Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Streets (song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2022 [1].

Streets (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that achieved commercial success in frankly the most 2020s way possible: blowing up on TikTok. After an Internet challenge which featured "Streets" went viral on the platform, the resulting boost in streams propelled this song to number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 8 on the Global 200---a pretty impressive feat. The trend was so influential to the song's notability, in fact, that the music video for the song features the artist Doja Cat performing her version of the online challenge.

When I found the article lying on the GA nominations backlog for 6 months, while still having several issues with regards to sourcing and prose, I decided to take on the duty of nursing it to good health. Now, after a GA review from Realmaxxver, and a very helpful PR from the wonderful @Aoba47 and @GWL, I believe that this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. This is my first-ever foray into FAC, so please remind me when I fall short of understanding how the process works! Cheers, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I understand the purpose of this part, Incorporating both Doja Cat's singing voice and rapping voice, but it seems like an unnecessarily wordy way to say that she sings and raps on this song. I think this information could be conveyed in a better way.
  • You Right, right! That part of the lead should be less verbose now
  • I'd move the citation for this sentence, "Streets" was a sleeper hit that gradually acquired Internet-driven success., to the end. as the current placement is not the best for readability.
  • ref 32 is used to cite only the "sleeper hit" claim, and that article does not support the other part of the sentence that says "gradually acquired Internet-driven success." I think it will be fine to keep it where it is, but we'll see if anyone else objects.
  • I still find the separation to be unnecessary, but I will leave this up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Paul Anka, Yeti Beats, and Theron Feemster images, I would include the year these photos were taken in the caption to provide full context to readers.
  • Rewritten. I also split the caption for the Yeti Beats/Theron Feemster images into two sentences, since I found them to be overwhelmingly long.

Great work with the article. A majority of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review phase. I believe this should be everything from me. Once the above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick comments above, @Aoba !! I have addressed everything that needs to have been addressed. Also, if you don't mind --- I need to know if you're able to do a full source review of the article? Of course, that's not necessary on your end, and these comments are already of enough help for me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 05:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. As for your question about a source review, I will have to decline on that one. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. Anyways, once again, thanks! I am glad that you supported. And I completely understand that you declined ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

