Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive2

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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:35, 28 March 2010 [1].

Cool (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

Notified: Eternal Equinox, Velten and WikiProject Songs.

The article contains many unsourced statements, two sections containing the tag {{Unreferenced section}} and awkwardly arranged sections. For instance, "Background and writing" contains six small paragraphs. The article should really be compared to the non-FA Bad Romance. Wonderful structure on that article. In my opinion, "Cool" shouldn't even be listed as B-class. – $Scarce$ ✉ 04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well it's been an FA for almost 4.5 years it looks like, so I suppose it's really no surprise that as the standards have been raised, it has fallen into disrepair. In regards to the two unreferenced tags, most of the Charts section can probably be sourced from the actual table below; its just a matter of actually putting the cites in there. Likewise, the personnel section can probably be sourced through the liner notes of either the album or the single.

There are a lot of other concerns here though; none of the images presently contain alt text, and the toolbox shows that there are presently six dead links in the article (one of which has been dead since 2007!) There are duplicate references (for some reason they are in both the inline notes and a general references section at the bottom) as well. File:GwenStefaniCool.ogg needs a better fair-use rationale and should probably be shortened (my math skills aren't the greatest, but I'm pretty sure that 10% of 3:09 is something quite a bit less than 19 seconds); ditto File:CoolCap1.jpg on the need for a better rationale. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small point in response: 3:09 is 189 seconds, and 10% of that is 18.9 seconds - not much less than 19. -- Avenue (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're right; my maths were off. So that point can be discarded then. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, structure, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Poorly organized prose, at least two unreferenced sections, no one can be arsed to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Lots of problems with references, and lack thereof. Alt text is needed and the several short paragraphs make for choppy reading. Nothing appears to be happening to fix the article at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Referencing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per all of the above. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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