Template:Did you know nominations/What I've Been Looking For

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What I've Been Looking For[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that when "What I've Been Looking For" and "Bop to the Top" debuted on the US Billboard Hot 100, Ashley Tisdale became the first female artist to do the achievement?~~ reworded:
~~... that Ashley Tisdale became the first female artist to debut two songs at the same time on the US Billboard Hot 100, with "What I've Been Looking For" and "Bop to the Top"?~~ reworded again per Casliber approval:
... that Ashley Tisdale became the first female artist to have two songs debut at the same time on the US Billboard Hot 100, with "What I've Been Looking For" and "Bop to the Top"?

ALT1:... that Heather Phares considered the song "What I've Been Looking For" a "parody of a show tune" due to its melody and Ashley Tisdale and Lucas Grabeel's vocals?
ALT2:~~... that while reviewing the High School Musical soundtrack, Heather Phares commented the song "What I've Been Looking For", performed by Ashley Tisdale and Lucas Grabeel, "flirts with satire"?~~
Reviewed: 2001 CECAFA Cup

Created by Tbhotch (talk). Self nominated at 02:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

With respect to the original hook, aside from the fact that "do the achievement" isn't very good wordsmithing, I can't tell what the achievement is. EEng (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've re-worded it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone mistreat you and you use your superpowers. Whatever, I've been here for 5 years, I know how to do good articles, and unlike you, I review them, not let others do my job. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"...that critics considered the song "What I've Been Looking For" a "parody of a show tune" due to its melody and tune..."
Comment Did you know, that what User:BlueMoonset has written, has nothing to do with what you thought it was, and your response suggests a personal attack out of nowhere.
Review There are errors in the prose, unattributed quotations and red links. If you can fix all of that, and figure out what User:BlueMoonset is doing and saying, I will read it and check the refs. Your length of time here and lack of superpowers will not be part of the review. ~ R.T.G 23:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only place DYK says there should be no redlinks is in the hook. C1 I only see one redlink in the article. Per WP:RED, Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.— Maile (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that depends, but as of now there is only one red link on the article so that is one thing. ~ R.T.G 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As Maile said, WP:RED asks for such red links, basically because Dodd is being mentioned through several pages. WP:WIADYK requires articles to be:

New (or 5x expanded in a week)
Long enough
To have a cited hook
Within policy, and to have a
Review requirement.

The article passes all of them, the only point you'd be concern is "Within policy". BLP statements are perfectly sourced and neutral, for example "credited to be sung by Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens ... Later, it was revealed that Efron's singing voice was mixed with that of Drew Seeley.[5][6]" It lacks of "close paraphrasing or copyright violations", and if it lacks of attributions (as you say, but not cite where), would be due to recent changes. Strangely Wikipedia:Did you know nowhere cites or requires a clear WP:MOS usage in articles to these be posted on the main page, basically because this is not Talk:What I've Been Looking For/GA1, where your concerns would be valid to delay the article's nomination. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete review needed as per DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide. This was all BlueMoonset was saying - somebody needs to actually review the nomination. If there are specific issues that need to be dealt with, please be specific so the nominator can make the corrections. Redlinks within the article is in accordance with WP:RED, and not one of the details of a DYK review. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Right then, age and size ok - looking at the history there is some kerfuffle from five years ago but I am happy to consider that irrelevant for the purposes of this. ~~Hang on while I check the article~~. Faithful to sources and no paraphrasing. I'd either go with the reworded original hook, though I wouldn't use "debut" as a transitive verb like that ("have two songs debut" yes), or ALT1 - both are sourced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: struck ALT2, which wasn't approved, and re-reworded original hook per Casliber's approval caveat. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Making sure it's known the green tick still applies, and what is approved is the original (reworded) hook and ALT1. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)