Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lion Sleeps Tonight/archive1: Difference between revisions

The Lion Sleeps Tonight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 2 December 2025, 15:46 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

Nominator(s): DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following a successful GAN process thanks to Chiswick Chap, I feel this article is ready for featured article status. “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” has a troubled history and is not as shallow as the Tokens’ lyrics suggest.
Interestingly, lions neither sleep at night nor live in the jungle. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First thing: While their first two records struggled, the third would bear fruit — what first two records? I also feel “bear fruit” is too informal in tone. More to come. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that sentence; see if it’s to your liking. Look forward to hearing from you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that reads better now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Avoid sandwiching text between images/templates

• File:Solomon-linda.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?

• The article contains a large number of non-free media files – the more that are included, the stronger the rationale required for each. At the moment several files are claimed to be serving the same purpose and have essentially identical FURs

• File:Mbube_(Singer_GE_829).jpg: what is the author’s date of death?

• File:Timon_and_Pumbaa_singing_”The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight”_in_the_Lion_King.png: what is the benefit of this image?

Thank you @Nikkimaria for the rigorous review, as always. I’ll go through these one by one.

1. The only image with a fixed size is the thumbnail, which I have enlargened as the original file is too small. Is there any way I can fix this without altering the px size?

2. I have aligned all media files to the right, so this should be fixed.

3. The original file, “Solomon Linda’s Original Evening Birds (1941)” has an unknown author and is not copyrighted. Therefore, as it was published between 1930 and 1977, it should be free use.

4. I have altered many of the fair use rationales. Some are very similar precisely because they serve the same purpose: they are images of song sleeves included in infoboxes.

5. The image has been replaced.

6. The section on the song’s legal issues is very wordy and I couldn’t find any free helpful illustrations of the matter at hand. I figured including a frame of the scene of the Lion King film, which sparked much of the legal turmoil, would be suitable.

7. I have added some detail to the fair use rationale. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You can scale image size relative to user preferences using |upright= – see MOS:UPRIGHT. (3) How do you know it’s not copyrighted? (4) The specific FUR that’s being copied references the main infobox at the top of the article – these aren’t that. (6) Particularly since this image is non-free, we’d be looking for a reason why the image contributes to reader understanding, not just that it illustrates the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Should be resolved: I’ve used the |upright template, which works fine.

4) I’ve altered them.

6) That image has been removed.

