Jump to content

Talk:Sheesh!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSheesh! has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 12, 2022Articles for deletionKept
January 7, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 13, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that both Toyota and Pizza Hut have had commercials saying "Sheesh!"?
Current status: Good article


Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 BorgQueen (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 08:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article seems to have returned to stability. Over 44 hours without issues from user:theleekycauldron-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was created on November 6, and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. Article meets basic sourcing requirements. The article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues were detected. All three hooks are interesting, properly mentioned and cited inline, and verified by the sources. No images are used on this nomination, and the album cover has a proper fair use rationale. QPQ requirement is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pulled the hook as the previous concerns haven't been addressed. BorgQueen (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right – I'm not going to continue engaging with this nomination, but I've been asked to clarify where this article needs to be improved. After that, I'm outta here :)
    • Ispot.tv is not a reliable enough source to justify the inclusion of the information it currently supports.
    • In "Use in television", paragraph 1, sentences 1–2 read like puffery and should be trimmed back. Why is it necessary to say which company produced the ad, the exact date it debuted, or what the exact title of the ad was?
    • In "Use in television", paragraph 2 reads like puffery and should be trimmed back. Why is it necessary to say how many ads this company produced, their lengths and titles, and their exact debut date, as well as the commercials' actors, target platforms, and corporate backers? This article is an encyclopedic entry about a song, not a platform for elevating whichever company pays for the song's licensing.
    • In "Use in television", paragraph 3, sentence 2 has a primary non-independent source, which does not justify inclusion.
  • Do what you will with all that – I don't plan on being back at this nom to argue whether these points are valid, nor to certify that they've been rectified. Cheers :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has now twice passed independent DYK reviews and has passed a GAC review. I will come by to take a look at the pronounced drive-by issues claimed to be outstanding. I can say that three people have supported the article and we only have a drive-by objection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify:
  1. This article was passed at DYK in this discussion above by User:DigitalIceAge 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This article was passed at DYK in this discussion above by User talk:Flibirigit 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This article was passed at Talk:Sheesh!/GA1 by User:Kyle Peake 15:02, January 7, 2023 (UTC)
  4. user:theleekycauldron at DYK in this discussion above declared a drive-by objection 09:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ispot.tv is not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, hence I feel it sufficient and reliable. I found no such "primary non-independent source" as noted in the complaint. Discussing the name of the advertisement is relevant to understanding how the song was used. Three different users have read through the "Use in television" section and none found concerns of puffery. WP:puffery defines it as " praise-filled adjectives and claims". I found no such adjectives or claims. A few words could be trimmed, but mentioning the length of an advertisement is not puffery, it's just wordiness. I stand by my review that the article meets all DYK criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable. If there's no further objection I'm going to re-tick it. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 5
Note the ongoing AfD for this article. I would assume a non-notable subject would be ineligible for DYK, and that's how that AfD is leaning so far. QuietHere (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use

[edit]

