Template:Did you know nominations/Hiss (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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hiss (song)

(

)

... that Megan Thee Stallion raps a reference to Megan's Law in her song "Hiss"? Source: People
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dolly de Leon

Created by BeyPolite (talk). Nominated by MaranoFan (talk) at 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hiss (song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Could be better worded. Remember most readers won't have context. How about: ... that Megan Thee Stallion raps a reference to a federal law pertaining to the sex offender registry on her song "Hiss"? Zanahary (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That's much longer, and I think the law's name being the same as the rapper adds to both catchiness and interestingness.--N Ø 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Without additional context, the hook is hard to understand or at least not very hooky. The new proposal, while longer, does provide additional context that is more likely to at least raise attention. With that said, I do wonder if alternative angles can be proposed here. Maybe Launchballer can propose some ideas? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably have approved ALT0 myself, or at least not expanded it by much (something like "the federal sex offender law Megan's Law" at most).

ALT2: ... that Nicki Minaj reacted to Megan Thee Stallion's "Hiss" with a 3,100 character Twitter diatribe and a diss track?
ALT3: ... that following the release of Megan Thee Stallion's "Hiss", Nicki Minaj responded with a diss track insulting her dead mother, appearance, and ex-boyfriend?
ALT4: ... that Nicki Minaj reacted to Megan Thee Stallion's "Hiss" by mounting a smear campaign against her?
ALT5: ... that following the mention of Megan's Law in Megan Thee Stallion's "Hiss", Megan's father threatened legal action?--Laun chba ller 11:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary, Narutolovehinata5, and Launchballer: Hi, can you indicate which hook you would like to move forward and maybe approve that?--N Ø 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the nature of the hooks proposed I would rather defer the final decision to another reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 seems to be the least controversial. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Full review needed, now that new hooks have been proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: Meets new/length, but significant issues:
  - Far too many quotations – including overquoting of full lyrics and play-by-play of social media comments
  - Many details are not verified in given sources, such as notably features no hook (not a reliable source anyway), her brother is Jelani Maraj (not mentioned), "Not My Fault" for Mean Girls (not mentioned in secondary source).

Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't think I have the interest/investment in this song to be able to address these. I'll throw this open to the major contributors if they are interested.--N Ø 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Flabshoe1, would you be interested in taking things over and addressing the issues raised by Hameltion? I can take a look in a while if not, but you're probably better fit to tackle them.--N Ø 13:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thanks, but please maintain accuracy in your edit summaries. At the point I closed this, you had already stated you lacked both interest and time to fulfil the nomination, and if you believe that is not somehow a withdrawal, then I suggest striking and rephrasing wholesale. Secondly, you stated you would leave it to other 'major contributors', yet your contributions show you making no effort whatsoever to do so until now, even though you have had over 24 hours to do so. The next time, I expect it will be closed as rejected, due to a number of source integrity issues in the article. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 14:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not registered a withdrawal so the close was not correctly marked. And the contributions publicly reflected on Wikipedia are not the only way users can connect with each other. But thanks for the sweet message. Always a delight to hear from you as always.--N Ø 14:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think such a level of passive aggression is at all appropriate. You say you are unable to complete a nom. You make no effort that an impartial observer can see to organise a replacement. Marking as withdrawn was wholly within discretion. But as I say, the next time, if no work has been done to rectify the plethora of not-insubstantial problems in the article itself, it will doubtless be rejected. ——Serial Number 54129 14:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No passive aggression on this side. Genuinely happy to be hearing from you after a long time! I think you misunderstood my comment as a withdrawal due to poor articulation on my part. It's a good thing to have that sorted out now, and all else is duly noted. Anyways, I would like to have this appear on the main page and will be fixing the issues shortly.--N Ø 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I apologise for misunderstanding you! Of course, you should take as long as you need with the animation. Real life always comes first and we can't always keep up with everything we'd like! Best of luck with it. ——Serial Number 54129 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Hameltion, the specific issues you mentioned were fixed by Flabshoe1 (thanks to them!), and I have gone and done further trimming of quotations and driven the copyright score to acceptable levels. Is this ready?--N Ø 22:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, still a whole lot of trash talk quoted in the Nicki Minaj section that can't all be needed. Would appreciate another set of eyes, as my personal standard may be higher than needed. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No real objection to it all being in there, assuming it checks out to the source. However, I'd like to see a good reason why the WP:DAILYMIRROR and WP:ROLLINGSTONE are being used for WP:BLP content.--Laun chba ller 09:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed.--N Ø 17:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I still see one instance of Rolling Stone in the Lyrics section, although I suppose that's not really BLP-related, and I've no massive problems with Forbes or Medium (both attributed opinion) so I guess this is good to go.--Laun chba ller 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)