Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

Cool (song)

Self-nom. Originally abandoned to the seagulls, I decided that this single had potential for featured article. "Cool" is a song with a message of a past relationship that ended up resulting in an interesting way. Although it did not perform unbelievably well on the charts, it had fair success worldwide, and is notable for all of these reasons. It has been through peer review, which went well, and has brought us to this. The rest is up to you. --Winnermario 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great song, great article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a bit more (if possible), though. Everyking 21:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing work. I'd love to see this become a featured article. --DrippingInk 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that's certainly complete! You've got my vote! 201.137.188.56 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection. Format references in APA format, with author, publisher, year, place of publication, and (where applicable) page. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. --FuriousFreddy 00:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • References have been formatted the same way they are in the "Yesterday (song)" article. --Winnermario 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Yesterday" became an FA over a year ago, during which time the rules have evolved. At the very least, you should place authors and publishing dates of sources which were not used to find statistical data. --FuriousFreddy 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very very cool article :p OmegaWikipedia 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - It's good, but I don't think it's quite there. The writing style is awkward in places - a mixture of short choppy sentences, along with some long, poorly structured sentences. I think that will be easy to fix. Try reading the article out loud and the problem areas should identify themselves. If it doesn't flow absolutely smoothly when you read it - rewrite the sentence, and keep rewriting it until it does flow absolutely smoothly. The musical style is barely discussed and needs to be expanded, and critical comments/review comments would help achieve this. A sample would help greatly - I'll add one if you like. If using "Fair Use" images you need to provide a rationale as per Wikipedia:Image description page and there are too many screenshots. Use only what you absolutely must use. Select the best and delete the rest. They need to add significantly to the text, and not merely be decorative. I'm not sure about quoting song lyrics. I would say it's in violation of copyright and it does not seem to be essential to the article. I would remove them. Minor points - Stefani's "ex". Used several times. "Ex" is unencyclopedic/colloquial and should be replaced. Also the bit about Itunes "for reasons unknown"... that's not exactly true. I'm sure someone knows the reasons, it's just that you and I don't. Surely the sentence could stand on its own as a fact without the "for reasons unknown" which has the odd effect of making the comment irrelevant. Finally a complete copyedit is needed as there are typos and spelling mistakes. Rossrs 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object It's well illustrated and energetically written. (In some places it needs more work: for example, I really don't understand the sentence "Cool" being written close to ten years after "Don't Speak" is seen as an appropriate gap between the two pennings.) However, it seems to me to suffer from the defects of many articles about pop songs: (i) Virtually all of the introductory section is about chart performance. If the song is worth a longish article, the introduction should surely indicate how this is so. The mere facts that this is single number X by a certain singer and did so-and-so in the charts seem feeble. (ii) The first section is "Song information". But wait: This is an encyclopedia article about a song; surely we expect that an encyclopedia article about a song should give us information about the song, aka "song information". Perhaps this is just a matter of titling: could this be retitled "Composition and instrumentation"? (iii) "Chart performance" is hugely bloated. The song did pretty well, presumably well enough to keep the record company, singer, fans, etc., all happy. Does anyone need to know so very, very much more? And note that we don't just learn what happened: we also read what (unnamed) critics "assumed" would happen, and how they were "proved wrong". If popularity (relative to that of other songs that the record companies cared to promote at the same time) warrants ten or more times the verbiage that's expended on the music, this does rather suggest that this is an almost purely commercial product, more akin to (say) a brand of candy-bar than to, uh, something by Verdi for example. (iv) Billboard is not part of the "World". (v) Two tables have a superfluous column: We read "2005" in every single cell. (For points (iv) and (v), see my thwarted attempt at a discussion here.) (vi) If "Chart trajectory" isn't mere fancruft, what is it? (Is this trivia really supposed to be "encyclopedic"?) -- Hoary 11:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Some of the sentences seem awkardly worded (The lyrics of "Cool" describe a failed relationship that did not result tragically) and I, like Hoary, don't understand the one about a gap between pennings. I'd like to see the lead describe the nature of the song and its genre - for all I know from the lead this is jazz or country music. Perhaps some of the chart position information could be removed from the lead instead. I have never heard this song, never (as far as I remember) heard of this singer and the article doesn't tell me much about what kind of music this is. I don't mind the chart information or even the chart trajectory tables - I'd just like some more musical information as well. Oh, and the tables have some superfluous columns - better fix that too. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The lead needs work. Is a chart peak of #13 really the most significant thing about this song?
  2. Too much detail on chart performance, and not enough on the song itself.
  3. The "US" and "World" chart listings shouldn't be separate.
  4. References section needs proper formatting.
  5. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest reducing it to the album cover, Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg, and one representative screen capture from the music video.
  6. No source information or fair-use rationales on any of the images. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 19:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • • Rossrs, Hoary, Haukurth, Carnildo are all objecting for inappropriate reasons. First and foremost, Hoary has been following myself and other editors around the site with the pop music articles. The problem is that he (and some others) don't like what we're doing. A chart trajectory is not fancruft because it is extremely encyclopedic. If a person wants the trajectory for a song, it's right here in the article. Also, the images are all self-created images, and are all fair use as per User:OmegaWikipedia. The previous images that were added to the section were also all fair use, as they came from Gwen Stefani fan websites. Another problem here are the charts. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the charts should be separate or unified, and it appears that Hoary is objecting because the style is not in his preference. This is unacceptable and he should not be using this reason against the article's nomination. These issues have been brought up before with Hoary and others, but they have failed to process our side and story, and retreat to their own. Also, the infobox clearly states that the song is of the pop genre. --Winnermario 20:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very, very good. This is certainly one of my favourite songs and articles. Also, if I may comment on the way charts are formatted: does it really matter? The case is small, and should be resolved quite easily. Anyhow, I vote support. -64.231.70.46 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)