So, let's see what we got here left after the PR. Pinging nominator Troubled.elias per offwiki request. I might do a prose review when I am in the mood for it; may also do source formatting check. GeraldWL 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I will drop by comments really shortly. Please ping me again if for whatever reason I neglect to respond within a reasonable timeframe :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is good: it is reduced, and the parameters are validly copied from other articles. Good job with the footnotes too btw :D
  • Thanks :")
  • Theron's image looks good
  • Hooray!
  • I was kind of conflicted seeing Yeti's image's parameter, considering the EXIF data has no data on the camera used, but then again EXIFs can be wrong, and a Google Lens search has no avail, so I'll give a pass on that.
  • Actually, there is EXIF data, at least on the original image file. I didn't use the crop tool to trim that photo, so it is very likely that that is the reason why there is a discrepancy in the EXIF
  • Paul Anka's and Doja Cat's images are well-licened: one PD and another OTRS-verified
  • Neat
  • The music video:
  • "partly because it has been viewed over 100 million times on YouTube already." This is redundant; most fair use rationales only state "because it is in low resolution"
  • I'm not sure I follow. That "...partly..." line is for the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter and not the "minimal use" one, which is where the "low-resolution" bit is indicated. Being low-res and not harming the commercial viability of a product are not exact synonyms (though of course one is the result of the other), so is it really redundant?
  • Troubled.elias, typically I would write "This is a low-resolution image used only in one article with a valid purpose, and thus will not hurt any commercial opportunities." No rationale as far as I'm aware of ever states other reasons, and it's not needed, since the commercial protection is pretty apparent in the "minimal use" and "purpose" sections. Using the number of views as a justification also isn't really a legally effective defense either. GeraldWL 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got that. Rewrote as you asked
  • Okay got it. I can put a "song copyright belongs to" clause before the labels. Then I'll write a separate sentence that states the owner of copyright for the video. I can see the "Streets" music video in the website for Lucky Bastards Inc., but not in the London Alley Entertainment website. Do you know how you managed to find out that London Alley did production for the video?
  • Nevermind, found it. Turns out the director works for London Alley
  • Aight, the captions. You can remove note K and L, then alter note M to start with "The latter" to avoid confusion.
  • Is there really any reason to remove the two footnotes? Subjective descriptions like "this was described as erotic" should all be attributed properly to whomever said it. It makes no sense to provide attribution only for the "epic version" claim just because you think only one of the descriptions should have quotes. By the way, I have explained my concern with trying to unquote "film noir-like" in the bullet point below this one.
  • Captions, as we know it, are not part of the prose but the images. That's why you don't see gameplay screenshots with cited captions very often, because they're covered in prose and images are merely enhancers of the prose. I think you can honestly phrase the whole thing with "erotically suspenseful". Also, in a way, "Doja Cat dances while lit from behind with red lights" can be combined with "and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge". "the online trend that contributed to the song's success" is not needed, assuming at this point people already know what the challenge is. GeraldWL 09:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've removed some of the footnotes (while still keeping the one that attributes the "epic version" line to Billboard). And you're right to point out that by this section of the article folks would already be familiar with the Silhouette Challenge's significance towards the song's success. The caption should be trimmed accordingly now.
  • Hmm, I still think it's a bit lengthy; I very rarely see screenshot captions with all these attributes, as in, the publication and author. Even if you want to keep this attribute, you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should. As I stated, the suspense and eroticism can be merged. "Several critics have categorized the music video as erotic, suspenseful, and fantastical." More specific quotes can be seen by readers in the prose. GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you advise we change the whole caption for the screenshot to, then? Remember that the NFC use rationale currently states that the image is there to (1) depict the Silhouette Challenge, (2) convey the sultry and scary tone (keep in mind that the prose mentions only one writer who described this video as such, so your "several critics" suggestion confuses me), and (3) illustrate the film noir comparison made by The Times writers. Thus, the caption should adhere to, at the very least, two of these points. "Several critics praised or otherwise noted the video's aesthetics and its combination of sultry and scary tones; two writers compared the visuals to that of film noir media." --- would that be good enough for you?
Plus... I'm not really sure about the whole "you will have to cite it, which makes the caption way more lengthy than it should" comment... a lot of captions for music video screenshots have citations within them. See Shake It Off#Music video and All About That Bass#Music video for instance.
  • Well, I found a way to get rid of the citations and trim the caption! Glad that we could make that happen. Hopefully I have now solved this comment of yours ^^ And I'm sorry that I came across slightly miffed here
  • "The clip was described as "film noir-like", an erotic "horror-fantasy", and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," --> "The clip was labeled as film noir, erotic horror fantasy, and an "epic version" of the Silhouette Challenge," ... These genres are not coined by the critics so they don't have to be quoted.
  • Cairns and Helm did not call the music video "film noir"---they only made that comparison, i.e. by saying "film noir-like". Hence that term being in quotes. I could try and rewrite that part to "compared the video to film noir" to properly paraphrase, but that would make an already-long image caption even longer (and unnecessarily wordy; I think that sentence does the job of combining the descriptions just fine). Plus, your suggestion for "erotic horror fantasy" has some MOS:SOB problems, and I would just link the entire thing to erotic horror.
  • The Yeti and Theron caption has a citation, but it's already cited in prose? GeraldWL 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "co-wrote 11 out of 12 songs on Hot Pink" claim is not mentioned in the prose itself, so I had to put a citation in the caption as well to get that fact covered
  • Alt texts:
  • The infobox: "Doja Cat facing frontwards as she kneels on top of a smashed car hood." facing frontwards as she kneels on top of can be trimmed to atop; we don't need to be too specific in alt texts
  • Trimmed
  • "The title "Streets" is handwritten in red on the center of the cover art. Below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner." --> "The song's title is written in red on the center, and "Doja Cat" below it, alongside a "SILHOUETTE REMIX" sticker."
