Template:Did you know nominations/Lips Are Movin
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 11:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No longer a GA (Talk:Lips Are Movin/GA2)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lips Are Movin[edit]
- ... that the music video for the song "Lips Are Movin" by Meghan Trainor is the first music video ever to be created entirely by social media influencers?
- ALT1: ... that the music video for the song "Lips Are Movin" by Meghan Trainor mimics what takes place behind-the-scenes of a music video shoot?
- ALT2: ... that, according to some critics, the song "Lips Are Movin" by Meghan Trainor eliminated her one-hit wonder status?
- ALT3: ... that the song "Lips Are Movin" by Meghan Trainor was written in eight minutes?
Improved to Good Article status by MaranoFan (talk). Self nominated at 11:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC).
- Found some close paraphrasing, though it appears to be just this ref czar ⨹ 09:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that I have fixed the close paraphrasing. Marano fan 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot support the first hook. Many music videos have been entirely created by social media influencers. The nominator must mean "videos that have reached the mainstream in some sort of undefinable way". Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- The first hook is incomprehensible, if only because "social media influencers" is not in my dictionary. In addition, what "created" here means is entirely unclear. After all, the video has a director--he didn't create it? HP didn't "create" it? The bit about the "influencers", well, the article suggests they participated in the video, not that they created it. So this has to go, unless totally rephrased. ALT1 is indeed boring, and the hyphens should be removed: "behind the scenes" should be hyphenated only if it's an adjectival phrase used attributively. ALT2 is better but still humdrum. ALT3 could work if the eight minutes (quite astonishing) is combined with the 2.5 million views in two days (also astonishing--imagine 2.5 million times 3 minutes and 1 second spent on things that matter!)--that might be catchy.
As for verification and GA status--well, these hooks are all verified, more or less (some of the sourcing in the article is sub par). GA status is a bit iffy. I'm not sure if that should get in the way of a DYK, but the GA badge was stuck on this article much too quickly, esp. since a. the prose was not up to snuff (not just in copyedits and word choice, but also in the very style, which just throws one sentence after another); b. some of the sourcing is questionable; c. I have doubts about coverage. That's up to the DYK crowd to decide on, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Putting this nomination on hold pending the current Good Article Reassessment. If the reassessment concludes that the article is indeed a GA, this review can continue. If, however, the conclusion is that the article should be delisted, then this nomination will have to close, since the article is not 5x expanded in the required time period before nomination, though it could be renominated for DYK should the article subsequently regain GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Article was delisted as a result of the GAR mentioned above. Marking for closure, since it is no longer eligible for DYK as noted in my post above. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
