Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Sheesh!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

DYK toolbox

Sheesh!

(
)

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

  • per DYK procedure, an article at AfD is placed on hold until the AfD is resolved. Should the article survive, it will again become eligible for review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Article was kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough and long enough. Gave it a heavy copy edit. The "Use in television" (renamed from "Pop culture") section needs attention, as one of those sources there is a YouTube link, and another does not explicitly say that the song appears in the commercial. Generally if a secondary source can not be used to establish a use of the song in a particular commercial/clip/episode/etc. it's not worth mentioning. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    • User:DigitalIceAge Are you talking about this source where Sheesh! is not mentioned in the prose, but that has the commercial with the audio of the song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @DigitalIceAge:, is the phrase "viral platform on the platform" correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @DigitalIceAge:, doesn't the middle source in the Pizza Hut paragraph properly cite the song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
      • @TonyTheTiger: viral platform on the platform Whoops, fixed. Fair enough; I have adjusted the section to my liking. I felt it was worded a bit oddly and getting too overly detailed, so I pared it down e.g. to only include months instead of exact dates and general platforms for airings of ads instead of listing every site that they appear on. Article should now be good to go. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Comment: I removed most of the advertising section; ispot.tv, thedrum.com, and Looper aren't reliable enough sources for me to feel comfortable calling an advertisement's usage of a song encyclopedic information. This shouldn't affect the status of this nomination, unless the prose is restored. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
        • The article was promoted, after which the removed content was restored – while the discussion is ongoing, I've temporarily pulled the hook from prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

  • Pulled the hook as the previous concerns haven't been addressed. BorgQueen (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Marking with non-tick icon so the hook won't be moved to the Approved page prematurely. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • To clarify:
  1. This article was passed at DYK in this discussion above by User:DigitalIceAge 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. This article was passed at DYK in this discussion above by User talk:Flibirigit 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  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)
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:DRIVEBY seems to be a term for objecting without sufficient explanation. In the past it has been used for objections without willingness to engage in discussion, but that is not the official use of the term. I mean objecting without any willingness to discuss. Whatever that is is what I am pointing out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Sounds reasonable. If there's no further objection I'm going to re-tick it. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Prep 5
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sheesh!&oldid=1137495232"