3) Left this for last because it’s quite complicated. I don’t think the image is copyrighted because all the sources I could find that use it don’t indicate that it’s copyrighted. A 2023 Guardian article does not credit the image to anyone, whereas it does so with another image. Similarly, a 2019 Rolling Stone article marks the image as public domain, and credits another one next to it. In his 1991 book African Stars (p. 166), Erlmann does not credit the image to anyone, while he does so with some other images (see, e.g., p. 144). However, in his later book Nightsong, he writes in the image caption, “Courtesy Veit Erlmann.” He certainly did not compose the image, as he wasn’t born yet, but he could have purchased the rights to it, although this is extremely unlikely. All in all, there are no probable signs of this image being owned by anyone or ever having been owned by anyone. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. Will get to this next week. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• General note on ALT text: it should include actual descriptions of the covers and what is shown on them. To be consistent, also include alt texts to the other pictures in the article
• in 1939; it was first published as “Mbube”.[a] It made its way -> better flow: “in 1939. it was first published as “Mbube[a] and made its way”
• Lead could use a brief info on which country the song was published in before it was available in the US
• it became the subject of publicised -> it became the subject of a publicised
• The lead seems a little unfocused to me. I would first mention everything about Linda’s version (when it was composed, released and its background). Then I would mention its first crossover to the US via the Weavers. Then everything about the Tokens version. And then finally the bit about the lawsuit and the song’s legacy.
• Also, I would first refer to the song as “Mbube” in the lead. Then once we reach the bit where we discuss its crossover in the US, I would mention its new title, “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”, and how this would become the predominant title used to refer to the song
• “immortal pop epiphany” -> paraphrase this. Otherwise we would need a ref and it’s generally not recommended to use refs in the lead.
• Lead image > include (left) and (right) after Linda and the Tokens, respectively
• quickly grew a following -> I would specify that it was a local following
• they achieved their breakthrough -> I wouldn’t use this wording. I would rather only say that that was the session that yielded “Mbube”
• The melody contains three chords -> this is technically incorect since a melody cannot contain chords. Do you mean that the whole song is built over three chords?
• The journalist Sharon LaFraniere -> “The” is superfluous
• In the South African author Rian Malan’s -> same as above
• out into a brief howl, “a haunting skein of fifteen notes.” -> a quote is always to be attributed to someone
• This would later become the melodic basis for “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” -> briefly mention what “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” is (since every new concept needs to be introduced both in the lead and the article’s body)
• Audio samples are always to be used to show a specific detail of the song. Include in the sample description what the sample is supposed to show us about the song (same with the other audio sample in this article)
• he chorus “wembube”[e] is repeated throughout -> “… throughout the song”
• and the music historian Veit Erlmann goes as far as to imply that the main body “displays only a few features which can be said to be rooted in traditional performance practice.” -> with music historian Veit Erlmann implying that the track’s structure “displays…”
• In fact, Linda had followed the American Virginia Jubilee Singers during his childhood.[31] -> Does the publication connect this fact to “Mbube” borrowing from Western influences?
• argues the journalist Lior Phillips -> same as above. I will not mention cases like this one anymore, but I would recommend fixing the rest in the article.
• stemming from “elements of Zulu traditional music … rehearsed and performed after hours in migrant workers’ hostels” -> quote without attribution. As with the above point, please check yourself for other examples like this throughout the article.
• “monumental” is a somewhat unencyclopedic word; maybe replace with “widespread”
• a court would, by 2006, deem this deal unfair -> which court? where was it?
• remaining prominent till their dying days -> an unecyclopedic wording. Do you mean until they disbanded?
• Isicathamiya doesn’t need to be in italics throughout the article. Genres are generally not italicized
• What I notice is that the article is not quite following the traditional stucture of articles about songs and this needs some adjustment. First of all, the infobox of “Mbube” needs to be included in the lead (since this is the original recording). Remove the double picture of Linda and the Tokens from the lead and transfer each individual picture to the fitting place in the article.
• The sections of this article need somewhat of a restructure (take my own “Dragostea din tei” as an example). What I would suggest is:

Lead

Background and release

• all info about Linda’s background (and life during and after the song’s release and success), the song’s recording and its release

Composition

• Everything about how critics described the song’s composition

Reception

• Commercial success of the song
• Critical commentary on the song

The Weavers version

• all info about their version
• insert an infobox on their version here (including a cover artwork if it received a physical release)

Charts

• The chart table of their version

The Tokens version

• everything about their version is coming here plus the infobox on their version

Charts

• The chart table of their version

Further use in popular media

• Everything on other versions of the song released, as well as on these songs’ usage in media
• Each other cover that charted should receive its own subsection here
• Also mention the song’s usage in The Lion King, but spare the bit about legal conflicts for the following section

Legal issues

• Everything regarding the legal issues needs to go in here

Legacy

• Everything on the song’s legacy should go in here

I have finished looking at this very interesting article. Sadly, I can’t support its promotion to FA in this state. There are some bigger issues with its atypical structure compared to other articles about songs and with the way it is written, which comes across as a little unecyclopedic at times (I stopped commenting on wording after a certain point). However, please don’t feel discouraged. I would get the article copy-edited and rewrite and restructure it in accordance to other music FAs, such as “S&M” or my own “Dragostea din tei“. I’d be happy to comment on the article again once it gets a little more polished. Feel free to ask questions if you have any. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a song with such an unconventional, complex history really comparable to the songs you link with a much more straight ahead history? Should be wiggle-room for structural differences accordingly either way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes. It still is a song with a huge legacy that received a conventional physical release and that inspired many covers. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cartoon network freak, thanks for your feedback. I have already begun reorganizing the article and rewriting some sections. More work needs to be done. However, for starters, do you think it’s headed in the right direction? DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, totally. You’ve done a great job in adjusting the structure. Here are some other general fixes I think would be helpful:

