Would someone please check if "How many times, how many lies" is actually the next release, and if so move the information to its own article and revert this article?CJHung 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation...I don't think so
Unless someone can provide a LINK to where it says WAM is the next single, I'm changing the article accordingly...Vikramsidhu 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering thata video is going to be produced for this single, I guess that pretty much confirms it as the 5th song from PCD.
Can anybody provide a link to any official source to authenticate this information?
Where did ya get that picture?
That's not even how you spell TimbAland.
That cover is a fake.
This new 'cover' is a fake as well. It is not 'timberland'. Isn't there a promo cover that can be used?
Billboard position
102 does not count as a position, as it's the hot 100. 77 counts as its debut. SKS2K6 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Official Cover
The current cover is fake. Even Timbaland is mispelled as Timberland, and the photo is from the Blender Magazine photoshoot.
Amazon.de or HMV Australia now have the official cover available, someone should change that here too... Go here to ckeck it out : http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000N87ZM0.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_V44574676_.jpg
Agreed, whoever keeps changing the cover to one without any type of official confirmation would you please stop it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia with facts, not some fans work from a magazine photoshoot. This is the official cover, as you can see here with its front and back covers:
All edits have to be explained and sourced; you can't expect editors to know what you did and why you did it by telepathy.
Please sign all messages to Talk pages using four tildes: ~~~~.
If you open an editing account (free, no strings, simple to do) you can up-load the correct image and add it to the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability?
Song IS notable - according to the notability page on songs this song would be a "good candidate for notability", as it fills the criterion for #1 - "Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country." (Peaked at #16 in Australia), and #7 - "Has been...the subject of a music video that played on a major music network." (The music video was played on several major music channels at some point or another). I reckon this probably makes it notable to stay, so I'm going to remove the notability tag at the top of the page. --Tyron1 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Wait a minute.JPG
Image:Wait a minute.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Reviewer:KyleJoan (talk ·contribs) 11:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm happy to be reviewing this. Comments will come shortly. KyleJoantalk 11:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
Copyvio – pass; "Violation Unlikely" per Earwig's Copyvio Detector
Images – pass; fair use artwork in infobox
Comments
"The song features a guest appearance from American rapper and the song's producer Timbaland who co-wrote the song with Keri Hilson and Craig Longmiles." This seems like an overcomplicated way to state this info. Remove "a guest appearance from" and specify that Timbaland produced and co-wrote the song in a separate clause (e.g., Timbaland, who produced the song and co-wrote it with Hilson and Longmiles).
"In the song, the artists flirt and commit to a playful give and take, highlighting the differences between the two sexes." Specify that this is related to the song's lyrical content.
"The song received positive reviews from music critics who complimented Timbaland's contributions and highlighted it as one of the album's standout tracks of the album." Again, overcomplicated. Add a comma before "who" and remove "of the album".
""Wait a Minute" was released as the sixth and final single of the album on October 16, 2006, to US contemporary hit radio and was made available for digital download on January 26, 2007." Replace "the album" with "PCD".
In the entire article, add commas before "while".
In the lede's second paragraph, add commas before "as" and "and".
"A music video" → "the music video".
"...their headlining, Doll Domination Tour (2009)" → "...the group's Doll Domination Tour (2009)".
"In April 2005, the Pussycat Dolls..." Put the "American girl group" description here as well since this is the body's opener.
"...enlisting various producers including, Timbaland." The comma should be placed before "including".
"...however only the latter was included in the album" → "...however only the latter was included on the album". The same goes for the next sentence.
"The song was written and produced by Timbaland with additional writing by Hilson and Craig Longmiles." Place a comma before "with".
"Longmiles contribution was not included..." It's missing an apostrophe. The description "included" is awkward. "Noted" might be more appropriate.
"The artist's" → "The artists'".
"The Pussycat Dolls and Timbaland have a humorous give and take between them, highlighting the differences between the two sexes." Make it clear that this bit describes them singing to each other.
Add two subheadings in the "reception" section that separates the first paragraph, which discusses the song's critical response, and the second paragraph, which discusses its commercial performance.
"Similarly, Nick Butler from Sputnikmusic deemed the song as "another highlight track"." Remove "as".
"Lisa Haines of the BBC felt the song is great and "perfect for singing along to with a handy hairbrush"." The description "is great and" isn't necessary. Just say Haines wrote the song was "perfect...".
"A writer for Popjustice..." Just say Popjustice published the review.