  • Trimmed, although very slightly. "The song's title is written in red on the center, and 'Doja Cat' below it" is clunky in a syntactic way---there is no verb on the latter clause that applies to "Doja Cat". If you were to remove the "and", the clause on its own will not make sense. Plus, the sentence does not specify the colour of the text that says "Doja Cat", which would lead readers to assume that it is also red. Which is not. That part of the alt text now currently reads "The song's title—in red—is written on the center, and below it is smaller, white text spelling out "Doja Cat". A red sticker that says "SILHOUETTE REMIX" is plastered on the bottom left corner."
  • Portraits typically don't have to be alt-texted unless it's an infobox image of a bio article. So for photos of Yeti, Theron, Anka, and Doja Cat, you can change them all to "Refer to caption".
  • Got that. Although when I look at the article using my phone, Yeti Beats and Feemster's photos are displayed from top to bottom instead of from left to right. Which makes the caption somewhat confusing. Thus I'll have to indicate which photo depicts which person. "A photo of Yeti Beats." vs. "A photo of Theron Feemster"
  • "A male driver in his cab, looking to his left. Behind him is a shop display window lit by red lights. The silhouette of a woman, who poses provocatively, is shown in the window." -- This can be changed to "Refer to caption" too, as the caption's sentence 1 describes it well.
  • Done
  • Question: @GWL, have I addressed all your concerns for the image review?
    Looks good! Moving on to source reviewing below. GeraldWL 07:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, is that a pass for the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gog, yes it is a pass! :) I did confirm it off-wiki but forgot to do so on-wiki. GeraldWL 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Happy to be challenged on any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnote 1 does not have a reference.
  • Added the Apple Music references, which are used in the track listing and release history sections
  • The images of Yeti Beats and Theron Feemster have different widths to each other. Can they be equalised?
  • Yep - I've added a new cropped version
  • How do we know the dropbox content is from ARIA?
  • If you go to their official website's accreditations page and click "Latest accreditaions [sic]" it would take you to the dropbox link. It's certainly a choice on their end; I understand why this tipped you off at first
  • Refs 108 and 109 have Billboard mis-formatted
  • Footbnote b: "This date pertains to when the song..." - how about something like "This date is when the song..."
  • Rewritten
  • Footnote c: "in which the three served as songwriters" to something like "for which the three served as songwriters"
  • Done
  • Footnote f & K: "...are attributed to ..." - maybe "...are from..."/2"...is from..."
  • I honestly like "attributed" better since it feels more elegant. But to prevent unnecessary repetition I have applied the suggestion to one of the footnotes
  • Footnote g: I think '"Audience impressions" refer to' should be '"Audience impressions" refers to'
  • Good catch
  • "Length 3:47" from infobox doesn't match any of those on the track listing. I guess it may be 3:47 on the album, in which case a citation should be added I think.
  • Lead: "Some critics who reviewed Hot Pink praised the track for demonstrating Doja Cat's versatility as a musical artist" feels a bit vague, pehaps because of the "some", or because it doesn't go on to say anything about what other critics wrote.
  • My thought process behind this was that if I removed "some" from that sentence, it would give the impression that quite a lot of critics commented on the song during their Hot Pink reviews, when the prose only gives two. We could quantify "some" and change it to "two" if you prefer
  • Lead: "...Kemosabe and RCA Records.." perhaps mention that the single was on these labels in the lead.
  • Sorry - can't quite parse that. Do you mean that I should specify that Kemosabe and RCA Records are record labels?
  • No, I just meant it could be mentioned in the lead, but it's already there, so ignore! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backgrond: 'During 2019, Doja Cat released three additional singles in promotion of Hot Pink, two of which appearing in over 200,000 videos on the platform combined—"Rules" and "Cyber Sex".' - I don't understand this.
  • Oh yeah sorry. Should be more straightforward now
  • Background "aforementioned" seems unnecessary.
  • Right - reworded to "successes of the tracks"
  • Production and songwriting: "proceeds to, in the words of Billboard editor Jason Lipshutz," To me, this wording seems like he is expressing a truth rather than an opinion.
  • Changed "in the words of" to "in the views of"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay" something like "with a negligible amount of airplay"
  • Commercial performance and release: "with negligible amount of airplay for the song because of its unprecedented boost in fame online" - reads like the fame online was the cause of the negligible airplay.
  • I was under the impression that that was correct per the cited Billboard source ... Relevant quote: "Airplay for the single is virtually nonexistent, with minimal chart activity deriving from the radio sector as 'Streets' was an unplanned single that gained traction through users on TikTok and social media apps" But I may have misread. Currently I have reworded to the following so that the whole train of thought makes more sense---open to any alternative suggestions.
At first, the track received a negligible amount of airplay; instead, its initial chart activity was driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its unprecedented boost in fame online.
  • Update: I revised that final bit to "driven predominantly by streams and digital sales because of its online success" because the Billboard source says that the single release was unplanned, not the boost in fame
I think it's a suitable improvement, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial performance and release: "Kemosabe and RCA Records.." - same point as for the lead above.
  • Commercial performance and release: Should "third biggest" be hyphenated?
  • Not quite sure about this one honestly... in my head I can see good arguments for both the hyphenated and unhyphenated version. I would gladly appreciate a third opinion from another editor ^^
  • Commercial performance and release: "in its second charting week[74]" - add comma before ref, or move ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Moved to the end
  • Critical reception and analysis: "in her most serious form" is a direct quote from the source.
  • Enclosed in quotes
  • Critical reception and analysis: Perhaps remove "..during the album's runtime" as I'm not sure that the source is specific about whether it's "her most serious form" on the album or in general.
  • That is a good call
  • Critical reception and analysis: I expected more than four sources here. Are there further reviews from reputable sources that can be added?
  • Unfortunately, no... One of the FA reviewers actually raised the same concern during the peer review. Here's an abridged recap of what I said at the time
When I scoured for reviews of Hot Pink posted at the time of its release, there were only two of them that described something about "Streets" in non-trivial detail. Actually, the Pitchfork review for Hot Pink, quite annoyingly, has said very little about the song itself ... That and the Consequence review were all the critical commentary I can find for the song during 2019, unfortunately
Though I believe the amount of critical commentary about the song is at a bare minimum - it addresses both the composition itself, as well as its commercial reception. So it doesn't seem to neglect any major details per WP:WIAFA.
  • Music video: "Aaron Williams, an editor for Uproxx" has already been mentioned, so perhaps just "Williams" or "Williams of Uproxx"?
  • Amended
  • Music video: "Mason of Slant Magazine" - magazine was mentioned in the preceding para, so just "Mason" would do
  • Rewritten
  • I ran scripts to fix a couple of date formats and dashes.

