Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollaback Girl[edit]

Second Gwen Stefani single edited for article nomination. Peer edit occurred here (although it was not very... useful) and has been tidied to the point of over-exhaustion for several users. References are identical to Cool (song), although many song articles fall under the same category when it comes to speaking about charts. Images have been given the appropriate tags, and this leads up to the nomination. If objects are attained, explain why and the issue will be corrected immediately. --Hollow Wilerding 02:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. That's an amazing job! I like mostly the banana in the cover picture... just kidding! Either way, it is quite complete, with graphs and everything, great job! -201.145.88.169 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) This user's first edit. Jkelly 22:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support. Everyking 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sentence The song has an identical drum beat to Tony Basil's number-one single "Mickey", and is also widely known for its repeated usage of the word, "shit". has a few problems: I'd like a source for the first bit, but the second bit is more egregious and needs to be sourced with some kind of evidence that this song's use of shit is "widely-known" (among whom?). Also there's a superfluous comma after "the word" and there's no clear reason why these two bits are part of the same sentence. Other than that, the article looks good, but I haven't had time to look closely, so I won't vote right now. Tuf-Kat 05:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments have been addressed, corrected, and sourced. --Hollow Wilerding 21:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit other people's comments. I will strike my comment when I feel it has been addressed. It appears all you have done is remove the comma, so my concern still stands. Tuf-Kat 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Then you'd better look at the article, because your ignorance amuses me. --Hollow Wilerding 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I regret the error because you also removed the word "widely". Tuf-Kat 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also provided a source for Tony Basil's song sounding identical to Hollaback. --Hollow Wilerding 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source given in the paragraph that makes the claim, so this is insufficient IMO. I'm assuming you're referring to this? That article does not make the claim that the songs have an identical drumbeat (or if it does, I can't find it). It refers to Mickey as a "spiritual antecedent" of Hollaback Girl, but doesn't mention any actual identical aspects. Tuf-Kat
I do not possess magic, and therefore cannot just stumble across a website with an accurate source. Do you want real proof? Then listen to both songs. I am not over-referencing the article. --Hollow Wilerding 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. On the right track, but needs significant copyediting for flow and wording. The article has all the right glitz and features for a featured article (not everything can match the glory that is Layla), but the actual writing needs a bit of work; word choice problems and redundancies make reading through the article itself a chore more than a pleasure. Also make it clearer that and why "hollaback" refers directly to cheering, and think about dividing a few paragraphs, like the opening one. Also, in general, I encourage people looking to make FAs not to adhere overmuch to a strict formula, but to allow some different layouts or topics where it benefits the article; the article is almost a carbon copy of Cool (song) (though not quite as comprehensive); I have no problem with very similar articles becoming Featured as long as they're good enough (subject matter doesn't matter!), but we don't want to discourage innovation by suggesting that all articles need to do is fulfill a very limited but rigid checklist. (Even if they do. :P) But anyway: good article! -Silence 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a very comprehensive article and is informative to the brink; I definitely learned something from this article — that there are many charts around the world! Yup, it is certainly deserving of featured article status. --DrippingInk 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The images Image:Camera2.jpg, Image:HGR.jpg, Image:Holla6.JPG are tagged as "fair use", but seem to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use, and the images should be removed.
    2. The image Image:Hollaback Girl music video shot.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but does not have a fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.
    3. The sound clip Image:Stefani-2004-hollaback-girl.ogg claims to be 30 seconds long. I can't check right now because the Wikipedia image server is acting up, but the file size seems to be about a megabyte larger than normal for a 30-second clip. Could someone check this?
