Template:Did you know nominations/Get Over It (MC Kinky song)
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Get Over It (MC Kinky song)
[edit]- ... that MC Kinky can be seen topless in her video for "Get Over It"?
- Comment: The hook probably isn't that interesting when you consider that her name is MC Kinky, but alternative hooks are welcome.
Created/expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Length and dates are okay. Lacks references to in-depth coverage of the subject (all but one of citations are to directory listings or YouTube videos of the song being performed) with the one cited review not available online. Extensive quotation from that one review is, by itself, 18% of this article's readable prose. The hook fact is not directly cited. Another editor tagged this as needing better references almost a month ago but no action has been taken by the author. This is salvageable but there is work to be done before this can see the light of the front page. - Dravecky (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have another look at the expand citations template - that isn't a 5, I never bothered removing it when I expanded the article. I've sourced the hook fact but I've deliberately left the review source linkless because I believe it would be easier for them to go to the library than sift through multiple 'snippets' on Google Books, though I will be slashing down that review.--Launchballer 09:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, the tag is 2013, but it still needs to be addressed. The sourcing issues with this article remain. The only "source" for this hook fact is a link to the "Apollo 440 edit mix" version of the video on YouTube. (Yes, I watched it. Yes, there's a brief scene where the image is deliberately washed out where the singer appears to be possible topless, but there's no indication that this is the definitive video for this song as the same uploader has uploaded at least one other mix of the song/video. Also, we need a reliable third-party source to state the fact, not merely rely on original research. - Dravecky (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have another look at the expand citations template - that isn't a 5, I never bothered removing it when I expanded the article. I've sourced the hook fact but I've deliberately left the review source linkless because I believe it would be easier for them to go to the library than sift through multiple 'snippets' on Google Books, though I will be slashing down that review.--Launchballer 09:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Article is short (and was probably short before I cut a sentence or two), underreferenced (and tagged as such), and yeah, the topless sourcing is an issue. In fact, all the sourcing is an issue, and without more better sources this should not be on the front page. Launchballer, the citation in ref. 6 is incorrect. Please use a proper template--I can't tell if it's a book or a magazine, and the year (1980?) has to be incorrect. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Google Books link provided says 1990 but 1991 is more likely as this 'reference' points at "Issues 576-588", a whole year's worth of Blues & Soul instead of any specific issue, date, or page. - Dravecky (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Launchballer:: Article now at 1504 characters of readable prose but the hook fact is still cited only to a YouTube upload of one version of the song's video and, as I discussed above, that is not sufficient confirmation of the hook fact. The same video is also used to cite the claim that "Parts of the music video were shot in Boy George's house in Hampstead" but there's no way for a reader to determine this from the source. Without sourcing from reliable third-party sources, there's simply no way to pass this along to the main page. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've just checked. It was brought up on that episode of The Word.--Launchballer 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also found a Boy George book which has bits I consider pertinent to the article - better?--Launchballer 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please try to take more care when you edit the article; basic errors shouldn't be displayed on the main page. As is typical with your song articles, the song title is sometimes written without quotes (I've just added them to the hook here), you've badly overlinked some terms, and you're using the wrong pronoun for Boy George. I'll let Dravecky comment on the rest, including sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is this episode of The Word available online? I always assume good faith bit this episode is suddenly covering several key assertions, including the hook fact. What makes Boy George Fever a reliable source? It's a fascinatingly detailed self-published fan site, not an official site or media outlet. The rest of the sourcing is quite thin and many assertions are made without citation. - Dravecky (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- They couldn't for copyright problems, and I think they're going to have even bigger problems getting the copyright for that particular episode given that the late Whitney Houston was on it, and there's a few problems in that household at the moment. They do have a "Best of The Word" program on the Channel 4 website and the performance itself is available on YouTube. As for Boy George Fever, I always thought it was his website - removed.--Launchballer 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is this episode of The Word available online? I always assume good faith bit this episode is suddenly covering several key assertions, including the hook fact. What makes Boy George Fever a reliable source? It's a fascinatingly detailed self-published fan site, not an official site or media outlet. The rest of the sourcing is quite thin and many assertions are made without citation. - Dravecky (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please try to take more care when you edit the article; basic errors shouldn't be displayed on the main page. As is typical with your song articles, the song title is sometimes written without quotes (I've just added them to the hook here), you've badly overlinked some terms, and you're using the wrong pronoun for Boy George. I'll let Dravecky comment on the rest, including sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also found a Boy George book which has bits I consider pertinent to the article - better?--Launchballer 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've just checked. It was brought up on that episode of The Word.--Launchballer 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've tried and tried but I can't get past the poor and oft-shifting sourcing on this article. A fresh set of eyes is requested to review this. I'm leaning towards spiking the whole thing but perhaps another reviewer will see it differently. - Dravecky (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Subsequent reviewer, please bear in mind I prefer to leave one source per statement where possible in fairness to each source.--Launchballer 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a full review. It is very normal for 'music video' sections in song articles to be devoid of sources. However, using such unsourced content in DYK should generally be avoided. In my opinion, the article meets DYK requirements, but a new hook may be the best way to solve the problem. sstflyer 15:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that for DYK every paragraph required a reference. Removing the section would leave it still above 1,500 characters, although suddenly my DYKcheck's stopped working (as has every other bloody gadget I use!). Should it be slashed?--Launchballer 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia - rules often contradict each other. Plot summaries and music video descriptions do not need to have references. Just don't use them as hooks unless they have citations (such as this example) sstflyer 23:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:DYKSG actually states that plot summaries do not need references. sstflyer 04:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yikes. ALT1: ... that MC Kinky's Get Over It charted on the UK Singles Chart after being featured on an episode of The Word?--Launchballer 06:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
New enough when nominated. Long enough at 1,831 characters. Article is adequately sourced, neutral and lacks copyvio problems. The ALT1 hook is less interesting than the original hook, but acceptable for DYK. I cannot verify the (problematic) Channel 4 source, so I am assuming good faith. QPQ done. sstflyer 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yikes. ALT1: ... that MC Kinky's Get Over It charted on the UK Singles Chart after being featured on an episode of The Word?--Launchballer 06:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that for DYK every paragraph required a reference. Removing the section would leave it still above 1,500 characters, although suddenly my DYKcheck's stopped working (as has every other bloody gadget I use!). Should it be slashed?--Launchballer 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a full review. It is very normal for 'music video' sections in song articles to be devoid of sources. However, using such unsourced content in DYK should generally be avoided. In my opinion, the article meets DYK requirements, but a new hook may be the best way to solve the problem. sstflyer 15:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Subsequent reviewer, please bear in mind I prefer to leave one source per statement where possible in fairness to each source.--Launchballer 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
