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

Cool (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

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)[reply]

Support. Great song, great article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a bit more (if possible), though. Everyking 21:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing work. I'd love to see this become a featured article. --DrippingInk 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow, that's certainly complete! You've got my vote! 201.137.188.56 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
- References have been formatted the same way they are in the "Yesterday (song)" article. --Winnermario 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "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)[reply]
    - I went ahead and did the formatting myself for the references section (sort of overwriting Extraordinary Machine's version, sorry). While looking up the info, I found this at Napster.com: Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc. If this is inforceable on their part, this might be a problem for our entire project. I sent Billboard an email asking if it was okay to reprint their data here, since we are no-profit and informational, and we'll go on from there. I'm withdrawing my objection, as it has been fulfilled. --FuriousFreddy 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - My prior reservations over such level of detail in articles aside, I don't think using "permission only" chart trajectory information on Wikipedia would be applicable to the goal of creating a free content encyclopedia, i.e. one that can be redistributed by anybody. Also, all edits to articles are licensed under the GFDL, so I'm not sure. But anyway, this issue should probably be discussed further at User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. I've replaced the tables with a chart I made on Microsoft Excel, and moved the tables to its image description page. Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very very cool article :p OmegaWikipedia 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support - This is not the same article it was two days ago! A very fruitful community effort has improved it significantly - it looks great to me. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, I uploaded the files, so I'll speak on behalf of this. I believe these sceenshots are needed in this instance here to help corrleate with the message of the song. There are essentially two parts to "Cool" as a story. The first signifies how the couple became "uncool" when they broke up. The second signifies how years later, the couple was able to make up and still be good friends, yet move on romatically. The third screenshot signifies a theme that is expanded upon in the music video, but not related to in the song, about how even though Stefani claims she is cool, at times, she does regress and becomes "uncool". That said, I agree that there were too many images, and the image of Stefani lying in the bed will be removed as it essentially the single cover. Is that fair enough? I will also be justifying these reasons on the pages of the respective pictures. OmegaWikipedia 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega, what you've done with the images is very good. I personally don't think the article needs so many, but that's just my own viewpoint, and as far as I'm concerned you've satisfied my objection to those particular images, and I appreciate that. Winnermario should do the same with the image Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg which is still lacking the necessary rationale etc. Thanks Omega. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That image is actually from an inaccurate source that was displaying images under false identities. Apparently Stefani is performing a song by No Doubt, despite the presence of her Harajuku Girls in the background. I was unaware of this, so the image has become useless to the article. I say it be voted for deletion, as I don't know any proper copyright laws because of the inaccuracy. --Winnermario 20:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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) PS I still think the "chart trajectory" is over the top, but won't use it as a reason to object. As has been pointed out by others, the article has changed a lot since the time it was first nominated here. At that time it was ho-hum; now it seems excellent. Well done! Hoary 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. All the faults I found have been remedied. I feel the article is now much more balanced and informative. There are still some seams showing where new text has been spliced onto old, especially in Composition and meaning where the text gets a bit repetitive. And there is still a redundant "year" column in the (now unified and better for it) chart table. I'd suggest getting rid of it and changing the "Position" heading to read "Position (2005)". Assuming those details get straightened out I now Support the nomination. Kudos to the people who have been working on this! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Better, but there are still problems. The biggest one I see right now is that there's no link to the description page for the sound sample. --Carnildo 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. Extraordinary Machine 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Comment - Winnermario, we have given clear reasons for objecting and every single objection is actionable and therefore by Wikipedia rules must be actioned. Carnildo has also taken the time to point you to Wikipedia policy pages and I think it would be a really good idea if you read those pages. I've also pointed you to a policy page. We've told you exactly how to elevate the quality of this article. It's a shame that you're disappointed by the fact that a few people have not given you the unqualified support you were hoping for, but we've actually given you something far more important - constructive criticism. The only thing inappropriate here is your reaction. The idea of an article being made a Featured Article is that is represents the very best work that Wikipedia has to offer and the nomination process should be stringent and exacting, and it should not be automatic. Stop bleating about how mean we all are and deal with the issues we've highlighted. I'm sorry that I wasted so much of my time trying to help you improve the article. Rossrs 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Winnermario, you should not strike out other's comments just because you feel they are a "useless argument". Rossrs 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for addressing this to me, as I previously did not know this. But please do not mock me calling the situation a "useless argument", I was doing it in good faith, but with unknown knowledge. So thank you. --Winnermario 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Winnermario, I thought, and still think, my comments are valid. I'm not mocking you. You dismissed everything I said, without even extending me the