User:Theleekycauldron, Given the list of leading companies that apparently rely on iSpot.TV per this and this, iSpot is reliable for the content that is at issue. TheDrum.com seems to be a form of media with an editorial masthead (I have never seen anything with that many listed editors contested as an RS). MSN.com should be a reliable enough source to confirm that the song was in the add.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: A list of "partners" doesn't establish to what extent, if at all, those companies care about the data iSpot produces. It does establish that iSpot has a vested financial interest in covering the advertisements of various companies (primarily by selling analytics data), which makes me even less inclined to support the notion that we should be treating it like a neutral RS. In other words, a source that has a vested financial interest in covering a topic can't establish whether or not that topic is important.
The MSN.com article you've linked is actually a Looper article that MSN has reprinted – Looper is marginally reliable at best.
Simply having a masthead isn't the only measure of reliability – The Drum looks to me to be primarily a marketing platform where you can pay to boost your content. At best, it's an advertising trade publication, so I guess I could see the content staying in with that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to conceed theDrum.com. As for iSpot.TV, WP:TV & WP:FILM articles always cite Nielsen Ratings which sells analytics, WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS use as a criteria of notability whether works have been certified, which is a form of analytics as are media sources that produce charting information, which is a form of analytics. What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you sidestep the fact that Nielsen ratings are basically recognized as not just king analyst, but kingmaker in television analytics, there's a difference between the way Nielsen ratings are used in articles versus what's happening here: Nielsen ratings are generally best used to supplement content about the article subject, not third parties that interact with the article subject. For example, it might be used in an article about a TV episode to say how well-watched it was; that's okay, if not ideal. If you were using analytics to say that the song got, say, a hundred thousand streams on Spotify, that might be fine (depending on where you got that number from). But what iSpot is doing here isn't that; it's emphasizing the importance of a third party's usage of the song in an ad, and there's just nothing in the source or the source's reputation to suggest that that's a link the article needs to be making. It comes off as pretty promotional to use a primary and likely non-independent source to highlight the advertisements of specific companies. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I was trying to make this a WP:FAC, I think that might be a valid concern. You are objecting at the stage where we art trying to encourage editors to take an article beyond the stub stage to 1500 characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK articles have to conform to WP:V, same as FA articles – I'd wager that at least 4,000 viewers are going to read this article when its DYK date comes along. That means that it's important for us to make sure the article meets some minimum standards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the D'Amelio show ref is just to the show itself; I'm not sure that's a good enough source, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The time in the episode is just a statement that a popular show used the song. It is not a statement about notability of the appearance. This is just a section showing that the song had lots of commercial use and trying to give the reader a way to understand how the song is being used commercially.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any secondary sources showing the song's noted use in the commercial sphere?
theDrum.com-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a primary independent source, but okay, that'll give you most of the Pizza Hut commercial. What about the Toyota commercial and the D'Amelio show? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People use to wildly input commercial uses as unsourced lists. I have enabled the reader to WP:V this commercial use in the D'Amelio show, by properly sourcing the primary. The notability of its use in the show is its use in the show by pop culture tastemakers/trendsetters, which is itself self evident.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. regarding the commercial use by Toyota, I believe that the combination of the iSpot.TV and Looper are adequate sources for the type of fact at issue. Whether a Toyota commercial existed and aired is a fact that the existence of the commercial itself as a Primary is a valid proof of existence. Not much expertise is required to verify that it existed. It is like saying a baby's name, birth date and its parents' names could be verified by social media, whereas we might require a more reliable source on the baby's place of birth or whether the birth was a medical emergency, etc. The commercial had a name, birth date and parent agency. If we want more sources for stylistic nuances about the commercial a more serious set of sources might be required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic and slang usage

[edit]

I notice that in your edit summary reverting a recent change, you say that I "seem to be making it a mission to hatchet the article". I don't think you really addressed the point that the section contains no secondary sources linking the song to the slang, making the section a violation of WP:OR. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 was a time of high memetic, slang, adlib and viral tiktok usage of the term. The phrase is used in a similar manner in the song to those uses. It clearly is enlightening to the reader to understand the contemporaneous pop culture use of the terms.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling of the word, and confusion of origin in the Looper article link the pop culture usage and the song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a reliable source, but The Austin Chronicle gives a passing mention. Maybe you could use that for a single-line section, but if a source doesn't directly mention the song, it should probably be considered extraneous. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That mention actually tightens up that section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this verstion of the article was nominated at WP:AFD, there were a lot of eyes on it. I added a lot of content in order to get it to pass at WP:AFD and what you seem intent on doing is insisting that since the borderline content that I added to get consensus approval is not top of the line content, you want to now revert the addition of the content that I added after several trips to WP:RSN, WT:SONGS, WT:ALBUMS to get guidance toward consensus approval. I am not going to pretend these are the greatest sources, but this is what we have got and what has gotten consensus approval at AFD after several trips to RSN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's take a look at those RSN discussions. This one got no outside input at all, while this one turned up no consensus for the reliability of the source in question – in fact, consensus arguably leans against its usage as a selfpubbed blog. Consensus at AfD simply means that there are sources to establish notability – it has nothing to do with whether every source is considered reliable, nor what should go into the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad idea to remove the Banger of the Day for the reasons you state.-22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sheesh!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this right away --K. Peake 09:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Recording and live performance

[edit]

Reception and charts

[edit]

Use in television

[edit]

References

[edit]


[edit]
  • Good

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
  • TonyTheTiger Regarding incomplete points, the composers should be mentioned in the lead's recording sentence rather than the first one, comma is not needed before Pacifco since that is not the lead, adding info for a section meant composition of the song and QWQ issues refers to when you have used double speech marks ("") in ref titles. --K. Peake 20:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the first two issues in the "Recording and live performance" section?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also in that section, I am using the comma to set off a parenthetical phrase.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the background section, I discussed Central Texas. feedback awaited.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further needed on first topic of "Reception and charts" section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QWQ handled.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyTheTiger I left those points unanswered because I felt they were fine so needed no further response; apologies if you found this rude. Also, I already replied to the reception and charts query by mentioning that you should add info for a composition section; this is almost good to go now. --K. Peake 08:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheesh!&oldid=1207937768"