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

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

WAP (song)

Nominator(s): —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song that needs no introduction. The song that angered parents across the globe. Number-ones across the world. Easily one of the most controversial songs in recent times. Dare I say the most controversial? I nominated this article for GA status in June, and my nomination was reviewed by MaranoFan, who passed the article after I tended to their suggestions. I requested a peer review in July, which included two helpful points from Czarking0. Now, it's August, and I'm nominating "WAP to become a featured article. I've worked to make this article as complete and concise as I could on my own, and now I'm ready for the community's opinion.

This is my first featured article candidacy, so do let me know if I've done something incorrectly. Thank you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping to User:Czarking0. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

Some comments and concerns which I've seen in the article nominated.

(1) The song is well known and the lyrics are explicit, however, you appear not to link or discuss the Wikipedia article for explicit lyrics. Was there a reason for this.

I thought it would be a violation of WP:OVERLINK. Also, there is no Wikipedia article for that topic. It's a redirect to Parental Advisory. Not a big deal though, I'll just wiki-link it now. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Regarding the theme of explicit lyrics, this genre is well established in rap for at least 2-3 decades, however, you do not discuss the difference between explicit lyrics used for political opposition and explicit lyrics used for sexual intents. The song you are nominating makes no secret about which version of explicit sexual lyrics are being used in the song.

This one has confused me a bit. Why would this difference be established? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) There is no Lyrics section in the article. Because of the nature of the Lyrics, it seems that there should be at least a little more about the content. To start with there is the monotonously repeat back-up lyrics from start to finish in this song "There's some whores in this house" which seem to have reliable sources discussing them. A Lyrics section would be a good place to discuss this, as well as the main lyrics of the song, in addition to the back-up lyrics.

Is a composition section not sufficient for this purpose? If you'd like, I could add a paragraph about this there. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) History. There is a long tradition of explicit sexual lyrics in rap and funk which might be mentioned in the history section of this article which is presently not covered. Rick James did "Superfreak" several decades ago, and a decade ago there was "Sweat" by Snoop Dog. Are you saying that none of the reliable sources covered this at all?

Can you explain why this would be covered in an article specifically about "WAP"? I'm certain this is described in numerous reliable sources, but I fail to see why it's relevant for this article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Your Impact and Legacy section looks like it might also be done by separating the Impact part into the Reception section which comes earlier in your article and possibly combining the Legacy section with the Covers section of the song which is currently directly above it, "Cover versions and legacy".

I'll merge the prose into the reception one. However, the quote, I feel doesn't fit in with the cover version section. I'm going to remove it; if you object to that I'll re-add it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(6) In the Music video section, can you align the Synopsis title with the actual text. There is currently a left side image which seems to separate the text from its section title.

Fixed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(7) For the video section, was there any discussion in RS about the selection and use of model types used in this video. The models do not look like 'Victoria's Angels" models, though they are not quite 'plus' sized models either. How were they described by RS? Was the selection process discussed by RS?

Everything I've seen about the casting of the music video is limited to the cameo appearances from the rappers and singers. I've checked through RS and haven't found anything about this part of the music video, though I could have missed something. I will note that inclusiveness of this sort is far more common these days. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(8) There is a significant social discussion in the press about movie rating and media ratings to protect children from obscenity and prurient content; is it making more comment about this in this article. For example, many parents are sensitive to R-rating, and do not let their children go to these movies. Similarly for explicit sexual song content.

For this one I'd like you to go more in depth. I see your point, but I don't know what you want me to do. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(9) I'll need to agree with Nick's comments below as well; there seems to be a issue with how comprehensive your list of RS for the article has been. I've already asked for some more RS above, and Nick is stating below that there are at least a half dozen to a dozen more scholarly RS to be found on Google Scholar; also you might want to look at JSTOR, Web-of-Science, and the other more conventional search engines to find sources. The 'comprehensiveness' issue is going to be an issue for this kind of FAC nomination.

(10) I'm still not sure about the question of why the article does not have a conventional Lyrics section and a conventional Music section. The Lyrics section I've already made some comments about above, and a Music section also seems absent here which would tell me which key the song is written in, what the metronome setting is for the song, if there are any key changes, how many key changes, etc. This seems an important thing to add to this article.

Let me know if there any of these items listed need more elaboration. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: thank you for a swift review. I've implemented a few suggestions of yours; thank you for those. I have asked a few questions, if you could answer those. Again, thanks for your comments. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments #9 and #10 above. See Nick's comments below as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D

Four observations:

The really noteworthy thing about this song is it's explicit lyrics. The article dances around this, and doesn't really describe what the song is about.
The 'Reaction from conservative figures' section seems to be limited to views from two obscure political figures in the US and a prolific trollish commentator only: is this really the worldwide reception, and what makes these views so noteworthy they require a detailed section?
If these people's views are worth noting, where's the discussion of the song by feminists and progressives? A lot of women aside from music critics found it empowering, yet this doesn't seem to be discussed.
A search of Google Scholar suggests that there are some academic works on the song that don't seem to have been consulted yet: [2] (though at least some of the works look to be by students so may not be RS) Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Two things about point four: I'm having trouble distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources in this area, furthermore I've only found one that would add something to the article which is not already covered by reliable sources. The one I found is this: WAP through a gender lens. I haven't looked at JSTOR or other databases, but most of these works do seem to be made by students. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from theleekycauldron

"Credits from Tidal" shouldn't be in the article body – seems that, at the very least, should go in a footnote (if preserved at all)
Is there a reason to link to the songwriter as Belcalis Almanzar rather than her stage name, Cardi B?
The Guardian should be linked
Why is Personnel all the way at the bottom? That seems like an odd place to leave it – also, shouldn't it be in the ibox?
The second paragraph in "Background and release" looks a little skinny – can it be moved or beefed up?
I think the censored version can take up a bit more space...
The ellipses in the second paragraph of "Critical response" give an impression of tone where there isn't (see "full off... detail") – can the quotes be cleaned up a little?
Is BET a high-quality reliable source? Particularly for the amount of space its information takes up...
"The following is a selected list of publications." in Accolades should be removed – wikivoice doesn't reference itself
"Political commentator Ben Shapiro was widely mocked for his sarcastic reading of the lyrics to 'WAP'." Seems like a caption for the article body – can this caption instead talk about when this photo was taken?