courtesy of a reply, and you described my comments in your edit summary as a "useless argument". Believe it or not, I have tried only to improve the article by objecting to it, and I have made some edits to the article, in good faith and with the same aim, so I'm surprised by your negative reaction. Let's each assume the other to be acting in good faith from here on. Rossrs 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Fishing for votes is also generally frowned upon. Extraordinary Machine 22:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fishing for votes is actually quite irrelevant. As long as there is at least one unfixed major objection, an article will not be featured. --Carnildo 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no rule that states you cannot ask for votes. Plus, even if I had not "fished" for that vote, the article would still be in the lead with supports. I would also like to take the time to ask the people who opposed "separate charts" not to vote in this FA, because so far that is the only matter I have come across. User:Hoary was against it, and has specified above that they should be unified (along with other reasons) for this article not to be featured. If you ask me, the mentioning of that ongoing issue is quite irrelevant. --Winnermario 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There's asking for votes and there's asking for votes. The way Winnermario did it in that linked instance -- which might have been, and I hope was, unique -- really brings the value of votes here down to that of, say, positive feedback on Fleabay. -- Hoary 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It appears as though User:Extraordinary Machine has been following me. Although the fact that "fishing for votes" is completely irrelevant, I'd like to know how he knew about this? --Winnermario 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We read: 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. Winnermario may care to link to some page where the proponents of separate tables with columns whose every cell is identical argue at all convincingly. The argument here for what I regard as bloat may be less convincing than average, but if so then not by much. -- Hoary 03:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoary enjoys bringing that talk page into numerous discussions. In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of people who do not support unified charts. So why do you claim our charts as POV when we see yours as POV? --Winnermario 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. The song is pretty lousy, as most popular songs are. Which is neither here nor there. The article is very precise, very much to the point, provides all the necessary information, and meets every possible criterium as an encyclopedia entry. An excellent effort. Ricardo the Texan 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is well-written. --Anittas 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Object. Compared with other pop music articles, this article is actually fairly balanced; congrats Winnermario. However, I have to object for the following reasons: (1) far too much in-depth information about chart performance, (2) unsourced quotation (see Song Information, second paragraph), (3) too much speculation about song meaning/origins, with too little concrete facts (see Song Information, first paragraph and Lyrics and Meaning), (4) World and US chart stats don't need to be separated, (5) chart trajectory is excessive information and not necessary. With some pruning in some places, expansion of others, and inclusion of legitimate sources, I could support this with few reservations. Volatile 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unified charts and no chart trajectory are not good enough reasons to object. However, the rest of your reasons are acceptable, so thank you for your input. :) --Winnermario 01:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I placed the unsourced quote in its appropriate place. --Winnermario 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that someone has dealt with the separate charts situation; and I'm willing to drop the chart trajectory objection until further debate/comment can be made. The only reservations I continue to have are with the song meaning/interpretation and the chart info, both of which could be easily remedied. Volatile 13:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My efforts to remedy some of the criticisms of the article raised on this page have been reverted (see [1], [2], [3]). Extraordinary Machine 02:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And rightfully done so, as there are people on this page who will object to this article if charts are unified. OmegaWikipedia 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then "Cool" will not become an FA for as long as editors of the article continue to ignore objections. Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the subject over chart views is subjective and a POV, I seriously don't think it should be counted here. If Mario can answer all other non chart related objections, would that be fair enough for everyone here? By the same token, if this article has charts unified, I will not support the article. Im sure other people feel the same way, and it doesnt make sense to withheld a good article from being a FA because people disagree over how charts should be noted OmegaWikipedia 05:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps if each chart section and trajectory heading had a couple of sentences that served as both an introduction of the section and explanation of what the information is, it would help. At the moment I'm sure there are people looking at "trajectory" and thinking "what the hell is this?". I think there is a trend towards providing excessive chart information that is not always relevant. We've discussed this elsewhere and I respect and understand your viewpoint, but I don't completely agree. I wouldn't use it as a basis for voting either for or against, unless it was particularly "bloated", and in this case I don't think it is, so it doesn't bother me. I have to say this article is improving substantially as a result of some excellent editing and additions over the last day or two. Everyone involved should be congratulated. I'm very happy that Winnermario nominated this, and that there were some objections - if the article had attracted nothing but overwhelming support, all of these great edits may never have happenned. If Winnermario (and others) deal with my objections, as they have been, I'm more than happy. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If all else is accounted for and some of the language/prose copyedited, I'd support this article. Volatile 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Rossrs said, there's been a lot of work done on the article over the last day or so. Here's a summary of it:
1. References have been reformatted.
2. The prose has been tidied and tightened in places.
3. One music video screenshot has been removed, while the others have been given fair use rationale on their image description pages.