Hi Troubled.elias. I can't see any big issues, only things to tweak. I might have some further comments or questions later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troubled.elias, have you completed your responses to BennyOnTheLoose? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias and Gog the Mild. I'm happy with responses above, but will have another look later, probably after some of the other reviewers' comments have been replied to. Feel free to ping me if I'm delaying the process! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benny, can you have another look now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Happy to support. (I'm assuming that the outstanding points on the source review will be addressed.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Doing the easy to look sources first, then the more complex ones. Will do spot-check. GeraldWL 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]
  • The Apple Music sources need publisher parameter to the record labels/company.
  • Done
  • Ref 7: remove the Illustrators parameter. Those people merely drew the featured GIF which holds little significance. The parameter is more reserved for multimedia articles, like this one.
  • Got it
  • Ref 8: Remove "Billboard Staff". We don't put staff attributes.
  • Alright. A few other refs had that listed as the author so I went ahead and removed those parameters for those refs as well :))
  • I can't look at ref 9 and the archive is pretty laggy, but it looks multimedia so I'll let this pass.
  • Oop- you're right. Nothing is showing up when I click the archive link. Perhaps I can use something other than Internet Archive for it?
  • Ref 20: is "19439-71705-1" catalogue number? If so, are there prefix letters at the number (e.g. ISC 0000)?
  • Yep, it is the catalogue number. And no, there ain't any prefixes before the ID (see also this Discogs entry).
  • Ref 51-52, 63-66, 105: can you fill in the transl-title parameter? Google Translate should work as the titles are very short.
  • To keep consistent, I have not added a trans-title parameter for any foreign-language references, because refs 63, 64, and 66 are generated by Template:Single chart instead of Template:Cite web. With the current parameters in {{Single chart}}, I am not able to add a translated title, unforts. See also my response to the point below this one.
  • Ref 53-55, 57, 59-75, 93-99, 101-102: is there a way these links can be archived? If Wayback doesn't work, there's always ghostarchive.org
  • The templates behind those references are generated by Template:Single chart and unfortunately with the way that things are, there is no way for me to sneak in an archive link... which is really annoying from a verifiability and formatting point of view. As mentioned above, the same goes for the translated titles
  • Ref 56: decapitalize "Select". "SK – SINGLES DIGITAL – TOP 100", "202105" should be italicized per ref 75's format.
  • I'm trying to keep the Slovak Charts citation's formatting consistent with the Czech Charts citation's if that makes sense... hence the capitalized "Select". I can't just change how the note looks for the Czech citation because, well, it's not generated by any of the cite templates. It's not like I can change how the Mexico Certs ref (ref 75) looks either, because funnily enough, that is also generated by a non-cite template. Specifically, Template:Certification Table Entry. My god, these templates need some serious cleanup to keep references consistent, now that I think about it. Lmao

