Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Hollaback Girl

I decided to clear out this nom and start it over with a clean slate. It has changed significantly since it was first nominated (so I'm not sure which objections are still applicable). In addition, there were several objections I found inactionable. The old nomination can be found here. Raul654 09:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Remark: "It is cited as the musical descendant of Toni Basil's single 'Mickey'" is painfully over-erudite for an article about a pop song. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right. I made a change for clarity (of course, not just because it's a "pop song"). --Tsavage 19:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Remark - Wouldn't it be more constructive to refactor the original nomination, rather than remove it entirely? The inactionable, and the protracted sidebar conversations, could go. The central objections, mine, at least, still stand (or would have been amended if they were still here), as the article has only changed in terms of the objections (a significant part of that due to changes I've made, in response to my own objections). This seems like wiping the slate clean to avoid dealing with the process as it's unfolding (although, I don't know anything of the history of FAC...maybe this is normal?). --Tsavage 19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've done this before. It's unusual but not without precedent. Raul654 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've not commented on an FAC for a song before, but here's a point, and I think it applies to many Wikipedia articles of this nature. The critical reaction section of the article only mentions a few online pop websites and maxim. Now, of course I respect Allmusic, I use it all the time. But, say in the UK, no one really cares that much about what websites say, compared to the specialist music press. I'd much rather see reviews quoted from NME, Q Magazine, and other US publications, like Rolling Stone. I've written a few new articles on some computer games, and where possible, I try to reference print magazines over things like gamespot and IGN. I know it's a lot harder to reference print reviews, but in my eyes, they are more established, professional and respected in the music world. - Hahnchen 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree 100%. That was exactly on my mind, but (as I maybe do too ofen), I deferred to my possible ignorance, figuring maybe Pitchfork, et al, were pretty well central these days. In the old days, (circa 1999-2000, I guess), it was still about (in the English-reading world), in the US, Rolling Stone, Spin, maybe Village Voice, and some big paper critics as the mainstream first line of music crit (for better or for worse). And in the much more print-oriented (and, um, literate?) UK, NME, Melody Maker, Q, Record Mirror (RM), etc, were the first to turn too. And then, there were always a few high-profile "underground" titles of the moment that generally had very relevant critical comments for their time. And yes, for all that is available on the free Web, I think if the editors don't have personal, first-hand knowledge to inform their research and synthesis (e.g. here, about, the music industry, music production, entertainment media, etc), it's hard to construct something really in-depth, to a Featured level compared to the many generally solid and informative articles on Wikipedia, from readily available online sources only. Case in point, omitting the remix history for a contemporary pop hit where remixes are available creates a major hole in the coverage, but someone who doesn't have an idea of the industry and subculture aspects of modern big label 12" remixes could easily not see this, as the broadcast edits of song and video would seem to be the "important" aspects. If each new FA reestablishes the standards, then I guess this is an attempt to establish a higher one for songs to come. (I dunno why I've become so attached to this one FAC, maybe its the sudden cold snap that's keeping me from the fields...) --Tsavage 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is already featured-worthy. --DrippingInk 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't personally care about where the review comes from. All that matters is that the song was critiqued, and was published. The point about the remixes and such is somewhat true and somewhat false, although I really have no idea what to do about its presence in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 21:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it's not a major point, and there is already a lot of information on the article. But I would just prefer more in depth coverage from established music publications. I know it's more difficult to find for a single, as they are rarely published online, but something like referencing some of the magazines as mentioned above would mean the article would have some unique information not found elsewhere on the web. - Hahnchen 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I see, I see; you're absolutely right. --Hollow Wilerding 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I hate the song, but this is a remarkably thorough article. Mareino 21:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - After the recent changes, I'm close to supporting, except for these specifics:
  • The recent reversion of chart position notation from numeric (#1, #82, etc), to written out number-one, number eighty-two reduces readability and should be reverted. I don't know if there's Wikipedia style guide guidance for this, but the using numerals for positions is quite common, and employed elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  • Please see any other mainstream music artist: Kelly Clarkson, Mariah Carey, Green Day, Avril Lavigne, Madonna, and their accompanying singles. You will see that the chart positions are written out in standard English, and not numerically. Chart positions in Cool (song)—which is featured today!—are also written in standard English. