a rework. It could use a sample of the song as it has caused controversy and could help it explain better or make a reference to the instrumental or lyrics or all the above three, but this is optional of course. No live performaces are metion, why is that? This should be failed, no way the nominator can make this become GA in a week, it may take months.

In conclusion, I hope this input is not ignored as it is vital to becoming a GA article. Yours truly, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

I thought I'd add in something as well, but why is every country the song charted in mentioned in the lead, while nothing is mentioned about its critical reception? It think it's a little overkill to list every country. I also personally think almost every section could use some more expanding. The comp section looks like a bunch of bullet points that were thrown together, the background and release section is only three sentences total, and the critical reception section doesn't mention overall critical reviews of the song (i.e. positive reviews, mixed-to-positive reviews, etc.). It also only has four reviews total, which like MarioSoulTruthFan said, doesn't seem like enough. Also, what about live performances? Her Sweetener World Tour is currently well underway, and "7 Rings" is in the setlist, and I'm sure Grande has done other performances of this song live in the six months it's been since release as well. Overall, I think the article in its current state focuses too much on commercial performance rather than the actual song itself. I, like Mario, honestly believe this is not ready for GA status yet, and needs much more time before it's ready. I really hope you take our concerns into consideration. – zmbro (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Zmbro: I agree with you, the article does need a lot of improvements before it is legitimately worthy of reviewing; think it is likely to fail at this point. It has overkill on commercial performance and shouldn't mention each country it went number one in when there's so many. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Final decision

With consideration of the secondary opinions here on this thread, I've decided to fail this nomination for various reasons: the tour associated with the song is still active, and the song recently came out this year and therefore, it's too early to have ample information on it to render the article as GA status (as seen in multiple sections). Maybe try again in a few more months. -AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

AppleWormBoy Update the talk page of the article so this is known, otherwise it will still say on review at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Music. The nominator or anyone else can re-nominate whenever it is appropriate if they wish to... --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the nomination from the topic list, and I already have the Failed GA Template included on the talk page. -AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
AppleWormBoy I see that now, but you hadn't at the time of my comment. It was like two minutes later though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Well, hopefully, that clears things up with us. :) -AppleWormBoy (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah but next time, wait for the bot to remove it from the Good article nominations page after you have updated the talk page. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What I’ve been trying despite edit conflicts is that unfortunately, I was too busy in real life (I’m on vacay) to see it including opinions before I could address those properties. It’s probably a serendipitous thing though. Those points can be fixed and perhaps in the future, over time, it will be improved to the standards. As it’s one of the biggest songs of the year (so far) that’s vital. We shall see.Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I find the comments of this part biased, there should be further explanation of the events as well as evidence and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danel216 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

US Spotify Chart

To the users who have added this chart before or anyone who is thinking about re-adding it, don't do so as it should not be added if the song charted on the Hot 100. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tag in "Commercial performance" section?

The current "Commercial performance" section seems generally appropriate, but there's a tag timestamped this month asking for further expansion. Is something specific missing, or should the tag be removed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

On today's episode : Why rap is not a genre.

@Billiekhalidfan:

Let's start this by saying that no personal attacks are intentional in what I'm about to say, specially when the administrators are on my back lol.

First of all, I've seen that "rap" is a vocal delivery, see by yourself my dear Rapping even Wikipedia itself does not refer "rap" as a genre and what makes it worse is that you added Hip hop music as the back genre just like you did Right there Let me just tell you that this is truly inconsiderate knowing that Hip hop music can be actually SANG which is why we created Contemporary R&B or even the latter, Hip hop soul which both include hip hop in its production. Qualifying Rapping as a music genre would be just like saying that Singing is also a music genre when we both know that it's just a vocal delivery, music can be mumbled, sang, rapped and much more... You literally said that rap is directly "Hip hop" when Rapping can be used in pop music which we created Pop-rap which is an actual music genre. Your edits can be qualified as disruptive knowingly that what you're doing is misleading.

To sums it all, rap, is, not, a, music genre. Hip hop is and that's what you mentioned.

By the way this to answer your question about how is this offensive, let me ask you to educate yourself on Hip hop history and how people of African descent fought for it :)

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Rap is a music genre. The hip hop music article literally says that rap music is an alternate title for hip hop music. The reason I'm linking to hip hop music is because rap music redirects there anyway. Please, just stop being disruptive. The source specifically called it a rap song, not a hip hop song. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan:

  • Fix it, Jesus*

Then why link it to " Hip hop music? Why not directly link it to rap music? It literally so misleading, everybody could've been confused. You literally mentioned " Hip hop music" instead of "Rap music" which is why I was merely confused. And I'm not being disruptive, I was simply focused. Understand this, thanks.

And see for yourself, Rap music immediately redirect to Hip hop music meaning rap music doesn't even exist as a single genre but more likely as an alternative name for hip hop. Time to find another source, beloved, a source that will confuse people a little bit less. If you don't get this then I don't know how to explain it while being neutral.

Misc. Suggestions

Hello! I am evaluating this article as part of a class assignment and I was asked to leave feedback on the Talk page. I am still new to editing so I don't have much to say, but I think some sentences in the lead could be edited to be more concise, or less repetitive. Some sentences will use the same words with different information, which sounds strange when read. See the second lead paragraph, where the term/phrase "to date" is used in two sentences in a row. Have fun editing! Scvaccarelli (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_Rings/Archive_1&oldid=1052841958"