Other than that, looks good. I might revisit later just to make sure.

Spotcheck[edit]
  • Aight so this sounds more of a prose than spotcheck but it is kind of relevant. You often interchange "the track/song" with "the record", and though in a way synonymous, "record" only applies to a song that is exclusively released physically. And the sources don't seem to state such.

Ok that is like, really it. Do apologise for the long wait! Got an IRL project going on so it is super hard to catch up. I do have some prose comments though.

Troubled.elias, poke. GeraldWL 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled.elias, doule poke. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, anything else outstanding from your PoV? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pfff, @Gog the Mild, appreciate the humor. I think this part is resolved, judging by the statement of support and the "Glad everything was resolved" from GWL below. All the hits you get when you Ctrl+F "record" give you record labels, recording industry associations, the recording process, etc. None of them use "record" to refer to the song itself. Although I'd need clearer commentary from GWL on how the rest of the spotchecking went. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 01:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, think you missed this: "The record received little media coverage", clearly referring to the single. I did not find any problems in regards to sourcing and citing; every source seem to be reliable, mixing secondary with a couple of primary sources. They are also cited at the right sentences. I don't think I'm able to sort of recheck right now, but if anyone wants to, please do; I may have missed things since this is my first time spotchecking. But yeah, apart from the record thing, everything else (to me) looks good. GeraldWL 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence, "record" pertains to Amala the studio album... Oh well, changed that for the much clearer "album" ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 13:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose- SUPPORT[edit]
  • The former. From my understanding, "So High" blew 'out of nowhere' as some might say, without any extravagant promotion on her end, so "marketing" doesn't feel right here
  • Then I would suggest linking it.
  • ...linking... to which term? "Viral marketing" does not feel right to describe "So High" 's success, as I said, so I don't like it as a target. And "viral success" is already linked to viral phenomena. It seems like there is nothing to do here.
  • Sorry-- I didn't notice the piped link there!
  • "By September 2021, "Rules" and "Cyber Sex"" --> "By September 2021, the latter two"
  • Feels somewhat clunky to me, imo. Plus it's repeated here only once, so I think we could let this slide
  • Fair enough.
  • Including both "Tiktok superstar" and "household name" in the same sentence is kind of repetition. I would suggest trimming the first half of the sentence to "Likewise, Aliya Chaudhry of Slate argued that..."
  • That is better!
  • "brothers who comprise a two-person band"-- wasn't "two person" already established by mentioning two names and "comprise"?
  • Removed "two-person"
  • Add a "(YEAR)" to the film ("You Got Served (2004)")
  • Done
  • Footnote e: "The adjectives "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful" are" can be removed as it is excessive.
  • Okay
  • "It has a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds." This would be read in a monotone way. "has been described as "sultry", "melanchol[ic]", and "soulful", with a duration of 3 minutes and 46 seconds" sounds more natural.
  • Yeah but it also would make the first sentence longer. I would prefer that sentences are short
  • "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance in the song a blend between a "wispy" singing voice and a "raspy" rap delivery that does not "[ruin] the immersion" for listeners." I kind of got lost out of focus reading this. I suggest something like "Jade Gomez of Paste remarked the vocals as immersive despite its blend of euphonic singing and hoarse rapping." Shorter, less quotes but synonymous.
  • Will "Jade Gomez of Paste called the vocal performance an immersive blend between a 'wispy' singing voice..." be good enough? I did my best to make the Gomez+Thomas descriptions work together
  • Sounds great!
  • "However, in the beginning of 2021, around 15 months after its initial release, the track experienced a surge in popularity on TikTok." I think this would suit best as the first sentence of paragraph two. "On the application" would have to be changed to "There" to avoid repetition.
  • Done as you asked :")
  • After some internal debating with myself, I decided to delink it
  • "sparked fans'"-- of? Doja Cat, or the song, or the album?
  • Fans of Doja Cat, but I went ahead and removed "fans'" entirely to avoid further confusion
  • Skipping the rest of the section since it's too much lol. But given the extensive copyedits we've done, I think it's all great, and a quick scroll reveals no flaws to me!
  • That's good! I think I spent most of my time and effort on the article perfecting that section in particular, so I'm glad you like it :")
  • "as the reason why" is extraneous, "cited" already does the job.
  • Fair.
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I still do think the first paragraph felt repetitive, but I guess it's fine given the limited sources and statements, and paragraph two is very strong!
  • Yeah, me too don't worry. It could have been a whooole lot worse
  • "the first few seconds of Paul Anka's "Put Your Head on My Shoulder""-- "Paul Anka's" is repetitive, it's already established.
  • Right - removed
  • Okay, I think you mayyy just be overdescribing the MV a bit. Let me elaborate bit by bit.
  • "In the next scene, Doja Cat dances" --> "Doja Cat then dances"
  • I like my wording better - without the "in the next scene" it gives the impression that we're still on the same location which... a car parked in a shop window will raise eyebrows for sure. I'm trying to abide by the principle of least astonishment here
  • Yeahh, I just noticed that.
  • "wearing white contact lenses and appearing to be undead, subsequently emerge from the road on which the car is parked" --> "rise from the dead". It's not a breakdown, it's a summary, and it's perfectly assumable that they're rising from the dead.
  • Fair enough, rewritten
  • "As "Streets" comes to an end, the video transitions to a shot of Doja Cat as she reclines on a living room couch. Residing in a house located on a nuclear testing site," --> "Doja Cat is then seen reclining on a living room couch, in a house nearby a nuclear test site."
  • Done
  • "She rests her head on the lap of a mannequin that looks like the cab driver"-- you can't assume that it's a mannequin. "She rests her head on the lap of a the cab driver, immobile" is safer since it doesn't assume the true nature of the driver, only what is visible onscreen.
  • ...but the Rolling Stone source cited for that sentence says that she's lying beside a mannequin. "In another fantasy sequence, she snuggles up on a couch with a male mannequin before the entire room is set on fire." Then the New York (Vulture) citation beside that has this line: "settle down with the object of her affection [Siriboe, the cab driver] at a nuclear-testing site." With these in mind I think it's perfectly fine to make the assumption. Somewhat reticent, but we can settle for a compromise and instead say that she is lying on the lap of a male mannequin without specifying that it's the cab driver.
  • One thing I learned as a film article editor is that critics can be wrong. I've seen countless reviews of something get the most remote things like the name of a director wrongly. A review shouldn't determine an ambiguous fact objectively. Perhaps we can say "what seems to be the cab driver" to emphasize this ambiguity.
  • Okay then. Amended
  • "and the resulting explosion"-- repetition. --> "which".
  • Done
  • Italicize Uproxx
  • Of course
  • I don't think so, at least not to me? I'm not a film kind of person, and I think it's soooomewhat of a technical term, so imo I feel justified in linking it. If you want we can get a third opinion about this :)
  • Maybe, although... cinematography is never linked in film articles. I mean, almost anything primary in film is never credited. Producer? What counts as a producer? Someone who made the whole thing? Then you learnt a producer is just an oversee-er, then there are such things as executive, associate, creative, co-producer, the producer. A producer could also be nothing more than one who funds a project-- but "why are they called a produceer?" These things should be technically linked, but they're kind of common knowledge. I also found "cinematography" to be derivative of "photography". GeraldWL 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GWL: Well, for one, this isn't a film article... it's a song article. I suppose you could make the argument that music videos are a form of film (and I would agree!). However, I would argue that the average reader who's likely to search and visit the article would be someone who's familiar with songs (probably Doja Cat fans), but not necessarily film. As such, we shouldn't expect readers to be already familiar with filmmaking terminology such as this one, so link them in line with MOS:UL. Someone can prove me wrong and correct me on how often cinematography is used in most contexts though, FWIW - that would convince me enough to delink cinematography
  • I would suggest bringing a third person here. Perhaps it's just me too acclimated with the film environment, but the term cinematography felt too... common in a way. I would say this is also the case with radiology: one might assume it's the study of radio signals, but it is actually the study of radioactivity, although that misunderstanding doesn't really merit linking since it's merely alien words to some. But yeah, I would want another person to comment, since I can see your point too. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sympathetic to the suggestion that this is overlink, and personally consider that FAC articles in general tend towards overlink, I am aware that the consensus on this is towards the "if in doubt link it" PoV. The arguments advanced for this specific link also seem sensible, so I am content to go with the nominator's view on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assessment, Gog ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 12:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lift program, a campaign"-- so is it a program or campaign?
  • The HNHH source uses "initiative" to describe it, so I just went with that.
  • "The production team for the video decided to incorporate milk into the set design to evoke cat imagery"-- they... put milk, to evoke cat imagery?
  • Everyone knows what milks and cats are; no need to wikilink them :P
  • Lmaoo no, I was just wondering... how does milk make... cat imagery? Or perhaps I'm too autistic to fathom ;-;
  • Huh? Okay then
  • The thought of milk making cat imagery will officially bug me for life.
  • "marked her "latest step toward world domination""-- "latest" may be outdated sooner or later. Suggest something like "believed that the live performance is an effort in achieving global fame."
  • Clarified that the article was published just after the live performance came out
  • Good catch
  • "UFO" --> "unidentified flying object"
  • Done
Troubled.elias: nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild - OOPS sorry! Will try to get this off the "older noms" section as soon as I can. My pending FAC review for 1982 World Snooker Championship should be done now as well; once again apologies for the delays :") ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 06:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL, I am finally done addressing, hopefully, everything. Don't hesitate to ping me here with your thoughts on my responses :") And by the way, I never really got to find out your exact thoughts on how the spot check went. May you please clarify that? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GWL ? ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 07:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I addressed the remaining stuff, just one more problem and it should be good-- that is, for me. GeraldWL 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand everything looks good! Glad everything was resolved, and it looks good now. It's nice to see this article develop. I'm supporting this nomination. Good luck! GeraldWL 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

Support - happy with this one. Saw one or two minor bits, but nothing to avoid a support in this case. great work. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Lee Vilenski! Off-topic, but congrats with getting the bureaucrat role.