"Andrew Mueller of The Guardian opined "Wait a Minute" as..." Replace "as" with "was".
"He went on to allude its lyrics to a "daytime talk show dialogue"." Replace "allude" with "compare".
Unless you can find a source to verify that the song ended up "becoming the first single from PCD not to enter the top ten; in New Zealand it became their lowest charting song", remove this entire phrase. The same goes for the suggestion that the song "achieved the group's highest peak (number three)" in Finland and how it ended up "becoming the group's lowest charting single in certain national charts".
"Timbaland joined the group at MTV New Year's Eve special, MTV Goes Gold - New Year's Eve 2007, to perform "Wait a Minute"." Remove the name of the special and just say the MTV New Year's Eve Special.
"The song was performed while the Pussycat Dolls supported Christina Aguilera's Back to Basics Tour (2007) and during their headlining Doll Domination Tour (2009)" → "The group performed the song when they supported Christina Aguilera's Back to Basics Tour (2007) and on their second tour, the Doll Domination Tour (2009)".
Provide a source to verify the CD single tracklist.
Add access dates where applicable.
Archive all archivable refs.
Remove the italicization of "PCD" from ref No. 7, as the template will do that for the album title automatically.
While the article needs a bit of copyediting, I believe it's close to meeting the GA criteria, so it is now On hold. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there MrHyacinth! Wanted to check in on how the work on the article is going. I see you haven't been active in a number of days, so I'll give this a final verdict a week upon your return. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrHyacinth: It seems your time off from editing is taking place for longer than I had anticipated, so I must fail this nomination at this time. That said, the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, so please don't hesitate to nominate it in the future once the rest of the suggested changes have been made. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 04:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: Hello! I'd like to apologize, but due to personal reasons and bad timing could not commit to the nomination! So I apologize for consuming your time and effort, which I appreciate! For sure, I'll nominated it again! MrHyacinth (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"not to enter the top ten;" → "not to enter the top 10 on either chart;" per MOS:NUM
"New Zealand it became their" → "New Zealand, it became the group's"
"highest peak (number three)," → "highest peak of number three," but no positions are displayed by the broken URL
"and top 50 in" → "and reached the top 50 in"
"becoming the group's lowest charting single in" → "becoming the Pussycat Dolls' lowest charting single on"
Release and promotion
Shouldn't be the section before reception?
Per MOS:US, keep the United States here if the section is moved before reception and change to the US in that section, but if not then do it the other way round
"its accompanying music video was" → "an accompanying music video was" with the wikilink
"in Los Angeles, California with" → "in Los Angeles, California, with"
Cite TheGATE.ca as publisher on ref 38 with the wikilink
Cite MTV News as publisher on ref 41
Cite Amazon.com as publisher on ref 44, piping to Amazon (company)
Remove pipe on Amazon.de for ref 45
Cite Amazon.com as publisher on ref 46
Only cite Magyar Hanglemezkiadók Szövetsége under publisher on ref 51
Final comments and verdict
On hold until all of the issues are fixed; this has largely improved since the first review!! --K. Peake 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey *Kyle Peake, just began editing; thanks for following up!! --MrHyacinth (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrHyacinth Thank you, you have ran through things smoothly so far besides a few points that I copyedited and one that I mentioned is still a remaining issue. --K. Peake 17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✗ Fail since it has been a month and the nominator has not even started to work on the body of this article yet. --K. Peake 10:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have twice failed to respond to prior reviews. I hope you have time to addresss the issues of this one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for reviewing the article! MrHyacinth (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the first few and last few issues from GA1 no longer remain. I'll assume that you have addressed them all.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have disagreed with the GA2 reviewer right at the point where you abandoned that review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that every fact in the WP:LEAD is a summary of what is in the main body. I.e., the main body should have at least as much detail as the LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on this one? Which part of the main body is not elaborated in the lead? MrHyacinth (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the highlight of each of the 5 main body paragraphs is in the LEAD. That seems to be the case, but I may be wrong about what is really the highlight of each paragraph.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that I have highlighted the main body in to the LEAD? Apologies, but it sounds condracting to the above comment! MrHyacinth (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is highlight/summarize the main body in the lead. Either way, nothing should be in the LEAD that does not have at least as much (and generally more) info in the main body. Read through WP:LEAD if you have questions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of both of your prior reviewers in some ways and might have been really frustrated with those reviews. Randomly looking at popular songs from popular albums it seems common to say that a single was released as the nth single from their nth studio album, XALBUMNAME, (or one or the other of those two referents) on Month Day, Year. I don't know what the prior fuss was about. I find it odd to say it was the 5th or 6th single without mentioning the album in the same sentence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I added the album name in the same sentence. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the source of the vocal range. It seems to be source 10 not 12.