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You're picking your references. There's no consistency on this in Wikipedia. The Billboard Hot 100 article uses both, FA "Layla" uses numbers (#27), and so on... Billboard itself uses "No. 1". I'm suggesting that, in a dense chart data section, the abbreviated, easy-to-read format makes sense. "#88 with a bullet" vs "number eighty-eight with a bullet". No. 88 is OK, too. (BTW, reverting w/o comment is kinda rude.) --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Some singles articles have it typed one way, while some the other. I don't see what the fuss is all about. I'd prefer it to be typed in standard English because "#1" or whatever suddenly throws the reader off into a world of numbers before resetting in English again. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Setting aside the issue of consistency across Wikipedia, my point here is not to push for My Favorite Format, it relates directly to the issue of the long, unrelenting Chart performance section (addressed below). This is a reference article. Try this: scan the section and locate number eighteen and number four, and so on. Try it with #18 and #4. It's readability, or scannability, whatever. Anyhow, IF you deal with the other chart performance issue below, I'll drop this point, as really, it is WHATEVER as far as a standard format... ;) --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't plan on changing it, though. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I made the changes, at least, in the Chart perfomance section, and you summarily reverted them. Again, I believe I'm working within the process -- this objectinon is directly based on the amount of chart data included (and not a personal format preference), which as I've noted below is excessive for the info it contains. As it stands, "Chart performance" accounts for 25% of the article by word count, and most of that is US straight Billboard data. I find that unbalanced, most of it could be summed up in a paragraph or a simple footnoted list; one step would be to at least make that stuff readable. --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the "#1" style should be avoided because it will not be understood by many non-U.S. readers. If Billboard use "No.", then that would be a good choice, since it is more widely understood. (I would agree, by the way, that numbers should be used in preference to text for chart placement data.) — Haeleth Talk 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Remixes section should be in the main body of the article, not appended to the lists and stats section. (If there is a convincing reason why the Remixes are not a part of the general production and promotion story, I'll strike this objection.)
  • Well how about due to the fact that remixes after often materialized after the release of the single? A single is never produced alongside its promotion. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That is totally incorrect. Remixes can and do appear before, at the same time, or after a radio single is released. A remix may even be the "primary" single as far as play or publicity. If for editorial guidelines a "reference version" of songs had to be defined, there's a good argument for LP/EP version over the radio single (for one, since the radio edit--and music vid--tend to have profanity excised). Parallel example in film: if there are major differences in, say, US and Euro releases, do you pick one and footnote the other, or cover all the versions as part of the main article? --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough; remixes will be placed in the body of the article then. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Struck. --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Critical Response should be more representative of the music media. If it is meant to portray the fact that critics had diverging opinions, then this material should be otherwise presented. Some of the major music media response has to be included, such as Rolling Stone, NME, etc (see previous comment), at least a couple to augment the current selection. Considering the chart section deals with millions of units and radio and video impressions, the media coverage covered should represent the same scope.
  • I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it more thoroughly? --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's kind of apples and oranges. Hollaback is a Big Hit. Critical Response should therefore at least include Big Media: Rolling Stone, Vibe, MTV, whatever, critical response from the media that presumably reach the same mass numbers that the song racked up in sales and airplay. Otherwise, a selection of quotes from college newspaper critics, for example, would be just as appropriate as Pitchfork and AMG (they're published, often well-written and well-circulated). And it's not online-offline, it's size and stature that should be relative to be representative. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. A review is a review. Whether it's big media or small media, it's the same can of worms. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's preposterous. Think about it... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, it's the same can of worms, the same field, the same thing: just a bunch of reviews. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tsavange on this one - a review on Joe-Nobody's blog does not have the same weight as a review in Rolling Stones does. A request to use more mainstream, weighty sources is a totally reasonable (if difficult to fulfill) one. Raul654 10:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well you might be in charge of this FAC, Raul654, but just because you've made a comment doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly change my mind. --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but if you are going to be obstinate about the constructive criticism you are being given, then it sort of defeats the purpose of having your article reviewed. Raul654 02:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • However, like I've stated above, a review is a review: it doesn't matter if the source is not well known, because the result is going either be good or bad. I don't see the reason to include one musical source if another one is going to be excluded; I hope the article nomination does not fail because of this reason — that would be faulty generalization. --Hollow Wilerding 00:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Music Video section needs a bit more detail, at least the video director's name, and the shooting location (town or city). If this section is to be as long and prominent, it should match the length with depth.