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I finally get to look and it's almost over, - I'll see. Writing while reading until I fall asleep which may be soon ;) - Lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Do we need all these unlinked names of songwriters?
    • ...yes? The infobox's songwriter parameter asks us the names of those credited for writing the song's music and lyrics. Thus we give it all the songwriters; I don't think it matters whether they have their own articles (and thus can be wikilinked).
      • Thank you. Before I forget: please indent following the essay on top of User talk:Drmies, it helps the blind. - Where I come from: I feel like a victim of the infobox wars, and still have a hard time explaining the wish for key facts (see Cosima Wagner) to make our info more accessible (and am not heard), so I don't see the relevance of names without links which I think can't be key. --GA
        • I was not aware of this information until now! Incredibly grateful to you for directing me to the essay - I try my best to make reading material accessible, so this is much appreciated.
        • And re. that last sentence, I understand where you're coming from. Infoboxen should communicate essential information in an easy-to-understand manner. Thing is, a lot of songs in popular music take a whole team of 5+ writers to concoct: cf. WAP (song), Partition (song), and Thank U, Next (song). "Streets" is no different. So when crediting songwriters --- including those credited in samples or interpolations --- we have to take each and every one into account, because they're all integral into creating the music described in the article.
        • To make an argument more based in WP guidelines... MOS:INFOBOXUSE states that "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." The relevant infobox and infobox parameter is Template:Infobox song#writer, and the instructions don't say anything about not listing songwriters if they cannot be wikilinked. Hopefully, this makes things somewhat clearer :)
          • Thank you! The basic difference seems to be that fair credit is of higher importance than "key information", - accepted. --GA

Background

  • Isn't "American" kind of default for the topic? ... then just "rapper" instead of "American rapper" (twice).
    • No, not really... rap/hip-hop music isn't limited to just the US, nor is it known widely as a US thing. Lots of countries, regardless of location, have somewhat of a rap culture. Ukraine, Iceland, Germany, the Philippines, Nigeria, you name it. It's not redundant at all to indicate someone's an American rapper, in the same way it's not redundant to say "German rapper" or "Peruvian rapper".
      • See, I have a very mixed feeling about the meaning of nationality when it comes to music. No question that there are Ukrainian rappers, and great there are. And accepted to introduce her as an "American rapper and singer", setting the stage for the whole article. But once that is done, I believe that it's kind of default that colleagues are also American, so repetition not needed for all others, unless they come from a different country. --GA
        • I suppose that makes sense... it is disconcerting to see the exact phrase "American rapper" two sentences in a row. I've removed "American" in both instances :)
          • Wow, I feel understand, and - coming from that CW discussion - it is such an unusual welcome experience! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production ...

  • I wonder why first music then text? (Confessing that I find the lyrics trivial) Sleepy as expected ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, including the lyrics before the composition would have been as valid as doing it the other way around! I decided to include info about the composition first since the article covers it in more detail. Re. the "trivial" comment - the lyrics themselves are "major facts or details" in most pop song articles and as such should not be neglected. However, since this song's lyrics/subject material have virtually little coverage in reliable sources, the article would have to say very little about it, which is a shame. Although if you were to ask me, the quoted lyrics aptly sum up what the song is all about, so not entirely useless :shrug:
      • Again where I come from: I wrote articles about songs a lot, mostly short ones (one up for deletion in case of interest), my best probably Traum durch die Dämmerung, and without exception, they have text first, because most often the text has inspired the music. - The lyrics: of course mention, but I am just surprised how rather conventional they read, not much different from something written in the 19th century. - I took this little break for my own refreshment, overwhelmed with RD articles, Richard Taruskin followed by Peter Brook - they don't wait. Will see when I can return to here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good luck with your other work, and take as much time as you need! Please let me know when you'll leave another batch of comments by pinging me here. In the era of music in which you take interest, it may be true that "the [lyrics] inspired the music", but ehhh that's more up in the air with 21st-century popular music. In the case of this song, we're not sure if the music inspired the lyrics or the other way around, so I don't think we can agree on which aspect of the song should be discussed first based on such information.
        • Wrt the "lyrics" issue - it is definitely conventional subject material, yeah. I mean, popular music, as with any other genre, is gonna have its own corpus of recurring themes. Though whether or not the subject matter's conventional does not necessarily mean it's trivial, I would say. And when you say trivial, do you mean too trivial for inclusion within the article? If that's the case, please do let me know if this concern has been addressed with my comments above ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           00:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about the word "trivial" - I was sleepy, and English is not my first language. It just worded my surprise about how conventional these 21st-century lyrics are. Of course they should appear. My other surprise was the order, but you explained well, thank you. - I have now (after going over my long watchlist) another obituary to add to Brook, - a monster of an article, with some long lists without cohesion, but at least everything has some source now (which is necessary for bringing him to the Main page), and after nominating, I'll return here, promised. - Today is the birthday of Brian who wrote Cosima Wagner, DYK? Fond memories. He wrote an article about a fresh look at infoboxes in 2013 (link on my user page), but his friends argue as if he didn't mean it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I've read about Brian before. It seems like he was a very prolific editor :( May he rest in peace. On a more enthusiastic note, I'm glad we've resolved your comments so far... looking forward to more of them coming soon ^^ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
            📝see my work             06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette Challenge

