Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Casliber (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 13 March 2016 ({{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hollaback Girl/archive1}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Kept status

[edit]

Removed status

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC) [1].

Hollaback Girl

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Hip hop

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...... ♫ Uh-huh, this is shit, the article needs cleaning up; a few times went to FAC, and it's not just gonna stay at FA, 'cause it ain't up to the standards, it ain't up to the standards ♫ :P. In all seriousness, here is how the article currently compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could be better. For example, the beginning of "Writing and inspiration" sounds like it could be for any album track from Love. Angel. Music. Baby., so it would help to specifically indicate that it is talking about this song given that the citation is titled "Road To The Grammys: The Making Of Gwen Stefani's 'Hollaback Girl'". Other instances that could be improved include "a moderately fast song" (what's that supposed to even mean?) and "solicited to radio" ("sent to radio" would probably be better).
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Not at all. The only bit the video has for critical commentary is a VH1 ranking, which doesn't seem like much for one of Stefani's best-known and most successful songs. It doesn't even mention by name what the MTV VMA nominations that she lost were. The "Critical reception" seems to rely heavily on album reviews and could use more reviews talking just about the song itself. There is also no commentary for "live performances" (even though those are currently unsourced).
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • No. In addition to having dead links, the "Live performances" and "Track listings" sections are completely unsourced. That alone is an automatic fail even for a GA. Only two of the instances listed within "In pop culture" (which doesn't seem like a very professional section title) have citations. While plot summaries oftentimes don't need to be cited, I'm not sure why "To visualize the song's bridge, the Harajuku Girls spell the word "bananas" with cue cards. The video ends with a close-up frame of Stefani with her arms in the air." is unreferenced while other parts of the music video's description is referenced. The Grammy nominations and "Pharrell Williams, one of the song's co-producers, makes a cameo appearance. The complete version of "Hollaback Girl" featured in the music video was released commercially through CD singles and digital downloads, and some include remixes by Diplo and Tony Kanal." also need to be sourced. Twitter is discouraged as a reference, ATRL is a forum (thus unreliable), and I'm pretty sure "familyguyquotes.com" is a fansite. "Nodoubtweb" isn't even affiliated with Stefani's band No Doubt (their website is actually nodoubt.com). I'm not sure what to say about "8notes", "mvdbase", or "IMCDb".
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Yes. This is free of bias.
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • Fine as far as I can tell.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. The lead fails to take into account critic's specific opinions, the music video, genres (excluding influences), or any of "the majority of the charts" for nations where it reached the top ten but didn't go number one.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Looks OK.
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • There's one bare URL (Twitter). Additionally, some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated in January 2015) while others don't. "robertchristgau.com" should be capitalized for Robert Christgau. Same for "michaelgeist.ca" with Michael Geist. Also, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • I concur here, what does a screenshot of a chord actually aid a reader who cannot read them? Visually hearing them in the sample is one thing, but we do not need a chord picture. Same goes for the music video screenshot. It is easily replaceable by words, saying that Stefani dancing atop the convertible and maybe add a free image of what a convertible looks like. —IB [ Poke ] 13:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • I don't see any excess detail.

Even though this is somewhat better than the edition that passed for FA in January 2007, it simply is not up to par and needs significant improvement in order to avoid being delisted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

  • Well, that may be your opinion. But there are plenty of featured articles out there where non-controversial information that's easily checked by looking at the primary source (the CD in the case of track listings; the book or film in the case of plot summaries) do not have citations. --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if not controversial and regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFF has (or lacks), track listings have different requirements than plot sections, especially when alternate versions and remixes exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's trivial to add citations to track listings if requested, so it's kind of a non-issue even though I disagree as well. I've seen enough album and song articles where randoms come by and change track times, personnel, etc. to where it's better to have a citation people can refer back to in a dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say you hit the nail on head Laser brain. The fact that IP users rampant come and go and change timings and track lists for these extra versions is the very reason we should add a source to them. —IB [ Poke ] 13:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Multiple issues were raised above, moving here for further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_2016&oldid=709845544"