  • I've addressed your objections, however I cannot locate the city or town the music video was shot in. The only information I knew about its filming whereabouts was the state of California. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Objection satisfied. --Tsavage 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Chart Performance section is padded with irrelevant info, and needs a good edit:
Please note: Forcing all of this detailed explanation (below) may obscure the core objection for some (it's directly above), or make it/me seem overly picky or "against" this FA for personal reasons. I hesitate to think it's a tactic. The items below are examples, not a strike list. The fundamental problem is a section that takes up 25% of the article (a third if the redundant Charts section is included), while focussing primarily on US Billboard charts (the article summary states this is "an international success"). There is some notable, interesting info, like breaking the million download mark, but all of that can be expressed MUCH more succinctly. The peak position and trajectory data is also repeated in the Charts section. And much of it is so fleeting in nature, it is difficult to decide what couldn't be included here: e.g. fastest-rising single on the chart in 2005, as of when? still? we're IN 2005. IMO, basic editorial perspective and judgement needs to be exercised, to put this in line with the rest of the article. --Tsavage 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. It is US-centric; too much Billboard, too little rest of the world.
  2. Why references to Mariah Carey and Kelly Clarkson, etc. In the case of breaking someone's record, maybe, but even there, the stuff considered here is changing monthly, annually. And I don't get the point of noting which song replaced which, and only arbitrarily (why what replaced Hollaback, but not what Hollaback replaced...?)
  3. Why the reference to the ARC Weekly chart? It more or less says: In case you don't trust Billboard, here's another chart that says the same thing? Not justified.
Overall, I understand and support the value of a thorough section for chart fanatics, but this isn't it, this is mainly a lot of words about a bunch of Billboard charts and should be edited down accordingly.
  • Why not list what songs replaced it? Why not list what records it broke, what records it didn't break, etc.? Also, most of what is written just comments on the song's that exceeded its time at the number-one position, and cannot be replaced monthly, annually, whatever. And why not mention the ARC Weekly Top 40? It's just another chart; we're not attempting to ask users to visit the website if they find Billboard is in a minority. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, what kind of reply is that? It doesn't address anything specific in the objecton. For example, what is the purpose of stuff like this, how does it further comprehensiveness, usefulness, interest value?:
  • It maintained the position for four weeks before being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, "We Belong Together".
  • It's comprehensive because the song replaced it at the top position. Had the song peaked at number two, then the point would be irrelevant. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then isn't it just as important/interesting/"comprehensive" to know what song Hollaback replaced to make it to number-one? --Tsavage 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it perfectly acceptable. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For the week ending 29 October 2005, "Hollaback Girl" slid off the Hot 100, along with Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone". Although "Hollaback Girl" had been bigger, "Since U Been Gone" remained in the top fifty of the Hot 100 ten weeks longer.
  • Longevity. Hollaback Girl was expected to attain the longest run of any single on the Hot 100 in 2005. However "Since U Been Gone" accomplished this instead. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I expect to live to a hundred, but...so what? Who expected Hollaback to attain the longest run? --Tsavage 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Billboard. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This made it the fastest-rising single on that chart in 2005; once again, Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" replaced it, and remained at the top for ten weeks. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, which song replaced it at the top, and the fact that it was unable to spend the most time at number one in 2005.
  • Yikes. I don't know what to say, other than, two down and four to go (and that there should be version timings in the track listings, and which version is 3:20 noted in the sidebar), and Carey and the others are irrelevant as presented... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The length timings would be nice to have, but they're just far too difficult to locate, especially if you live in Canada (like myself). The CD single is no longer in shops, and Amazon.com does not display them. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That is not sufficient. Because material is difficult to locate does not invalidate an objection. None of my objections that have to do with content require ridiculously impossible actions, they are the type of thing any diligent researcher/writer would source as a matter of course (for example, in order to present a paper in school for grading, or an article to a professional publication). If I wanted timings, I'd contact the record company, the publicity department handles stuff like this all the time. If I wanted a basic music description, I'd contact someone with the skills to provide a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song. (Please note, I have contributed new material and copyedits to this article over the course of this FAC as time permitted, but my priority isn't too make sure this article becomes an FA, otherwise, I would resolve all of my own objections. Trust me, it's all pretty standard stuff...) --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording. (This was in my objection in the previous nom proceedings, archived a few hours ago.)