4. The lead section now focusses less on the song's chart performance, and more on its influence and interpretation.
5. The "Song information" section header has been retitled "Composition and instrumentation".
6. The "Chart performance" section has been trimmed slightly.
7. The chart tables have been merged, and the superfluous "Cool"/"Cool"/"Cool"/etc. column removed.
8. Quotes from music critics about the song have been added, which help to explain what the song sounds like and what it is about.
Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. And I've added a sample of the song. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The chart table that was added to the section documenting the trajectory is preferrable. My compliments to whomever designed it. However, I would also like to note unified charts. I'm still unsure if I want to go along with them, as they create a disturbance to the eye in reading. Suddenly, out of nowhere, from reading all these country names, we're into Billboard charts? --Winnermario 19:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll edit the table so that the U.S. charts are all one after the other (in other words, in their own "part" of the table), and before other countries. Also, I've trimmed the "Chart performance" section a little more and replaced the speculation of the relationship between "Cool" and "Don't Speak" with a comparison of the two songs (the statement that "Don't Speak" was also inspired by the Stefani/Kanal relationship is supported by a source). Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better-looking, I suppose. It's getting there. --Winnermario 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very commendable effort here. Only criticism is the slightly bloated chart performance section, however it doesn't overshadow the rest of the article, so I have no problem letting it stay. Great job WM, EM, and all others involved. Volatile 22:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Okay, I'll finally move out of the way. This is a pretty cool article! I must insist, however, that the chart tables remain merged, so as not to put emphasis on the U.S. Billboard charts (thus violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy). Extraordinary Machine 22:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
- ~~The lead says the song is "by" Stefani, but later in the article we find it was co-written; this needs to be clarified.~~
  - "By" means "she sings". --Winnermario 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er, I meant "needs to be clarified in the article", not here. . . ~~(By the way, I do think the authorship needs to be included in the lead)~~. Jgm 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's now been changed to "performed by". --keepsleeping say what 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Not anymore.~~ Jgm 11:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There seems to be a standard for featured article songs, especially the more recently promoted ones, to include songwriting and production credits in the lead paragraph. Furthermore "by" is not correct and should be "recorded by". For example Beatles songs would be by Lennon and McCartney and recorded by The Beatles. Have reworked the lead paragraph to see how it looks. Rossrs 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Music Video" section seems way too interpretive to me -- "identifying" the characters as playing named real people, baldly stating that things (such as the brunette wig) represent other things (such as Stefani's younger self), the whole description of the "story" told by the video: these things, if included at all, need to be documented as somebody's intent rather than the author's interpretation.
- As to the chart stuff, I don't have a problem with the idea of the "trajectory" chart, but having such a chart and the week-by-week description of chart positions in the text is redundant; also I think that it is odd to have an article that describes the song as an "international hit" and then tracks chart information only for two similar North American countries (I think I'd be OK if the chart were retitled "North American Chart Trajectory" or some such); also also, a "trajectory" would seem to imply an eventual falling-off while this chart stops with the song at the toppermost of the Canuck poppermost, so to speak.
- Finally, though I'm not sure exactly what to do about it, I'll note that I find the last paragraph under "Critical response" to be essentially unreadable due to the number of embedded quotations and sub-quotations, mixed with links, titles, and footnote indications. Can something be done stylistically here? The content of this paragraph is troublesome as well: the snippets of reviews just kind of sit there without any framing or context, don't they?

Jgm 22:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: This usage of cool is slang and the article never explains, or links to an explanation of what it means (in this context that they're okey with each other) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article explains what is meant by "cool" and its use is so widespread that I'd be surprised if people didn't know what it means, but I have added a couple of sentences to explain, and have linked to both cool (African philosophy) and okay which both contain definitions that fit the context of the use of the word in the song. Rossrs 12:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool;) It's still a horrid song though, support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't let that stand in the way of supporting it... and that's cool ;) I've bolded your support to make it easier to see and count. Thanks Rossrs 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object for a reason given above by Jgm: until certain claims in the "Music Video" section (that the video's actors portray real people, that Stefani's hair color is symbolic of her youth, etc.) are given sources, they are original research. --keepsleeping say what 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The music video information is not original research. I heard everything that's mentioned (brown hair, role-playing characters) in an interview with Stefani in August, and although I've been searching to source the facts, I have come up unsuccessful. So this is sort of a thorny issue. --Winnermario 20:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finding something by researching would be the best option, but if you can't find it can you remember what program played the interview? A reference that says something like "VH1 hits interview, screened August 2005" would be better than nothing and it might help someone else find a more precise source. I've seen this done in other featured articles so it might help you address this objection. Rossrs 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just noticed this is now featured! Congratulations. Rossrs 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Snort. So much for the "process". Jgm 13:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured article! Thanks to everyone who helped make this possible! --Winnermario 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]