Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 4 December 2005

Hollaback Girl

Second attempt. Let's see what kind of controversy the article can stir this time. —Hollow Wilerding 21:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. ... -Silence 22:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Inactionable. Please be more specific. :) —Hollow Wilerding 22:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It's too soon to renominate this. It rolled off less than 4 days ago, and even then Raul had given it an extra go. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed. —Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Will you? Object, misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your objection is unactonable, and therefore will be ignored. —Hollow Wilerding 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your zeal is commendable, Hollow, and you've done a lot of good work on that article. Give the issue some time to rest and then people will take a fresh look. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enough about the little things, this article has met featured article status. --DrippingInk 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object per bad-faith nomination whereby objections unaddressed from the previous two FACs, both of which took place in the last fortnight, may not be mentioned again as the objectors would rightly believe time would be taken to deal with them properly. This is a very poor performance by the nominator, and an attempt to undermine the community's consensus. I move to have Raul654 remove this nomination. Harro5 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please support your objection with valid reasons. Bad faith is a horrible assumption. —Hollow Wilerding

• From the above statements, I hear that the nomination had been failed previously. Please direct me to the previous FAC nom. (The link should have been on the article talk page too). =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment

First FAC nomination at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl old

Second FAC nomination at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl/Archive1

--maclean25 06:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object until the objectors to the two previous recent nominations have confirmed here that their objecitons have been addressed to their satisfication. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to make this as clear as day: this is a new nomination. Please do not direct me to the old FAC(s), and address your new objections here. It is—currently—easier to read due to the fact that there is almost no socializing going on here, but oh, I guarantee its increase. —Hollow Wilerding 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object as well as Oppose: This is the third nomination, and all without addressing the objections raised. While other folks mildly take their articles off and work on them, this one just keeps coming back. With no insult intended for the nominator, I have to say that we really shouldn't see a return to FAC so quickly. There are no policies on waiting and the amount of time necessary to lick wounds and repair the body, but what common sense exists suggests that this is far too soon and far too many. Geogre 13:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, inactionable. Please provide a reason for you objection here. Do not redirect me to the old nomination. —Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Objection is all previous objections unaddressed. I won't redirect you to the old nominations. After all, it has only been four days, so you should remember them. If previous objections are not overcome, renomination is bad faith. That's not an assumption: it's a demonstration. Geogre 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I didn't comment on the previous two FA nominations for this article, but I agree with several of the objections that other users have raised. It's rather odd that after I myself advised Hollow Wilerding to request a peer review for the article again, and outlined some of the problems I felt the article had, she decided to submit it for featured status again anyway. Unfortunately, none of the concerns I expressed on Hollow's talk page have been remedied. The "Chart performance" section could do with trimming, as could the "Music video" section. Yes, you could argue that the synopsis for the video goes into about as much detail as the corresponding section on the Cool (song) article does, but the "Hollaback Girl" video doesn't seem to have as much relation to the song's lyrics as the video for "Cool" does. Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl alternative cover.jpg seem to be on the article for decorative purposes only, which does not meet Misplaced Pages's fair use guidelines. Additionally, while this does not influence my vote in any way, comments such as "It's never too soon to do anything. I will continue to bring this article back into the nomination process until it is passed" demonstrate an extremely poor understanding of the FAC process. FAC operates on consensus being reached and objections being addressed; as demonstrated with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, you can't just resubmit an article again and again and expect one of your attempts to finally break through. I strongly recommend requesting peer review on this article before you even consider submitting it for FAC again. Extraordinary Machine 14:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Bishonen and Silence. We must respect each other's prior actionable comments, and try as much as possible to address them before renomination. This is why I've been delaying for so long the nominations of my current pet articles Rabindranath Tagore and Saffron for so long ... I don't wan't to burden this system with articles that might just attract undue attention and objections because I wasn't considerate enough to address those concerns by myself beforehand. Nevertheless, you are very brave, and many people have been following this bizarre nomination. Please do not take this as a sign of disrespect of the article ... I have no expertise in this area. Sorry. Saravask 15:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note. For the reasons laid out above, and explicitly ignored by the nominator, I have de-listed this premature re-nomination from WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Extraordinary Machine has provided a worthy objection! Now that's what I want to see so I can address the objections! —Hollow Wilerding 20:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for two main reasons:

• A number of questionable or non-obvious claims in the article need to be cited:

• "The song has been compared to Toni Basil's 1981 single, "Mickey"; it is also known for its repeated use of the word "shit"."
• "However, a case of writer's block left early collaborations uninspired and unsuccessful." - an NPOV violation as it stands.
• "The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit", which appears thirty-seven times."
• "Lyrics that could seem to be directed at Love include:"
• "Another notable reference is the musical similarity to Toni Basil's worldwide number-one single, "Mickey""
• "In a line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics, OC Weekly reviewer Greg Stacy speculated: "Gwen is apparently the captain of the cheerleader squad; she is the girl who 'hollas' the chants, not one of the girls who simply 'hollas' them back"."
• "within six weeks of its release, it had reached the number-one position, making it the fastest-rising single to reach the top in 2005"
• "However, some argue that the song achieved this due to its hip hop–influenced production."
• "Both positions were the highest that a non-R&B/hip hop solo artist had attained in the 2000s."
• "It was the best-selling digital download for the latter three weeks of May 2005, and broke the record for the most downloads sold in one week, totalling over 60,000."
• ""Hollaback Girl" exceeded one million digital downloads for the week ending October 4, 2005, and was the first single to ever accomplish this"

• There seems to be very little discussion of either the musical qualities of the song, or what the song is actually about (cf. Cool (song), which has some four paragraphs on those topics).

I'll also note that renominating this article so soon (and without correcting the outstanding objections from the previous nominations) is in rather poor taste. —Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• If I were capable of it, I would cross out the majority of your objections, as almost every single one of them are referenced in the References section. —Hollow Wilerding 20:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note that I wrote "cited" rather than "referenced". In case I wasn't clear: I would like to see direct citations, using footnotes or an alternate format of your choice, for these points. —Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Hollow Wilerding, I see that you have reverted my edit to WP:FAC. Please don't try to railroad the community like this. And please don't revert anybody ever without giving a rationale in the edit summary or on the associated talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Bishonen is right. --Phroziac _. o º 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not railroading a community. How dare you. If I'm not allowed to renominate an article four days after the previous FAC failed, then the Céline Dion article should not have been renominated the day following its nomination. Also, when I want something, I get that something. Now you know. —Hollow Wilerding 22:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How dare I? I suppose I must simply be very brave. The tone you take isn't heard very often on WP:FAC. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article still contains no information on the musical structure, other than the statement that it is "primarily beat-driven and features few instruments". More detail is needed on this aspect. Some of the writing isn't up to FA standard either, e.g. "Maxim was not thrilled with the song either". I also tend to agree with the objector above that a spell in peer review might help iron out some of these problems. Leithp (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)