    --Carnildo 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CD covers are allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia. Please do not assume. The others are most certainly "fair use" as they came from a gallery. I also apologize for not adding the correct rationale for the other image; I have now. Also, the sound clip is 30 seconds, so do not assume next time. --Hollow Wilerding 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All images have been corrected properly. --Hollow Wilerding 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good. 64.231.177.76 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) This user's first edit. Jkelly 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my first edit. Is there a problem with that? I have edited on Wikipedia before. 64.231.177.76 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. --Hollow Wilerding 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have returned to Wikipedia to make this one final edit. Although I recently departed from the site due to a certain number of users, I find it necessary to at least place a vote on the last article I made an effort to boost up to featured article quality. And here it is, Hollaback Girl. I gladly give this nomination a strong support. Thanks for all of your help Hollow Wilerding. Goodbye and good riddance Wikipedia. --Winnermario 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECTION YOUR HONOR! Mizz Stefani, when you repeatedly claim "I AIN'T NO HOLLABACK GRRRRL!" what you are REALLY saying is that YOU ARE IN FACT A HOLLABACK GRRRRRL! I accuse YOU, Mizz Stefani, of blatant use of a double negative in clear violation of the laws of grammar and logic! I also accuse you of impersonating a cheerleader without a license. But these are only MIZZdemeanor charges, I also accuse you of creating campy, kitchy, poptart crap and felony waste of real talent! Leave songs of Hollaback's ilk to the pop tarts...the Brittanys, Jessicas and X-Tinas of the world because they can't do anything better. But you can. In 5 years few will remember Hollaback and fewer still why they ever liked it. Unlike Toni Basil's Mickey, of which this is a poor "gangsta" rehash. Hoes and Pimps of the jury, Gwen Stefani has made enough money off Hollaback Girl, she dont no be needing (another) featured article for it too. Cool is both a better song and better article. But even it is good...not great. Still, it deserved a pass. Hollaback does'nt. The Prostitution rests, your honor.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your objection is not actionable and is therefore invalid. Please give a specific, fixable reason for objecting. Tuf-Kat 05:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a Fancruft article about a sucky song....that is not actionable. But my objection is still valid. A featured article should represent the BEST of Wikipedia. This clearly fails on that score.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the very page we're voting on: "If you oppose a nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Until you cite a specific, fixable problem with the article, I don't see how your vote can be accepted. Almost all of your complaints relate entirely to subject matter (which doesn't matter! if we can have a Featured Article on All your base are belong to us, we can have one on "Hollaback Girl", regardless of the song's quality), and the few that actually relate to the specific article in question are far too vague to be in any way helpful, alluding to its not "representing the BEST of Wikipedia" and being "fancruft" and its not being as good of an article as Cool (song), all without mentioning a single actual aspect of the article that's substandard!
The point of the Featured Article system is not just to show off and compliment ourselves over how awesome our articles are, but, more importantly, to improve all of our articles; that's why we don't lock articles when they appear on the main page. FA is only one of many sneaky tricks Wikipedia uses to motivate people into improving articles; thus our chief focus should always be on how best to improve this article, whether we think it's FA-worthy at this stage in its development or not. Terrible subjects still deserve good articles. -Silence 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The song has an identical drum beat to Tony Basil's number-one single "Mickey", and is also known for its repeated usage of the word "shit". There...is that specific enough. So it rips off Mickey and she says shit a lot. And this should be on the main page WHY? How does this help Wikipedia's reputation as a SERIOUS REFERENCE SOURCE, when this sort of thing makes it to the front cuz all da kidz think it be cool, while better written articles on much more obscure and complex topics are rejected. Not that I don't think there should be no place for Fancruft, I'm very much an inclusionist, just not everyother day on the frontpage. Also, I hardly consider THIS to be a valid reference. ESPECIALLY for something so important as the inspiration for the song. Article improvement is what PEER REVIEW should be for. By the time an article reaches here, there should be only minor qualms left to address. "All your base" was a more obscure, in-joke among the online gaming community which went mainstream when Something Awful got ahold of it. A much more obscure and interesting phenomenon, at least to my mind, than how many copies of Hollaback Girl were bought in Boswana. "This shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!" --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is invalid and will not be counted towards. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your invalidation of my objection is invalid. It is not your place to decide since, 1) You are not a bureaucrat. 2) As one of the article's main contributors, your bias would disqualify you if you were. It's like unto the defendant in a trial, declaring a witness against him out of order. But if you want specific objections, fine...I object as per Leithp's comments below, and also those of Tsavage and FuriousFreddy. A shallow treatment of a shallow song. So what if it sold a shitload of bananas....that is commerce NOT art.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't take your vote seriously and you don't "...object as per Leithp's comments below..." because those aren't your reasons — your reasons are because you despise the song. But your vote is still appreciated nonetheless (I think?). --Hollow Wilerding 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's niz, because I don't take your article seriously for a featured candidate. However, if you move to address some of the objections below, I might, just might, change my vote to weak oppose or even neutral if you do an especially good job.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's a point I raised on Talk:Cool (song), but it applies here as well. I'd like to see a mention of the musicians who played on the song, or at the very least some indication of what instruments were played. Was it all done with synths? How is it performed live? What's Pharrell Williams' credit here, is he credited with the music and Stefani with the lyrics? I guess what I'm saying here is that I'd like more detail about the actual craft that went into creating the song, until then I don't really see how it can be called comprehensive. Leithp (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, why is the Icelandic chart position listed but not the French or Japanese? Was it released in these countries? Leithp (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point that you are raising, however there can only be so much investigation on this article. I have searched for musicians on various websites, but have found nothing, unfortunately. The only place I can think of where the musicians would be credited is on the actual album itself, but I am not going to go out and purchase it just to credit some people.
