# Talk:Untitled (How Does It Feel)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Untitled (How Does It Feel)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. The article is very good. I have one question. 

Did you follow these guidelines: Wikipedia:Music samples? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes.
Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written  b (MoS): Follows MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context  b (focused): Remains focused on subject 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This is an excellent article. Congradulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most would not have noticed it, but it is largely a work of art in that D'Angelo is noticeably insecure, and seemingly immature in the initial zoom-out, but any such thoughts from viewers are self-condemning when his back turns on the camera during the spin-around.  As he removes himself from the threat of the camera, and the choir of his own voice comes to reassure him of his worth, he faces the world through a lens with a brilliant display of power and comfort, seeming to vindicate every sin he's ever committed.  The amount of self-confidence the man seems to have possessed in that moment truly strips him naked, and we see who D'Angelo, nay, we see who we all truly are.

I've tried to fix two incorrect things about the article, but the changes I made were reverted despite being obvious for anyone who is watching the music video. The cited sources are quite obviously wrong. The pajama pants are clearly visible in the first half of the video at 1:16 (contrary to the section that claims they aren't visible), and the video is NOT a one shot, as anyone who watches it can see there is a transition at 2:05 (unless someone here knows how to make a full body sweat appear literally out of nowhere). Please watch the video on YouTube and see those two time stamps that will disprove the original parts of this article, then re-admit my changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.135.97 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I watched the video and I failed to see clear visibility of the pajama pants. Also, the appearance of sweat as the camera pans further down his torso around 2:05 does not prove a second shot was done. We do not know it is real sweat. Again, you need to cite a reliable source that verifies your claims (WP:V). That is how this site works. Lastly, please sign your messages by ending them with four tildes (~~~~). isento (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Well you can clearly see the side of brown sweat pants on his right hip and a pants loop above his left hip at 1:16, I'm not sure how you're unable to see that when it's clearly there, maybe look at it on a larger monitor? With regards to the one-shot vs. second shot, the sweat on his chest literally materializes out of thin air, that's also clearly visible to anyone watching - look at 2:03 versus 2:04 and you'll see it just appears and there's quite clearly some image manipulation to fade it from a dry chest to a sweaty one. It's not a matter of having sources, but the cited sources being *clearly* wrong, or mistaken. I'm not going to have a source for these things, but for the obviously incorrect articles getting precedent over reality is pretty weak. It's on you whether or not you want to leave incorrect information up on the wiki just because sources exist for it, I suppose. 73.96.135.97 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Marcus

There is a sliver of something visible at the bottom edge of the video. That is not clear visibility of pajama bottoms. The pajamas, for all intents and purposes, are not visible. You keep throwing around phrases like "clearly wrong" and "obviously incorrect" while offering merely your own perception of the video and speculation as to how or why something appears the way it does. isento (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn't my perception, these are plain facts that contradict what is incorrectly written in this article, but I guess until I get something published somewhere that says the opposite to cite as a source, no one will accept it, or until I get those same articles to refute and admit their errors no one will do anything. It's weird to see wikipedia mods so intent on keeping extremely questionable things in these articles so valiantly. If these weren't as obvious as they are I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up, and while my extreme doubts don't carry any weight, I would hope that at least others would see the same things and remove the offending claims in those articles. Godspeed. Marcuselden (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Marcus
You're just repeating yourself more verbosely. Godspeed. isento (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Back again. From the mouth of the director of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F46D0LLM-og (1:54 timestamp) To be proven correct is the sweetest, no? Congratulations on standing up for the obviously incorrect information in the article I guess, isento, and enjoy editing it. Ha. Marcuselden (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MarcusElden
Congratulations on taking three weeks to find this and tell me so. Maybe I'll take a few weeks myself to get around to adding this... isento (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep after watching a YouTube interview about Questlove's drumming on the Brown Sugar album I was recommended this behind the scenes video by the algorithm and was surprised to see this interview with the director. Don't be so into yourself to think I was scouring the internet for the past three weeks in a frantic mission to prove you wrong my guy, you're not that important - much like you're not that good of a wikipedia moderator. I'll drop back in another three weeks to see if you've pathetically refused to edit the article out of spite for being so pedantic and forthright about this (now proven) obviously wrong information. I'm sure the wikipedia admins will love to hear that you've intentionally kept wrong information and misinformed readers because you got shown up too, right? Namaste. Marcuselden (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MarcusElden