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. Included the correct source. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a big sheet music reader. Does it say 4 4 time somewhere?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please look in the music sheet. Please refer to Time signatureMrHyacinth (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no WP:RS for the L train, I would do a screen grab and claim fair use with a caption linked to the L train. We tend to be lax on WP:ICs in captions. That 1:09 spot seems like it would be inarguable, IMO. Not sure if this is Kosher. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are 2 Ss in the sign now that I see it clearer later around 3:16. Maybe Rosslyn station, but maybe not because that would mean filmed NYC and DC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. I could not find a source for that. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no sources for video location? Does anything at least say New York City Subway? I can understand the Rosslyn sign not being anywhere, but the subway should be mentioned, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a comment left by reader in the article that the station is acutally the North Hollywood stationMrHyacinth (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think the station was a NYC station. However, the train looked like an NYC train. So it seems they shot the station in LA and the train in NYC? Do you agree it sees to be the NYC L train?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did look like an NYC train, yes. MrHyacinth (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the venue on the aritcle. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the model of Samsung cellphone that they were promoting in that video?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's this model: link However, it does not stated explicilty it's used in this music video. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how extensively the video is written up, there should be commentary on the dancing on the car, which is a major part of the video. The logo at 2:22 and 3:15 tells you a bit about the era of the car per [1]. That sounds like OR, but maybe there are sources. It is clearly a Caddy. If you can't find anything. Just note unsourceable clear facts on the talk page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any sources, that a Cadilac is in the video. I have maxed out the internet trying to find some. Also, please note the Pussycat Dolls often have dancing in their music videos. It's nothing alien to their history. MrHyacinth (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A high percentage of music videos have dancing. A low percentage of music videos have dancing on a Cadilac.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might screengrab 3:15, if there are sources about dancing on the car and link Cadilac in the caption.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do a lot of song reviews. Is it common to leave the release history section uncited?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The release history have sources?! MrHyacinth (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can pass this at WP:WIAGA#3a without some mention of dancing on the car, since that is over a third of the video. Since she mentions Cadilac in the lyrics and the logo is clearly visible, it is important to drop that brand in the article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an award nominated video. You should feel free to expand a bit on the video, if you can source it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the song of which the video is a related subject. It is of course not the focus of the article. However, we have 4 or 5 particular identifiable elements of the video that we seem to have no sources for: 1. cellphone model prominently presented several times; 2. subway line seems to indisputably be an L train (very likely NYC); 3 subway station seems to be N Hollywood; 4 Cadilac; 5 neighborhood/intersection of the video. If I were to write a section about the video, I would want to be able to have WP:RS for these specific items. The article is about the song, so we have to deal with what we can truly source. We can't from out of nowhere show the station and train without any citations. However, if we have citations saying they performed in a subway and have enough content in the article to justify fair use for subway related images, maybe we can get slick. No mention of a car or cadilac in any source makes it tough. However, if the sources say anything encyclopedic about the dancing in the streets, this does happen on a car, which happens to be a cadilac that is mentioned in the lyrics. Maybe we have nothing we can do anything with. Maybe no screengrabs and no mention of any of these 5. It really all depends on what sourced content you include in the article that may need pictoral presentation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since, I couldn't elaborate on the music video, I never included a "music video" section. It's under the "Promotion" section. A music video is a typical tool for labels to promote their artist's song. The previous two reviewers, didn't focus what wasn't included in this article. Hence, I am quite confused why it's heavily discussed here. MrHyacinth (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to make sure we are covering the full breadth of the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I Don't Need a Man" was was promoted primarly in Europe. The lable ommited a radio release to US radios in the US, "Wait a Minute" was released to radio as the 5th single. MrHyacinth (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify this, say in territories outside the US, where I Don't Need a Man was promoted, this song was promoted....-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these sources [2] [3] anything you haven't seen. They mention the subway car.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention it. MrHyacinth (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrHyacinth, @TonyTheTiger, reminder ping. No rush, I'm just checking up on outstanding backlog drive entries. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, with no further response from the nominator (or activity elsewhere), this one can probably be closed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Done