In addition, the Icelandic position is mentioned because the song reached number one in Iceland. I am unaware of the French and Japanese chart positions, and even if I did know them, you might oppose because I don't have the New Zealand or Spanish chart positions. This would lead way on to way, and the article would virtually have every chart position in the world listed. That would be quite... complex. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out your reasoning for objection. What you have stated is what you want to see in the article, but what does it actually have to do with the article as a whole right now? --Hollow Wilerding 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm objecting because it doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion. Specifically it it fails to "cover the topic in its entirety" or "not neglect any major facts or details". I can see it would be time-consuming to gather this information, but writing a good FA is necessarily hard work. Leithp (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record I think that it is definitely one of the better Wiki-pages, but it just falls short of being a FA because of the lack of this information. Cool (song) has the same problem, in my opinion. Leithp (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but unfortunately I cannot meet with your expectations. They are beyond my reach. Thanks for voting anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the comments below asking objectors to review the article again, I have now done so. I'm afraid that I still don't think it addresses my points above so my objection still stands. Leithp (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Grammatical and spelling errors in the first two sentences, for a start. Also:
  • Writing style is poor, often stilted. verbose and repetitive, e.g. Stefani gained inspiration for writing "Hollaback Girl" when Courtney Love disparagingly called her the music industry's "cheerleader". When Stefani was asked about how she attained inspiration for writing "Hollaback Girl", she responded without the mentioning of Love's name, "The song came about after somebody once called me a cheerleader in a negative light.
The error has been corrected. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much smoother-reading overall, but still a little rough. Eg: awkward sentence in first para, "The song's musical style,..."; "Stefani had worked with The Neptunes in the early stages of work on her album", etc. --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear sentence: "Due to the lack of seriousness in the article, however, its meaning is ignored." What is "lack of seriousness"? Is it the reviewer's analysis that is being ignored? If so, who's doing the ignoring?
  • Number formatting is uneven in chart positions, e.g. number eighty-two, etc. Dunno if there's a Wikipedia standard, but as in other articles, numerical notation is more readable, #82, Top 10, etc. --Tsavage 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overly long for the information presented, due in good part to the previous point: repetitive writing.
Repetitive writing has been removed. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete (for what is presumably intended as in-depth coverage), i.e. What about the production: musicians and studio techniques? What about marketing: how was the song promoted? And so forth. Many of what have come to be common considerations in pop music are not addressed. (this objection now specified in actionable terms below)
I am incapable of meeting these expectations. I apologize. --Hollow Wilerding 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, then, for this round of consensus building, my "incomplete" objection requires these three things at minimum in order for it to be struck:
  • Musical description: At least a basic technical musical description of the song structure and the (original) recording.
  • Club play history: At least a paragraph on how the single did in the clubs; unlike for older singles (like, um, "Layla"), Dancefloor DJ action, including remixes/remixers, is a critical aspect of most pop hits today, one that is still not that well reported in mainstream media, but is a significant aspect of the song's history. In this case, since it actually scored on the Club charts, all the more so.