I edited the article last night using the reference you provided. It was your responsibility to find the reference to support your changes. This policy goes by many names here – WP:PROVEIT, WP:BURDEN – and is summed up by the following: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" Or, in other words, be an adult?... Anyway, glad this is done with and I don't have to deal with your insidious smugness anymore, hopefully. Thanks for providing this incredibly important information for which none of us on planet Earth could have survived the day without! The incredible value of this information to humanity completely justifies your smug and condescending attitude and disregard for civil standards of communication! isento (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, great, thanks for doing that. Glad I was able to show you the source that proved I was right, as I said. For a second I was worried that you were a pedantic know-nothing who refused to trust his own eyes over keeping the claims of an unverified source that was clearly incorrect in this article, as well as being a wanna-be bully who then cowardly doesn't follow up on their threats to make this site intentionally worse as a backhand when you get dunked on. Also thank you for clearly stating that you rightfully think that this article is just as important as any other on the site and you're not being some elitist who thinks that being correct doesn't matter if it's a small point, because you think historical truth doesn't matter on an encyclopedia. Clearly you are the adult in the room. Cheers. Marcuselden (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Marcus

Wow, has it already been three weeks?... Yes, you appear to have more visual intelligence than social intelligence, as that all sounds pretty fucking stupid. And you're welcome. isento (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Really though, buddy, you were way too intense from the start about this. If a reliable source can make the same honest mistake as I can, and as anyone else who visited this article for years and didn't bring this up, maybe you should confront edit disputes with a more forgiving attitude. Even the director thought it not-obvious-enough to have to explain it. Professional writers like Adam Bradley made the same mistake ([1]), as did several news sources, scholars, etc. It is, as one of those scholarly sources says, "essentially" a one-shot video. I just bothered to look up what shot (filmmaking) means, and this video does fit the second meaning listed there: "In film editing, a shot is the continuous footage or sequence between two edits or cuts". I have had other projects on this site, so I didn't necessarily examine this topic as ardently as you did. But now that I have, it appears the information was not "clearly incorrect". This is not a black and white issue, and a discrepancy between what reliable sources say and what we think is correct usually suggests some nuance is required. Anyway, always keep cool in editorial discussions, remember to prove it in accordance with our guidelines and policies, and never assume you're right from the start, as we all have our blind spots. I'll post a welcome guide to your page with some links as a better intro to this site. isento (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Just was reminded of this and had to come back and laugh. Another good one was "Yes, you appear to have more visual intelligence than social intelligence, as that all sounds pretty fucking stupid. And you're welcome." followed an hour later by "Anyway, always keep cool in editorial discussions". Top notch stuff. 73.240.55.117 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Marcus
Back again nearly 3 years later to remember how terrible this know-nothing editor was. Really great stuff, but in the end I was objectively correct, with sources, and he was being intentional obtuse to try and be a heroic denialist for its own sake instead of the sake of truth and factuality - but failed. Now it appears he renamed (likely in disgrace, and to run from his record) around a month after this talk section began, and then appears to have had his account deleted in 2022. The system works, and good riddance to bad editors! Marcuselden (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Marcus
All of life is cycles. Hence, you coming back... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 02:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

True. It's a shame this video isn't a cycle, as in one shot. But then again, anyone could have seen that if they just turned their brain on and acted like a normal person... 73.240.55.117 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Normal people tend to resort to insults when they can't intelligently defend their positions or respond to counterpositions in an argument. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Not very chill of you to speak about isento like that. Then again, most normal people tend to turn their brain and eyes on too when they're awake during the day and use common sense, so maybe you've got a point. 73.240.55.117 (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)