• The image captions don’t necessarily need to be centered.
• The articles included in “See also” should typically be relevant to the topic, however only [[1]], and they shouldn’t things already widely discussed upon in the respective section. In “Background and release”, I would remove “Solomon Linda§Life” and “Iscathamiya” since someone’s life or a genre aren’t things that are typically linked in “see also”. The same goes for “The Weavers” and “The Tokens” in the sections about their covers, as well as for “A Lion’s Trail” in “Reaction”, “Copyright infringement” in “Early conflict”, “The Lion King” in “The Lion King” and “Black Is King” in “Legacy”.
• The section “The Weavers’ version” should be “The Weavers version”, and the same goes for The Tokens
• “Charts performance” should be just “Charts” and the Certifications should be their own subsection (fixed that throughout the article)
• The certification tables also need to be adjusted (see “Dragostea din tei” as an example). I might help with this later if I find the time
• The “Reaction” section doesn’t fit in the section about the commercial use. I would rather rename the “Legal issues” section into “Controversies and legal issues” and include that bit there, after “Early conflict” into its separate subsection.

This is it for now. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyRogers800: I have updated the certification tables. For Karl Denver, The Hounds and R.E.M.’s covers of the song, I’d create an extra subsection called something like “Other” and insert a table like this one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FM

• First batch of comments, will continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input, FunkMonk. Most issues should be resolved. Regarding the footnotes… they do seem to appear in alphabetical order, but some are duplicated, which causes the letter to remain unchanged. So, if footnote a (the first in the article) recurs after footnote c, it will still display as footnote a. As for your final point, we’ll need secondary sources discussing the use of “Mbube” or “Lion” in films. Otherwise it would qualify as original research. That being said, I do agree that the use of “Mbube” in Coming to America is notable, but I haven’t yet found a seconday source mentioning it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the rest of the article. By the way, it is easier to follow what has been fixed and how if you reply under individual points and write “done” or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve carried out most of your proposed changes. However, in light of Cartoon network freak‘s suggestions, I think some work and reorganization best done outside FAC is required. Therefore, I would like to withdraw this article from FAC, for now. Thank you for your prose review. DannyRogers800 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just ping me when it’s renominated! FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s a bunch of WP:duplinks which can be highlighted with this script:[2]

• Link Solomon Linda and any other terms at first mention in the article body.

• The footnotes strangely seem to be listed out of alphabetical order in the article, any reason for this? Otherwise it might be something to fix.

• “a court would later deem this deal unfair” could we already here get the year for context?

• ‘”before a Decca employee, Alan Lomax, salvaged them” perhaps worth noting Lomax was interested in ethnic music? Now it reads like he was any random employee, but this is actually what he’s famous for.

• “Gallo sold “Mbube” to The Richmond Organization” state the nationality of the company for context.

• Perhaps mention a few of the films it was used in? I remember it from the beginning of Coming to America, for example…

• “Miriam Makeba performed “Mbube” at President John F. Kennedy’s birthday” give year?

• “and produce many soundtrack CDs.” Produced?

• “had been sent made since the 1950s” something wrong here.

• Link royalties at first mention in intro and article body.

• Looks like the Karl Denver section is incomplete, as are some about The Hounds and R.E.M. versions? But that leads me to wonder on what basis some covers have been selected for elaboration and others not? Also, having maintenance tags like in the Karl Denver section is an instant fail criterion, so should be sorted out as quickly as possible.

• “the rights to song reverted to” revert?

• “covered in the 2019 Netflix film” should probably specify it’s a documentary.

• “More than thirteen movies sample it” and “had played a role in more than thirteen movies” repetition, could be consolidated.

• “owner of his parent record company” WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, and it won’t cost many extra letters to just spell out the company’s name here.

• “then long deceased” could we get the year? Won’t cost extra letters.

• It seems some of the reworking might have introduced some more unnecessary duplinks, including falsetto and doo-wop.