Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [1].

Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)

Notified: WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Reggae, WikiProject Songs

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to today's FA standards. Meant to put it up for review earlier after leaving commentary on the talk page, but somehow forgot until now. Anyway, this is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

No major problems, but could be better. For example, I feel that "Lisa Haines of BBC Music referred to the song as" could be something like "Lisa Haines of BBC Music called the song" or "Lisa Haines of BBC Music described to the song as", and "Ben Wener told Stefani that the song was disingenuous and 'absurd'" would probably be better as "Ben Wener criticized the song as disingenuous and 'absurd'".

1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

Almost. The music video section doesn't contain any reviews, and it feels incomplete to just list live performances without any commentary or detail other than the names of events.

1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

Absolutely not. The "live performances", "use in visual media", and "track listings" sections are completely uncited. That alone would automatically fail the GA criteria if nominated today. There are also some dead links, and I'm not sure if "Rebel Waltz" (one of the dead links) or "Neumu" are reliable. ATRL is a forum and definitely not reliable, and neither is Jason Shawhan's About.com review per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Video director and theme also need references. Not sure why "Above deck Stefani, the Harajuku Girls, Eve, and more pirates dance on the deck and rigging. Stefani is also seen dancing with the Harajuku Girls in a treasure trove, often carrying a sword, and swinging from an anchor. When the girls dunk the toy ship in a fish tank, the galleon engages in cannon fire, causing Stefani and the pirates to fall all over the ship, and Stefani and the Harajuku Girls are soon shipwrecked." is unreferenced when other music video bits are cited. Since its reception and composition seem to rely heavily on album reviews, more reviews dedicated specifically to the song would be helpful.

1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

Looks good.

1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process

Seems OK.

2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections

No. It fails to take into account the music video, genres, and what critics said about the song. It also doesn't name any of the nations where it charted in the top ten.

2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

As far as I can tell, there are no problems here.

2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)

Not exactly. There are a few bare URL's, and some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated this past January) while others don't. "The" is not part of the title for Orange County Register, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".

3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Almost. File:RichGirl1.jpg is rather blurry, and I'm on the fence as to whether File:RichGirlSheetMusic.png or File:Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song - sample).ogg are particularly beneficial. The audio sample is currently 24 seconds long when it should not exceed 23.6 seconds (10% of the song's length) per WP:SAMPLE. All images have appropriate licensing.

4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style

No excess detail detected.

The edition that passed for FA in June 2007 wasn't exactly ideal and is not something I would've supported if reviewing at the time, but to be fair, the criteria was less demanding back then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Criteria of concern are 1b and 1c: comprehensiveness and verifiability, and 2a and 2c: lead and consistent citations. Note that two of the unsourced sections have been removed. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist while no longer an automatic fail since there's only one unsourced section, there overall hasn't really been any effort to bring this up to FA standards based on my concerns listed above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.