  • Having edited the "Versions and remixes" section and repositioned it back into the main body, the absence of a music structure section is now glaring. I thought about why this article seems so wrong: it is largely because it is written "fan-style" (whether or not the prime editors are fans) or just in a very contextually unbalanced and uninformed way, with a wrong weight and filtering of facts. The writing makes what has been given attention seem inappropriately lavished upon, like the drone-on about chart performance, and this sets off warning alarms, I imagine, with any truly interested reader. The same factual material, written with the right balance and tone, would maybe have gotten my support, if it "read right". Right or wrong, we are not data-filtering machines, presentation is of course CRITICAL... There is a reason why some people write, others don't. Of course that doesn't invalidate global participation in Wikipedia or the fine quality that comes from such but it does set up a barrier -- a much higher standard -- for FAs. Looking at "Cool" as today's main article is a little embarassing from the perspective of having given this FAC some extra thought. I checked a couple of previous song FAs (mainly, Beatles) and found basic syntax errors and typos just for a start, as if an FA couldn't be run through a spellchecker.... Anyway, on with the fight for, um,...BASIC QUALITY IN FEATURED ARTICLES. --Tsavage 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You're objections continue to grow and I've reached the point where I'm about to give up because I'm exhausted from attempting to make this article as perfect as I can. Please note that There is no such thing as a perfect article. I will remedy only the objections that you posted before the sixth. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but this is the perfect article. Nice try though. --129.173.105.28 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. There is no such thing as a perfect article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is no reason to let clear imperfections slide. Does the impossibility of true perfection mean that we don't have to check our spelling? That we don't have to be comprehensive? That we don't have to cite sources? I'm confused here. Anville 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
It is comprehensive. Spelling we should check — nobody's perfect. Our sources are cited. Is that better? --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment With all due respect, I cannot consider the article comprehensive in its current state. Tsavage made a very reasonable request for "a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song". The way the article is now, I can't even tell if the song has an instrumental bridge. Why should I care about the many remixes if I know nothing about the original? Any article on a song should provide this sort of information before it can become an FA. This information might not be online, in which case a Google search won't find it. So whoever said writing a Featured Article was supposed to be easy? In each of the three articles I've pushed to FA status, I relied upon non-Internet sources. Consequently, each article contains information the Web could not provide elsewhere, making them de facto unique and valuable resources. The editors reviewing "my" articles held them to high standards; this may sound selfish of me, but I don't see why the bar should be lower for any other article. Anville 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Six actionable objections... --Tsavage 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm through posting to this FAC thread, except in response to direct actions against my objections. The objections seem to be clearly worded and easy to understand, as those who have commented on them, or posted below and acknowledged them, don't seem to have had a problem with their meaning. Thank you. --Tsavage 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I struck rather than deleted; in any case, on the point of my general comments here (which is unrelated to the FAC proceedings proper), I changed my mind! --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very thorough. I personally don't agree with any of the five objections listed above, but that's just me. B1oody8romance7 02:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral based on mixing external links and references within the body. Choose one system. The content itself I think fine having gone over it. Marskell 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I placed the references where they belong and the external links where they belong. Would you like to upgrade your vote? --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was only neutral to begin with so my strike through oughtn't alter things. I hestitate to move to support, however–the comments from the main supporter for the article are, shall we say, needlessly aggressive. I don't want to vote on FAC based on attitude, but given that I don't actually have a substantial vote I feel comfortable simply striking out my comment and leaving be. Absolutely kudos on making the change though. Marskell 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll be aggressive when the situation requires it; this isn't one of them. --Hollow Wilerding 23:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think your comment is indicative of a very poor understanding of what FAC is. 'Nuf said (as they say). Marskell 22:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's why man is entitled to assume — it doesn't mean he is accurate. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Point proven. Marskell 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. More than anything else, I concur with the last three standing objections raised by Tsavage, of which I find the final one most compelling. In addition, the claim about the (ahem) scatological expletive made in the lead still has to be justified. This may be a remarkable density of profanity for a pop song, but it certainly isn't for pop culture. The claim may be entirely valid (assuming good faith, I'll grant that it probably is), but the article doesn't back it up. The derisive comments in "Critical response" say that the song's general lyrical quality is low, but they don't make a point about one particular word being used more frequently than the pop-song average. The Urban Dictionary "reference" also doesn't do anything for me. (Note: I've never heard the song, and if nothing else, this article convinces me I haven't missed too much. If that's not what the intended effect was, well, ...) Anville 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your objections confuse me. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Extra strong SUPPORT! Since I just had to return to see Cool on the front page today, I decided to drop by this article's nomination. Seeing how it was reset (odd?), I figured I might add my two cents: I don't know how much information is expected to make up Hollaback Girl, but its current state is good enough. I worked hard on it, but some users threw me into a wall, which led me to quiting Wikipedia — so I return today for one last vote to the article that will be featured on the front page within the next few months. Hollaback Girl became my pride, devotion, and insecurity (literally, please). So please don't leave a message on my talk page relating to this issue, as I give User:Hollow Wilerding full permission to erase the page if necessary. If anyone fails to believe that, lead them to this nomination page. I support this article and hope that the majority of above objections are ignored. The article is complete. GOOD WORK EVERYBODY! GOOD WORK! --Winnermario (Goodbye's the saddest word)
  • For the vote, thank you, Winnermario, for the comment about me allowing you to blank your user talk if necessary... thank you... I think... --Hollow Wilerding 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, provided that you put a footnote directly after the comment about Toni Basil, to provide a specific example, so it doesn't appear to readers as just a baseless claim. -- user:zanimum
  • Oppose, sorry, but I don't find the writing to be FA quality. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject (not at all enough to copyedit it myself, unfortunately), but I have to agree with Tsavage about the presentation. I'm registering this objection because the bolded bits quoted by Tsavage above ("being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, 'We Belong Together'", etc) caught my eye, and I'm quite taken aback that such irrelevancies are offered in a FAC, and that good advice about them, such as Tsavage's, is slighted. Also, checking out the section "Composition and meaning" in the article, I find the prose rather incoherent, especially the first paragraph which is a collage of source text fragments slightly (too slightly, I would call it plagiarism) reworded, and combined without enough regard for what words and phrases referred to in the original context. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed the excess information, except for "We Belong Together" replacing it on the Billboard Hot 100. For now, that is all I can correct. --Hollow Wilerding 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as the article is fantastic. Too bad the song is the pits..... 64.231.163.172 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's have more like it! We should be demanding of quality, but let's not get hung up on every little point. Remember you can't get everybody to agree on everything—trying to do that just means frustration. What's important is that everyone is broadly satisfied that this is a high-quality article. Everyking 01:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good comment, Everyking! :) I bolded your support so that it can be located with less effort. --Hollow Wilerding 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was trying to avoid hurtful remarks, but if my oppose above is taken as suggesting that I'm "broadly satisfied", I'll have to be more blunt: the article is not well-written. In places, it rips off its sources, while degrading the style and structure of them. I also see serious objections remaining from others, especially Tsavage. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object based chiefly on featured article criterion #2a: "A featured article... should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. 'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant."
  • First paragraph is poorly-written. Second is well-written, but "Composition and meaning" has quite a number of poorly-written lines. Few errors in "Versions and remixes", but more in "Chart performance"; largely minor. The "tongue-in-cheek" bit is a bit lacking if it's trying to provide evidence of tongue-in-cheek moments (why is a cameo "tongue-in-cheek?"), and doesn't really flow with the rest of the section; it's in the same paragraph with the completely unrelated info about the music video's success, presumably to avoid being too short of a para on its own. Also:
  • "Lyrics that are apparently directed straight at Love include:" must be substantiated with a citation, or at least some reasoning; I see no reason to assume they're targeted specifically at Love, considering how generic they are.
    • They are aimed at her. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Requirement unsatisfied. Stating something doesn't make it so. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Recommend moving second image to "Versions and remixes", where the version used internationally is briefly discussed.
    • Completed. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I also agree with several past objections, such as the ones regarding a lack of high-profile reviewers (Rolling Stone, MTV, etc.), and don't understand why Hollow claims that "A review is a review."; a more well-known source is always better than a less-well known source with the same credentials. Even more important is "Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording." (and instrumentation and etc.) — a Featured Article about a piece of music should spend at least a couple of paragraphs discussing the music itself, regardless of the situation, to meet the "comprehensive" requirement.
    • A review is a review. Rolling Stone reviews don't amuse me anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether they amuse you or not has nothing to do with whether they're as noteworthy as possible, which is what Wikipedia cares about. I find it vaguely ironic that you'd justify an editorial decision based on personal preference for a certain magazine over another, when you've (rightly) attacked everyone who's criticized the article based on subject matter, because of their own personal dislike of the song, rather than on the article itself. Still, since you do have a good number of reviews, one or two of which is sufficiently noteworthy, I'll change to "neutral" if you can meet my other concerns, even though ideally there'd be more mainstream reviews—as has been said above, the article doesn't have to be perfect. (The lack of information and analysis on the music itself is something that bothers me, though. How hard information is to find is irrelevant to FA nominations, only how important information is matters.)