  • The first commercial availability date for the song should be included (which I imagine would be the US album release date in 2004, since the single came out after the LP?). --Tsavage 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dance club paragraph has been added. The first sentence in the lead section explains that the album came out in 2004, and a subsequent sentence in the lead says when the single was released. --Hollow Wilerding 02:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots more, if required... --Tsavage 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the above objection by User:Leithp (concerning chart positions), it is basically impossible to include every aspect of the song in one simple article. Take a look at Cool (song). It attained featured article status without production, marketing, studio coverage, etc. Some Beatles song articles don't have all of that information included in them either; and as I mentioned beforehand, it's not possible to find every small detail about the song on the internet. Also, please refer to There is no such thing as a perfect article. --Hollow Wilerding 20:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, and most sincerely, no insult intended, but I just took a look at "Cool", and, um, jeeze. That's a Featured Article? It is essentially an extended, two-sides-in-one, digital version of an old school baseball card. And this "Hollaback Girl" article is a clone (as in, fill in the blanks) of that one. By these criteria, there could be a line-up of zillions of songs under consideration for Featured Article. I read the occasional featured article (from the main page), but I only happened to stumble on the selection process today. I guess "featured" simply means of merit unto itself as an article, and not a judgement of the quality of the subject (e.g. the value of the song)... OK, fine (even when it comes to...songs), still, given the staggering number of singles that could become candidates for standalone article status, and hence to featured consideration, "comprehensive" ought to be pretty central to the selection process. Which would mean all sorts of intense detail. Happy studio accidents, the genesis of the song in the songwriter's head, the gear, the references, the anecdotes, ALL OF THAT. A SONG article, to be FEATURED, should read like you never, ever want to know another bit of background on that song, or maybe ANY song, ever again. In a good way. Exhaustive AND compelling. :) At least, NOT just a superficial compilation of stats, lists, media trivia, and promo pics,... IMHO. And really, no insult to anyone intended. --Tsavage 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. See Layla for an example of a featured song article Wikipedia can actually be proud of. Of course, it's clear why more recent song articles focus almost entirely on the hype surrounding the song, on the chart values and music video and publicity rather than on the song itself: because they're new and shiny, without the weight of history to give any real analysis or retrospective insight into them. And they probably won't ever have much of that weight of history to give more insight into the background and inner workings of the songs, because they're passing fads, the type of article that would never be a fifth as long if Wikipedia came into existence two years from now and as much time was given for people to work on these articles. It's a dangerous bias, because it strikes currently trends and songs like a whirlwind, then leaves them untended to ever after. Of course, subject matter shouldn't matter in deciding; if it's noteworthy enough to have an article, it's noteworthy enough to have a featured article. But quality must be evaluated very strictly, especially since most of this information is the kind of stuff that a single Google search can discern; Wikipedia's job is to inform people about things they don't already know, not just to parrot common knowledge and regurgitate popular culture sludge into the hungry mouths of the masses. -Silence 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Never have I seen such intolerable behaviour — and you don't just hear this coming from the mouth (fingers, whatever) of a teacher. If you honestly believe that the work I have accomplished is not worthy of featured article status, then so be it. Production, marketing, production is all part of what you want to see and is certainly not what I look for in a featured song. I've already mentioned the fact that I am incapable of locating production, blah blah blah. Google is not as convienent as some assume, and that's final. I am no longer editing this article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hollow Wilerding, ignore those users. What they've said is utter POV and is... just plain asinine. "Hollaback Girl" is certainly featured article-worthy and I am going to help you achieve this. Although the article may fail the first time, believe me, right after is failure it is coming straight back here. The article is comprehensive, informative and detailed. It's also rather classy. And you've got to remember, not everything can match the glory that is Cool (song)! ;) --DrippingInk 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, User:DrippingInk! Not everything can match what is Cool! Not even Layla! I'm not going to give up. --Hollow Wilerding 00:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hollow Wilerding As it stands now, I think it's a good article, "better" than maybe the majority of the 800K+ other articles in Wikipedia. My objection, however, is not likely to be crossed out (and I believe it can stand, per the rules, on the specific points brought up, particularly, on the issue of comprehensiveness, which is really a matter of opinion). For the first time, I took a look at the Music contingent of Featured Articles. Yeah, so much Beatles is (personally) annoying. On the other hand, MERIT IS NOT A CRITERION, right? My reasoning/feeling is this, though. Featured Articles, as they stand now, recognize work that is above the average, which implies that non-featured articles are of an inferior quality. Ideally, at least tens or hundreds of thousands of the 800K articles should be of FA status (not just a few hundred), else, we're formally acknowledging that most of the encyclopedia isn't too hot. So FAs function as a rewards system for improved article quality. But they also highlight certain articles, and that affects perceptions and the overall presentation of Wikipedia. Quite conceivably, we could have 10 or 20 recent music hits dominating the FA Music section, and that would be "wrong", it would create an imbalance, as far as a content-representaive highlights page, that would then probably require adjusting the FA criteria to fix. Like maybe creating an FA fast track process, so more FAs are approved quicker... Or introducing a topical value standard. (And I'm NOT attacking this artist or this song!) Perhaps some of the objections here are part of the beginning of that process. Whatever, point is, at this point, I don't agree that "Hollaback Girl" should be an FA, and I have FA-acceptable reasons for that, even if other reasons also exist. From Wikipedia's own words-to-wiki-by, "this is not a democracy" and "this is not a system of law", it's about consensus. Thanks for the note on my User page, and as for the article, uh, good job! --Tsavage 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quite conceivably, we could have 10 or 20 recent music hits dominating the FA Music section, and that would be "wrong", it would create an imbalance, as far as a content-representaive highlights page, that would then probably require adjusting the FA criteria to fix." - I literally could not disagree with you more.