Elias

Per a message in my talk page, I'll take a gander at this article in due time. Not to beat a dead horse's skeleton, but I echo the concerns of those that commented before me - for a song so widely popular, you'd expect the article to go more in depth on the lyrics in particular. Will leave more comments soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 12:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but until the lyrics issue is addressed, I will have to oppose on the basis of criteria 1b (comprehensiveness). The article's "reception" section as it stands is good and goes real deep into the various facets of the song's critical response. The part about US conservatives' response to it, in particular, is well-done and in-depth. But this section cannot shine to its full potential if readers do not know all the important things to know about the lyrics. Though I do not want to simply oppose and leave the nominator with no starting material to improve the article - I've found a couple of sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, among others, that talk about the lyrics in some way. Best of luck with improving this article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 04:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose by indopug

Others have mentioned the lack of analysis about the lyrics, but there's also a near-complete absence of discussion about the music. What's there just lists genres ("hip hop, trap, and dirty rap song") and scare quotes ("raunchy", "throaty" and "staccato"), without explaining anything to the lay reader. I think significant further research, writing and editing are needed—beyond the scope of an FAC.—indopug (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

You invited me, and what you'll get is the view of someone who never heard the song, nor knew the names of the artists. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. Ignore anything that has just to do with my ignorance. I intentionally still didn't listen to the song nor watch the video, to see what I get about it from the prose. I will, however, watch after a first round. - Best wishes for dealing with family emergency, which is of course more important than any of this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you return, fell free to reply to individual bullets with just a short signature, signing a round of answers completely only once with the last reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

""WAP" (an acronym for "Wet-Ass Pussy") is a song by American rapper Cardi B featuring Megan Thee Stallion." For someone knowing nothing, that presents explicit lyrics before anything else was said, and doesn't introduce two women performers. The name Cardi didn't ring a "woman" bell, and what is featured didn't even ring a "person" bell, it could have been an instrument, a style, - you name it. Yes, two women are pictured on the cover, but that could be purely decorative. Please give more information (before providing the longer text, please, first say it's a song!) unless you think people unfamiliar with artists of the American scene should not be served.

Infobox and TOC

make obvious in the infobox that Cardi also co-wrote the lyrics (that name in brackets, or only that name)
I'd expect a section Song text and composition, saying Song vs. the later Video, and separating a description from Production, expecting it before Production actually.
Is Worldwide the right term for "the rest of the world"?
I find the TOC too long but don't know where to prune (and may be the only one).

Background

At this point, I'd expect some background info about the two women without having to look up their biographies. (When I write about a Bach piece, I don't begin at his birth, but explain when and where he held which position, as background for the work.) That's standard for FA, I believe.
I don't need the calculation that 3 days later is August 6, - one or the other.
Discussing needs for censoring makes little sense before knowing more about the lyrics.
Speaking of women by their first name only (Megan) is regarded as respectless in classical music, - that's different when a stage name (Cardi B), - perhaps explain the use of Megan as you would introduce an abbreviation?

Production

The quote box attracts looking there first, and it's many words about almost nothing (it seems), by another person I don't know, - at least a link please, but I could happily do without it.
Please split the section in a description and production details (as mentioned in TOC). The abbreviation has nothing to do with production, and I'd wish for more details about text and music. That there's a sample, for example, needs to be said here.

Critical

Is it "WAP" or WAP? Probably a question that should have occurred to me sooner. I don't know. As a term of only three letters, It doesn't really need quotation marks, no? But if so, then please consistently. Once I'm asking, would "wap" be used and understood in normal talk, meaning what it stands for? (... should have occurred to me sooner ..., - if yes, please make a note of that, footnote perhaps)
link The Guardian, please
I find some of what the "critics" say quite repetitive, - do we really need word for word, or could it be summarized?

Reaction from conservative figures

How about Reaction from conservatives - I'm not happy with "figures" for real people, but again, that's perhaps just me.
Please clarify from the start that Brown is not a "conservative figure" but someone who replies.
refs are out of order (27,22 as I read), - please check generally

I need a break. I moved two of the images (below, in video), making one larger and one smaller, trimming also a caption, - no need for the whole story if it's just a woman pictured. - Generally: images in featured articles should have the parameter "alt" filled with a description of what the image shows as if telling a blind person. Compare other FAs (for example C. J. Cregg) for how to achieve not too short but also not too long. More generally: images should not have fixed image sizes, but use "upright" factors. Both (alt text and no fixed size) are accessibility features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

BTW, I'm on a family emergency trip to the Dominican Republic, so thanks to everyone for the responses, however I may not be able to tend to them as fast as I'd like to. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, and I hope all goes well. Given this circumstance and the comprehensiveness issues raised above, best we archive this now and allow you to continue to work on it at your own pace, after which I'd suggest engaging with those reviewers who expressed concerns, before re-nominating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 31 August 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.