  • I will attack someone when it is necessary — that has yet to come. Okay, I will look for some other reviews for "Hollaback Girl", including All Music Guide. (Although I think those reviews are complete nonsense; The Emancipation of Mimi had tracks "It's Likte That", "Mine Again" and "Say Somethin'" checked as the best tracks on the album; after the successes of "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off", the two tracks also had check marks, while "Mine Again"'s had disappeared. Rather fishy.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Lastly, the Fair Use Rationale for some of the images seems rather dubious; note the fifth rationale in Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl music video shot.jpg, "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article." I don't think any court would find that convincing. Hollaback Girl screenshots would "add variety" to my line of counterfeit T-shirts too, but that doesn't help make them "fair use". -Silence 07:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The last sentence you typed makes no sense whatsoever, but judging from what you wrote preceeding the questionable comment, I removed the line "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article.". (I also corrected a humiliating typo I previously did not catch.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What's questionable about it? I gave a valid reductio ad absurdum to counter a bogus fair use rationale you'd provided. :P But yeah, that satisfies this requirement. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you do so insist. --Hollow Wilerding 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unless I am terribly mistaken, or my computer is currently acting up, there doesn't appear to be a review on the Rolling Stone website for the song. --Hollow Wilerding 22:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone was just an example of a mainstream publication, its specific status is irrelevant, though there is an article in any case. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does not provide a review on the song. Despite that it does hint its presenece, it fails to communicate a complete message. --Hollow Wilerding 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • At this point, I would like people to begin pointing out where the article is not well-written. Every time I read it, I have no issues. Remember that there is no such thing as perfect English. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that's just silly. "Perfect English"? That argument almost sounds like a parody of the "perfect article" claim, comparable to responding to requests for references to "remember, there's no such thing as perfect references!" The request is for Good English, not "perfect English". And, again, one FA requirement is "that the prose is compelling, even brilliant". -Silence 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would really prefer that people do not ramble about something unrelated to my question — because this appears to be a trend on Wikipedia: I ask questions, I receive an answer that has nothing to do with my question. User:Silence, could you please point out some of the English that you think does not meet the criteria of a featured article? --Hollow Wilerding 01:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004).
  • The song features a limited range of instruments, and a hip hop-influenced production, courtesy of producers The Neptunes (Williams and Chad Hugo).
  • Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The lyrics indicate that Stefani insists she is not a "hollaback girl", a response to Courtney Love, who labelled Stefani as the music industry's "cheerleader".
  • Attempted to fix. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • a tough task, considering she felt there were already too many tracks to begin with.
  • Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit" (which is sung thirty-seven times), and appears most frequently in the bridge
  • Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Love had publicly accused Stefani of being a "cheerleader" for the music industry, essentially, an artistic sell-out.
  • Lyrics directed straight at Love include:
  • the bassline from the Queen single, "Another One Bites the Dust", is played.
  • In a dark-humoured, line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics,
  • I don't see what is incorrect about this sentence, but I've fixed it. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • was produced by No Doubt bassist and former Stefani partner, Tony Kanal.
  • Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • came courtesy of Diplo, a Philadelphia-based DJ/producer with a Miami bass background, known for fusing
  • Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Need more? -Silence 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out some of the errors, and you are correct. I suppose my eye cannot catch every little detail, but it seems as though yours can! One concern, however: for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004). If there is anything wrong with this sentence, I might as well sink a ship. --Hollow Wilerding 13:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Added a review from Rolling Stone. If this pleases anyone, feel free to scratch your objection. --Hollow Wilerding
  • Oppose Its simply not encyclopedic! Gwen ain't that important musically. It would be diffrent it it were an article about Ozzy, Rush, Madonna, Elvis, or even Bjork, but not Gwen. Plus, this is exactly the article I'd write if I were being paid by an independent promoter (ultimate scum of the music industry) to write an article. We need to prevent advertising. If Gwen were to someday lead to ska overpowwering dance music or something, great, her article should be improved and FAed, but not the individual songs. JeffBurdges 12:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think your objection is actionable, and is therefore irrelevant. I might be wrong though. Raul654, is this not the same issue that was raised by a user during the old nomination? --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please do not call me a promoter until you locate the proper evidence. --Hollow Wilerding 14:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Hollow Wilerding is correct - this objection is not actionable. Raul654 18:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am objecting that this article does not "exemplify our very best work" because it is "not encyclopedic", which is a grounds for deletion. Gwen herself is obviously encyclopedic, but it seems work is being directed at individual soongs, not the author. I've not accussed any specific person of being paid by independent music promoters, but the pattern of work, such as targeting individual songs instead of the artists own page, is clearly consistent with such an agenda. Anyway, if my objection is ignored, it should still be taken as a request to mark the article as "not for the front page" JeffBurdges 19:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The rule of thumb where the featured articles are concerned is that: theoretically, anything that can survive VFD could concievably become a featured article. If you think this article is unencyclopedic, then nominate it for deletion (I'm confident it would end up being kept). This is not the proper place for objections that content is "unencyclopedic" Raul654 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If an article is encyclopedic enough to exist, it's theoretically encyclopedic enough to be FAd. If you think that an article about a Gwen Stefani song is so trivial that it shouldn't even have an article, then the place to bring up that complaint is on the pages discussing what Wikipedia's notability standards should be, not on a specific FA vote, because currently a #1 song is always an acceptable article subject, and almost anything that's an acceptable article subject can, theoretically, become a Featured Article if it's made expansive, in-depth, and high-quality enough. You should be happy that we're discussing whether or not to FA "Hollaback Girl", rather than something like Bulbasaur or Porthos (Star Trek). Trust me, it can get much, much worse. -Silence 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Bulbasaur is probably more encyclopedic than Cool; the pokemon phenomena was quite a bit more influential than Gwen; athough Porthos (Star Trek) is clearly not that big a deal. IMHO, this article should obviously not be deleted, quality should trump some other concerns. But not using encyclopedic for "featured" status lends considerable support to the deletionist cause. It would be different if "featured" was simply called "well-written" or "quality". Anyway, i'll be happpy as long as I know how to vote against the article for front page status. JeffBurdges 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that none of the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured article in any way relate to the subject matter of the article. I understand your concerns, but our job here is to try to interpret the current FA policies and requirements in terms of the specific articles that are brought here, not to try to change how FA works on an individual level. If you believe that we should add a new criterion to FA that requires the article reach a certain level of "noteworthiness" above even that required to exist on its own as an article, then you should probably bring that up on that page's Talk page, and perhaps start a petition to get this requirement added. Fighting against a single article's FA is a minor and short-term goal compared to the change you seem to be advocating. -Silence 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I snipped the "Chart performance" section. --Hollow Wilerding 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have any actionable objection. But if it were up to me I'd like this article not to become featured. Almost every featured article is interesting to me and presents me with something I'd like to know but this one doesn't. In fact reading the lead leaves me with no interest in reading the rest of the article and forcing myself to do so anyhow presents me with little memorable content. I supported "Cool" because every concrete objection I had to it was fixed. But I didn't much like to see it on the main page and I would like even less to see another song by the same musician there. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that Wikipedia has good coverage of contemporary culture. And maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't. At any rate I can't oppose because I don't see anything specific that should be fixed. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not every Featured Article goes on the main page (not for a long, long time, anyway). If you think this article is FA-quality, but just don't like the subject matter and wouldn't want to see it on the main page because it's embarrassingly trivial, then I don't see any justification for not voting "support" for it. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the article could be more compelling and interesting; at least the "Cool" article told me a bunch of tidbits that I didn't know, but the Courtney Love backstory is comparatively simplistic, and many aspects of the song aren't explored at all, like the reason for all the "bananas" references, the random visit to the supermarket, etc.. (And there also don't seem to be any genuinely positive reviews for the song on the page: three reviews are treated as though they're "positive", but they really just come across as neutral descriptions of the song's style, which are then immediately followed by passionate denunciations of the song.) But "not interesting enough" is too vague to really be an actionable complaint either, so I'm not basing my objection on that. -Silence 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good points, all of them. I indeed don't so much mind this being classified as a good article but I would mind seeing it on the main page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Silence's correct observation about the "positive" reviews: Checking the sources, in all instances (LaunchCAST, AMG, Smirke/PlayLouder), they are taken from album reviews, and in context, serve primarily as brief song descriptions. Quoting them in a way that implies upbeat excerpts from positive reviews of the song, as is the case here, is inaccurate. The whole mixed critical reaction/polarized critics thesis, while quite possibly accurate, is not supported here. As presented, the info is at best misleading. This also calls into question the corresponding note in the introductory summary. --Tsavage 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't - IMHO, if you take the time to comment, it's probably worth taking the time to formulate your comment into a Support/Object format. An important point here is that Wikipedia potentially makes "everyone an expert", so, while it would be obnoxious for people to constantly comment on things they "don't know about", it's not very functional to rely on "experts" coming in to make sure things are right. Here, for example, if you examined why you don't find the article "compelling" (I'll take the liberty of interpreting that as simply "interesting"), perhaps on a careful readthrough, you might notice that the "interesting bits" (unique, relevant facts) are few and far between, and also that some sections require significant reading time, while not adding anything that seems to you to be meaningful. These observations might in whole or in part correspond to a couple of my central objections, namely: 1. no coverage of the music structure and recording ("almost no information on what the song actually sounds like"), and 2. the long Chart performance section, followed by a Charts sections ("the positions and weeks and trajectories on so many different charts seem overemphasized/largely trivial"). I'm not trying to get you to object, this is a general comment, in that, if in practice, "actionable" is given too limited and technical an interpretation (as in: change this, footnote that), it becomes an avenue for an individual or small group to compromise the consensus/vetting process. If someone does not have specialized knowledge, common sense and editorial judgement are also useful tools for formulating both support and objections. Anything that's really off-base from a specialized POV should be easy enough to answer, in a way that allows other non-experts to evaluate, e.g. "All those chart positions are important because..." (Sorry if I'm going off on things that have already been discussed, or are self-evident from FAC actions elsewhere, but FAC is all new to me as of the last week, and Hollaback is one of the first I've participated in!) --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those points are also very good. I would like some sort of meaningful analysis of the song. Why should I care about it? What's special about it? I think Rambot writes more engaging articles than this. No, sorry, that wasn't fair. But since, as you have perceived, I know very little about current popular music I hesitate to be too critical. I found it sort of interesting to read a detailed treatment of one song ("Cool") because ideas like "chart trajectory" were new to me. But seeing the exact same thing again makes me feel like I'm reading a bot-written article. I still don't know if I can formulate a vote on this. Maybe I'll sleep on it and give the article another read tomorrow. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object until all aforementioned problems are addressed. To Hollow Wilerding, you do not own this article and cannot force people to agree with your views, particularly regarding arguments about poor writing style and choice of reviews. Please don't tell experienced and respected editors that they violate FAC rules, but rather work towards a future FAC which can have consensus support. Thanks. Harro5 23:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comment is offensive as I never stated anywhere on Wikipedia that I own Hollaback Girl. Do not call someone out in a negative form when you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. –Hollow Wilerding 23:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been watching this discussion (out of interest). Hollow Wilerding has never said that he/she/it owns the article. Hollow is the proponent of the article through the FAC process. This process requires a proponent to take a sense of ownership over the article to satisfy objections. However, Hollow's conduct has not impressed me, so I agree with the rest of your statement. --maclean25 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any other objections that should be corrected? --Hollow Wilerding 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, per outstanding objections of Tsavage, Harro5 and Anville. Ambi 01:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be posted below this message that should be changed in the article? The nomination is going to finish within the next day, I'm sure. Judging by the current state, the article is either going to be featured or not be featured. So any final objections should be raised now. --Hollow Wilerding 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to keep this open as long as there is activity going on here (e.g, fixing valid objections and raising of new ones). I don't think you should write off ambi's comment like that. Raul654 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, thank you. Um, and you're right, I shouldn't have. Nonetheless, I will continue to attempt to correct all objections. --Hollow Wilerding 03:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If this is to be an article improvement edition of FAC, here's another point: In "Meaning and composition", I'm not sure how the Highlander item was obtained, but if it's based on lyrics only, the song says, "There can only be one" whereas the signature Highlander line is, "There can be only one!" (the pronouncement that explains that the immortals have to kill each other off until only one remains). So, unsupported, that seems a bit of a stretch in interpretation... Is that plain wrong information? --Tsavage 05:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Somehow, I'm getting in deeper and deeper... I borrowed LAMB (the LP) and, based on listening to the album version of Hollaback, posted my question about/problem with the Highlander comment to the Talk:Hollaback Girl--Tsavage 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I've finally got around to reviewing the article again and it has improved, but I'm afraid that I still have an outstanding issue with it. The Musical structure and recording section is only a sentence long, this needs to be expanded before the article can be called comprehensive. Leithp (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reached the conclusion to take a break from the madness that has become Hollaback Girl. I will renominate the article within the next month. –Hollow Wilerding 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Hollaback_Girl_Archive2_7f47.html"