  • I wonder if that is a good header, or could perhaps a few words explain what happened? Will most readers know that Challenge is short for Internet challenge?
    • I believe it is most appropriate for a header. It is what all the cited sources call "the thing that made 'Streets' extremely popular online" - think WP:COMMONNAME but for section titles. If unfamiliar folks want to know what the "challenge" in "Silhouette Challenge" means, they can just click the section, where they will see an explanation of what the Silhouette Challenge was all about. This would, I believe, suffice - I would pipe "Challenge" to Internet challenge to further help readers, but we already have an Internet challenge link in the Background section. Per WP:DUPLINK, we should generally avoid this.
  • I also wonder if the information about the head staff not proposing Streets for a single belongs under the header. (But I understand we need some text to go along the pretty pic of Anka.)
    • It does. The following "commercial performance" section establishes "Streets" as a sleeper hit - that is, a song that received very little promotion during initial release (in this case, the release of the album Hot Pink) but became quite successful long after it. The information you highlighted is important in the article as a context clue: in case folks are unfamiliar with what sleeper hits mean.
      • Thanks for both explanations, and, wow, fast! - I like to read in a TOC things that give me a clue as to what expect. "Reception" tells me something, "Silhouette Challenge" is a mystery. You think that's fine to raise curiosity? Fine then. It doesn't matter that the head stuff's decisions don't relate to the challenge? Fine then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance and release

  • Did I read right that the first intro sentence there more or less summarizes the previous section, while the three YT videos mentioned in the next sentence happened before? If yes, I'm not sure that's a good record in chronology terms.
    • Yes. And I was not going for chronology with the two sentences. I was going for a thesis statement followed by some supporting points. I opened with "'Streets' was a sleeper hit that gradually gained Internet-driven success" because it aptly summarizes what the section is all about - its commercial performance. The next part of that paragraph, "gained traction in social media after three live performances ... sparked interest in the track" is there to explain, or support, why the song became a sleeper hit in the first place! It didn't feel right putting it over at the "Silhouette Challenge" section because that section dealt with how the song was received on TikTok, not social media platforms in general.
  • So I believe the image caption of her performing in 2012 could end there. The "going viral" is not pictured.
    • The opening paragraph states that certain live performances of "Streets" contributed to the song blowing up. The picture shows her in a live performance; the second sentence in the caption states why its placement in the section is relevant and connects it to the opening paragraph in question.
      • Taken, but for me, it wouldn't be necessary to explain why the pic sits where it does by saying the same thing a third time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International

  • I wonder if "Global" might work better, derived from the Board? The streaming release comes as a bit of a surprise after all these charts, - could it perhaps also show in the header?
    • Both are fine, although I have a slight preference towards "international". "Global" kind of implies that the song became available for release in virtually every single country/territory/landmass (which is absurd), whereas "international" denotes that the song was released for digital streaming in one or more territories, but not all of it. Pedantry, I know, but I suppose that's just what I think.
    • Re. "streaming release" - the big header establishes that the sections under it deal with chart performance and release formats. This shouldn't be intended to be surprising :P
      • taken - it was rather my personal surprise, forgive me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and analysis

  • I confess that the header promises more than I get: that she is "in her most serious form", "ultra-soft and chill", "one of her best", showing versatility, switched up, - that's it. Really. You can't help if that's all what the sources say, but how does it deserve the title "analysis"? "slow and raspy voice" is about the only thing concrete. No explanation whatsoever for the hype? OK, analysis is done for her way to get attention ;) - instead of the song.
    • No explanation whatsoever for the hype - actually, the second paragraph mentions that Doja Cat has an "innate ability to produce hit singles" and discusses how she leverages the popularity of her songs to "properly... capitalize on the trends that her fans create". Williams of Uproxx expands more on that second point in the article. While not a lot of commentary, it still seems like insightful stuff, and thus the section title deserves the "analysis" part. Though of course "critical reception" on its own will do the job just fine.
    • To add, the Background section talks a bit about how Doja Cat's past songs have been popular on TikTok, and established that TikTok users have "a propensity of making songs go viral" - meaning, they just kind of pick what songs they want to receive hype I guess. It's more of an art than it is science.
      • How about "Critical reception" then? - With no promise of (in-depth) analysis made, no disappointment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped

Video

  • How about first saying what it is? It has nothing to do in the caption of the almost abstract image (at least in that size), and reception makes little sense before knowing of what.
    • I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? The opening sentence of both the music video section and the image caption says "music video for 'Streets'", so it is very clear what is being talked about.
      • The first para is reception of the video, the second begins its description. For me, first description (what it is), the reception would work better. --GA
        • Ah, now I understand where you're getting at. Langford's, Halle's, and Shaffer's comments about the music video's aesthetic and tone, I would think, also double as descriptions for the video, so def appropriate. Explains what the vibes are like before we get to the plot itself. Plus it's definitely relevant to the image caption - "Several critics labeled the video as erotic, horror-fantasy" refers to the aforementioned comments.
          • We will have to disagree. I'd factually describe the plot, instead of ringing the "erotic" and "horror" bells to start it, but as you like it. We'll also disagree on what an image caption should do. For me, it should say that the actor's face can be seen far right, in his cab, with the illuminated shop window in the background, to connect to the plot. I couldn't see the face, believe me or not, and all the red looks completely abstract to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While inside a cab on a heavily congested street, he notices Doja Cat posing as a mannequin by a shop window across the sidewalk." - He doesn't notice her, but strangely a puppet in a window move, no? That's not a mannequin, to my understanding, - my translator gives my display mannequin and window mannequin. (A mannequin is a a person showing garments at a fashion show, expected to live, no?) The object in the show is the window is not expected to live, no?
    • I have watched the music video - he does notice her posing, and the cited sources also say so. It's just that the screenshot happened to capture the driver in a frame where he was looking away.
    • The cited sources say that she was posing as a mannequin, and we go by what the sources say. And yes, she does move, and mannequins are statues or large dolls that aren't supposed to move :) We aren't calling Doja Cat a mannequin; we are simply describing that she is pretending as one for the video.
      • I think we have a simple language problem, with the German "Mannequin" meaning something completely different. --GA
  • I believe some of the next imaginations could be trimmed, without describing individual poses and desasters.
  • "When the song finishes playing, the music video cuts back to the driver inside his cab. It is revealed that he imagined everything that happened beforehand; he encounters Doja Cat once again, this time shown as his passenger." - I'd just say: "In the end, the driver is back inside his cab, revealing that he imagined all this, driving her as his passenger." for example.
    • Replying to these two comments in one go. I tried to trim here as best as I could without omitting some pretty major imagery that is adequately covered in the sources. Weirdly enough, its music video received lots of WP:SIGCOV from major music publications, even more than it did the actual song's composition, so that's why our section for the music video has lots of details... It strikes me as odd. But well, we give due weight on certain aspects of the subject based on preponderance of sources. Let me know if the trimming is sufficient in terms of WP:DUE - otherwise, let me know which details you think can go.

