Shame for You was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
No. Wikipedia articles are about songs, not singles, so each song should have its own article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC
Which again proves the policy to be a nonsense. There's clearly very little to say about this song outside the context of album and single, and there probably never will be. If somebody feels like it I suggest just going ahead and merging them. --kingboyk22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the song isn't notable it should be deleted, redirected or merged with the album's article. One article shouldn't be about two songs so they shouldn't be merged. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The vocal melody is loosely based on a horn line of a Jackie Mittoo song titled “Loving You” off the album Evening Time." Poorly worded. There seems to be quite a bit of close wording, bordering on plagiarism in the Background section to this source. While I can give you specifics, you urgently need to reword that into your own wording.
While I am not ruling out the possibility of this article eventually becoming a Good Article, this is quite a way from the mark. The shortness, the plagiarism and the overall lack of quality force me to fail this, rather than waiting for significant improvement. My suggestion would be to work with a few experienced editors from WP:MUSIC, and get the article peer reviewed. \Backslash Forwardslash/ (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have at least waited until I cleared things up. I re-wrote the "plagiarism" (for one sentence, really?), but there is no expansion. Have you read the entire article? There is no more info on this song. It was only released as an A-side to the real single in one country... and charted poorly. Also, while reviewing the album, reviewers kept avoiding this song. Tell me, what more could there be added? I already wrote two other GAs on songs. I know how it works. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still there. "Lyrically, the song has a "nice-then-naughty approach" and a vindictive streak that belies the sugarcoated sounds around it, while she revels in being the one that got away from her ex-boyfriend." and "However, Allen attempts to set herself apart from the likes of Rachel Stevens, Natasha Bedingfield, and Girls Aloud with a cheeky, (mostly) amusing vindictive streak in her lyrics that belies the sugarcoated sounds around them. You know exactly what she means when she says her ex is "not big whatsoever" on "Not Big"; later, she revels in being the one that got away on "Shame for You." However, this nice-then-naughty approach is at its best on Alright, Still's singles, which open the album in a one-two-three punch."
I failed because there is little possibility of the article making GA, even if the review was placed on hold. It isn't a matter of what could be added, it's about what should be added. A separate lyrics section, separating the Critical and Commercial Sections and expanding both, and certainly have a section made up of more than quotes. If there isn't enough information out there, then the article may have to be merged, or you should consider making this the best possible article while being aware that it's not able to get to GA status. The main issues are going to be passing criterion 3, and I just don't see how you can improve that given your admission of a shortage of sources. \Backslash Forwardslash/ (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