  • If there are too many Featured Articles in a certain field, does that mean that the FA process is broken? Of course not! It means that our editors are making certain types of articles higher-quality than other types of articles, a reflection of the biases of the talented and dedicated editors on Wikipedia! If we changed our FA standards to try to balance out the number of FAs from each particular subject of time period or whatever, the only result would be that "FA" would no longer be a remotely accurate representative of the best work of Wikipedia, since it would be easier for a lower-quality article to become FAd in a less-frequented subject on Wikipedia (like ancient Greek history) than for a higher-quality article to become FAd in a heavily-frequented subject on Wikipedia (popular culture stuff, etc.). This wouldn't be actually fixing the editorial bias, it would just be blinding ourselves to it, plugging up our ears and yelling "LALALALA!" and hoping the problem disappears if we pretend it's not there, changing the rules around the specific articles they apply to so that while the articles look relatively balanced, in reality there's a quality gap between one type of article and another!
  • Huh? That only makes sense if FA is actually considering the best articles currently on Wikipedia, as opposed to only the best articles nominated for FA... --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only possible way the "Featured Article" qualifications could be flawed and require fixing is if they didn't go to articles as accurately, fairly, and consistently as possible. The subject matter or topic of Featured Articles should never make any difference toward FA policy or towards any specific article becoming Featured! Quality alone should be what matters, and meeting all the necessary criteria. If this is what the FA system is doing currently, or close enough to it, then the FA system is a very useful way of gauging which articles actually are better than others, and seeing the biases in Wikipedia towards making certain article's extremely high-quality while others are left merely good (or not even that, in many cases!). If this is not what the FA system is doing currently, then it needs to be fixed.
  • Uh, see above. --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only possible bias towards "quality needed to become an FA" that I could ever see as acceptable would be a bias based on the importance of the subject—i.e., for Jesus or George W. Bush or Hugo Chávez to become an FA, it would have to meet much higher standards than an FA on the government of Maryland or the octopus card or Cool (song). However, this should solely reflect how important it is for high-profile articles to be especially high-quality, and should never reflect any sort of preference for one based on how popular that subject is among editors or how high-quality that subject tends to be in general. As soon as we do that, the FA system becomes entirely meaningless, an illusion that Wikipedia is unbiased when it really is quite biased indeed—and this most be solved through focusing the efforts of the editors more and more on improving neglected article topics, not by changing the system itself to ignore Wikipedia's very real and prevalent biases.
  • Eh? So a "less 'important'" or "less high-profile" topic (by whatever commmonly understood standard, like, "Jesus" is important) could be of lower quality to qualify for FA? Didn't you just say that changing the rules around the specific articles is a bad thing? --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't agree that "Hollaback Girl" should be an FA" — Another point where we disagree 100%. I think that Hollaback Girl should be an FA. I think that every article that is capable of it should be an FA. As soon as it's good enough to qualify as one. I'd support this article in a heartbeat if I thought that it was good enough to meet all the FA criteria. If you're saying that you wouldn't, then you need to seriously reconsider your qualifications for FA status, and remember that no article subject matter is unworthy of having an exceedingly well-written article made about it, no matter how inane that subject matter is. -Silence 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was speaking to Hollow! No, of course, you're right. FA has its rules, and I should think within them. FA is a great bootstrapping mechanism for getting quality up in all 800K articles, one at a time! I have amended my specific objections and am more likely than ever before to change my mind! Though I don't think I'll end up the hold-out, one way or another... ;) --Tsavage 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, amid all of this talk about featured article fields, I have expanded the article somewhat to meet some of your objections, specifically the "composition and meaning". Although I did not add anything about the musical instrumental, I evolved the creation and process of the lyrics'f materialisation. Hope you choose to support, and also, the English has been cleaned, another complaint that was recently brought up about its dysfunctional flow. --Hollow Wilerding 19:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until all above objections have been satisfied. Cannot expect that every Gwen article will automatically be featured now because Cool was. Harro5 20:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the majority of the objections but cannot touch upon User:Leithp's, or some of User:Tsavage's as they are beyond my efforts. Is there anything else that could be done in place? --Hollow Wilerding 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. After reading the entire article, there are many instances of akward writing. I pointed out one as an example on Hollow Wilerding's talk page, but there are many others as well. The article needs to be basically revised. Also, most of the article is devoted to chart analysis and a scene-by-scene description of the music video, which, as I have expressed in reference to similar articles on pop songs, is padding when it takes up most of the page on its own. It makes the article(s) read more like a Universal Music marketing report rather than an encyclopedia article. More information on the song's influences (for example ,what