Reception

  • more or less as in the previous reception section: many words (of the critics") saying little. "one of the best", "appealing to current social media trends", - really, that's all? No opera reviewer would be taken serious when saying so little ;) - Summary: she knows what her costumers want and feeds them with that.
    • Yes, unfortunately, that is it :P For what it's worth, I did find the first paragraph to be a bunch of nothing burgers, but I did my best with what I got. The second paragraph was slightly better imo.
    • And, well, we're not talking about opera reviewers, we're talking about reviewers of contemporary music. Completely different topic areas, completely different standards for what constitutes as good commentary. But we're getting off-topic here.
      • just saying again where I come from, what I normally see, explaining what I miss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

  • how about adding that there were more videos? - That's it from someone completely alien to the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean?
      • I mean that the header doesn't indicate anything besides performances, and here come 3 videos.
        • They are videos of live performances

The tables: cudos for diligent work. T'd have the numbers of views right-aligned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this! That table with the views or certified sales is generated by this template, and unfort there doesn't seem to be an option to right-align the rightmost column. I'd love to take this suggestion but there's just nothing I can do within my power atm :(
  • @Gerda, I have done my best to respond to every point in here :) I have asked you for clarification with some of these replies, so I would appreciate a response to them as soon as you can! As with everything we do in Wikipedia, though, take your time and pace yourself. Since there were quite a lot of responses, would you please indicate which concerns have not been resolved by replying to this specific bullet point with the specific comments? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did well, and I thank you, and I replied individually (before getting to here). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally: the lead. I like most of it, but would like to mention (before the going viral) that the song was originally not supposed to be a single - for more contrast. I'd prefer the last sentence in chronological order, and I'd try to close the whole thing on some line of reception. But up to you. - Possibly a completely unrelated question: why is it called "Streets"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rearranged the last paragraph. I too like the lead as it is. @Gerda, I think the "unplanned single" detail might be too much for the lead: we're already summarising a lot of things that make the song notable, and I don't really think its being an unplanned single is one of them.
    • And I believe it's called "Streets" because it's named after the song it samples, "Streets Is Callin'", but unfortunately I can't find a high-quality source to back this up, so it will have to remain unmentioned. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
      📝see my work       00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, and support. I learned a lot: that - while "Traum durch die Dämmerung" clearly says it's all a dream in the title - this ballad can be named streets without ever referring to even one street (at least not noteworthy to the article), and harmless lyrics be blown up to a monster spider and nuclear desaster, and gets liked ;) - I didn't know the singer and met a woman of strong personality and cat-like movements, more reference to her name than the milk ;) - Now this woman who "is apt to go on and on and on until she gets her way" (allegedly) - will look for DYK Diana Tishchenko, and why Brook is still not on the Main page. Last reminder of "my way": I don't think the images of her live performance and the video need any caption beyond saying what is pictured, a 2021 live performance, a cabdriver in whose head something is going on. The critics' views -about the whole video, and mentioned often enough prominently - have nothing to do with the very "scene" pictured which is neither erotic nor "noir", only unclear ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gerda Arendt, thank you for the support; I appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions. I'm glad you and I were both patient on the contested points, but oh well, we will have to agree to disagree on your thoughts about the video screenshot. The picture is there to communicate the tone of the entire video, and it's fine if you don't detect those tones I guess :shrug: Also, I refuse to comment further on the "go on and on" line, though I politely request you strike it, because it feels off-topic and inappropriate to me. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
          📝see my work           07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Gog (and apologies for the ping), what's the status of this nomination? Would Gerald's wrapping up his comments be the only thing left to do before the discussion is closed with a decision ? Thanks, ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If GWL were to sign off on everything I would certainly be happy to look through the reviews and the article with a view to closing. I imagine my fellow coordinators would share that view. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild and Troubled.elias, SORRY. I'm kind of on a semi-wikibreak right now since I'm working on a film, and I realized I have not disclosed in advance. I'm looking through the comments now. GeraldWL 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm done with that. After my remaining comments are addressed I'll support. GeraldWL 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last prose commenter has wrapped up with their responses, and the outstanding spotcheck results from GWL are out. Would any available @WP:FAC coordinators: kindly check the entire discussion as well as the article to see if it can be promoted? It's been languishing at the bottom of the FAC list for a while, thus getting it out ASAP would be nice. Would preface however that this discussion has been pretty in-depth, reaching an unusually high FAC nom page size of 80,545 bytes, so to whoever checks, please do take your time with it. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     14:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Streets_(song)/archive1&oldid=1096908207"