hip-hop songs it derives elements from, how it compares not only with other Stefani songs, but with other Neptunes-produced songs, since the Neptunes have a distinctive production style), and more background information. --FuriousFreddy 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article's nomination is over. Due to some of the comments made above, my faith and devotion is lost. --Hollow Wilerding 00:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not over 'til it's over. Why not keep trying? --FuriousFreddy 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments made by User:Silence and User:Tsavage have made me lose faith. But then, I am one of the only Gwen Stefani fans on Wikipedia, and this is evident because of the two nominations both Cool (song) and Hollaback Girl went through and are going through. I mean, honestly, what is the only reason so many Beatles songs are featured articles? That's right; because there are multiple numbers of fans contributing to those articles. Yet they call out the work done by only two or three people. Rather inhumane, no? --Hollow Wilerding 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that I have made all the edits possible to correct objections at this nomination. Truly I have. --Hollow Wilerding 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. I had no trouble removing the excess non-free images. --Carnildo 05:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been replaced. Three of them anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 20:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I figured they would be. That's why I didn't withdraw that part of my objection. --Carnildo 00:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the tags have been provided. The CD single cover of the dance remix is under fair use for obvious reasons. If it shouldn't be there, neither should the actual cover of the single. The two music videos readded are tagged appropriately, with similar fair use claims. I don't really see why Wikipedia is so strict about the image policies. Personally it pushes the limit. --Hollow Wilerding 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several English edits and corrected the unusual grammar and juncture in certain places. Does anyone care to withdraw their objection? Also, both images have been tagged under fair-use rationale, with very specific observations noted. Feedback is welcome. Thanks! --Hollow Wilerding 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet even more revisions have been made to the article. I have expanded the "Composition and meaning" portion of the article, which I do hope pleases some of the opposers. It may not be about the music itself, but it is about the writing, which does play a major role in the completion (and exploration) of a song. --Hollow Wilerding 19:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another edit to the image rationale, but no one seems to be addressing their vote. As the nomination advisor, I do not want this vote to result negatively because no one returned to view the changes that have been made. --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see anything to convince me that more than one screenshot from the music video is needed. Pick one that's most representative.
  • I don't see any reason to include every CD cover that the single's been released under. Unless there's a compelling reason to show more than one (for example, the alternate titles of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), just show the one for the original release.
--Carnildo 07:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to get rather vexed with User:Carnildo. He is not opposing against the article, its writing and NPOV, etc., etc. He's opposing because of the images. I'd really rather there be a relevant reason to object. Cool (song) has three music video images, but since Hollaback Girl has no real story behind its materialisation, two images is suited here. Fine, I will remove one CD single image. Then can you please address your vote? It would be much appreciated on all levels. --Hollow Wilerding 13:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to return to address the changes (and perhaps their vote) to the article? --Hollow Wilerding
  • Comment: User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine): your opposition based on the subject matter rather than the quality of the article itself is without merit, is not actionable, and as per the procedure of this page is irrelevant and will be ignored. I personally agree with you about the song's merits: it's awful. However, featured articles are not about whether we like the subject, nor whether we think the subject is important enough to be featured, or whether we think it would be 'embarassing' to have an article on such a subject featured. Nor is it a valid objection to say that a certain subject has been featured 'too much' and thus another article under the same topic shouldn't be. User:Hollow Wilerding: User:Carnildo is seeking to have a potential featured article's images pass a stringent level of fair use defence, yet even so, less of a one than they would have to pass should the copyright owners sue us. Wikipedia's policies on fair use images is clear: they should only be used when absolutely necessary. It is appropriate, indeed necessary, to argue against the inclusion of any fair use image on a potential Featured article. Only if justified, should they be included. It is not a good defense to say "But before, you guys weren't as strict". It's not about you, it's about the FAC criteria getting tougher, as they should. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for pointing this out. My apologies to User:Carnildo. --Hollow Wilerding 00:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Long enough article by featured article standard, a little long by music single article standards. Overall though, definetly featured article material. B1oody8romance7 04:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your support is greatly appreciated as none of the above opposers will address their vote now that their complaints have been corrected. Thank you muchly. --Hollow Wilerding 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl/Archive1&oldid=188803341"