Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Panties/archive2

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 January 2022 [1].

No Panties

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its provocative title, this song is actually about keeping one's clothes on and refusing sex from men unless they have money. It was the lead single from Trina's second studio album Diamond Princess (2002), and features vocals from Tweet. I first worked on this article in 2020 as I was interested in women in hip hop and wanted to improve that topic's representation on Wikipedia. Although I dislike this song, I went back to improve the article further earlier this year.

I nominated this article for a FAC last month, but requested a withdrawal to take some time away from Wikipedia. Thank you to @Heartfox:, @ChrisTheDude:, and @Pseud 14: for their reviews in the first FAC, and I hope that they can participate in this one as well. I am more than happy to address any comments and suggestions to further improve the article. I hope everyone is doing well and staying safe. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the previous nom and see no reason not to support again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the support. I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - pass

Images look good, have appropriate rationales or are Commons donated. We're good to go here, I think. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ojorojo

The "Charts" section only contains a table with two entries. This info is already included in the prose "Release and promotion" section. Very short sections and tables for simple lists are both discouraged (see MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:NO-TABLES). Is there some reason to add it again? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Thank you for the comment and the MOS links. I agree with you that the "Charts" section is repetitive with the prose as there are only two chart appearances for this song. I included this section as it seemed rather standard for other song articles, but I agree that it is not necessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass per comments/discussion in previous nom. Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14

Everything looks good and I support per my review in the previous nomination. Glad to see you back! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

I will try and find some comments that help. Quick question... has this article been through the GA process?

"only having sex with men that have money" - minor English fix, I'd say "men who have money".

Good catch. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the focus of discussion" - this seems vague... public attention?

Rephrased it to "critical discussion" as these discussions were all in the context of articles and reviews and not about fan or listener reaction. Aoba47 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good to me! SatDis (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: Thank you for the review. I decided to skip the GAN process and bring this directly to the FAC one. I do not have any particular reason for that. Let me know if anything else in the article can be improved. I hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. I'm just being really picky now:

"Retrospective articles have considered" - is it okay to say articles can consider?

Good point. I have revised it with "named" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"incomprehensible from the amount of edits" - maybe "incomprehensible due to the amount of edits/magnitude of explicit language removed"? That is a funny point, by the way!

@SatDis: Thank you for your suggestions. That makes sense to me. I have used a version of your suggestion. It is always odd how these types of songs have a radio edit when the entire thing is so explicit, but I guess that they had to figure out a way to play it on radio somehow. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I could find! SatDis (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the suggestions. I will support this nomination. Good luck! SatDis (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Dugan Murphy

I have hardly ever read, and never before reviewed, any articles about music, so I'm mostly looking at the prose and anything that is confusing to someone not steeped in the genre.

"No panties coming off / My love is gonna cost / Ain't no way you're gonna get up in this for free." has a period within the quotation marks, which I believe is only supposed to happen when the quote includes a period there. That can't be since you're quoting lyrics, right?

Good catch! I have moved the period outside of the quotation marks as the lyrics do not include one. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Taylor is first mentioned in "Music and lyrics" but I am not told who he is or offered a Wikilink until "Release and promotion". I think the opposite should be the case.

Yikes. Apologies for that. I have reversed it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:SOB, I recommend rewording so "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" and "Billboard chart" are not adjacent (comes up twice).

Revised Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Trina is alive, "It was one of only two entries Trina had on the chart" as it is worded doesn't seem right to include a 2006 song. Maybe "Trina has had one other song on the chart since then" or something like that.

Very good point. I have used your suggested wording as it is much better than mine. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tweet was praised by critics." reads to me like it should be the start of a new paragraph. As a continuation of the paragraph it is currently in, I was momentarily confused at its placement. The following sentences of the paragraph support it well and I think would make a fine paragraph on their own.

Revised as its own paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is an issue with Liz Lamb and not the language of the article, but what does her quote mean?

From my understanding, Liz Lamb was going for a pun with the quote. She was saying that the song was bad and used the U.K. slang meaning of the word "pants", which means rubbish or worthless, to play off the song title "No Panties". I have decided to remove the Lamb citation entirely as it is not particularly insightful or useful. There are plenty of other reviews included in the section that I believe are more beneficial to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I wasn't considering the British use of "pants". If you decide to add the quote back in, I recommend adding a brief qualifier for American readers like myself. But if you feel the article is better without it, that's fine too. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no external links worth including in a section by that name?

To be completely honest, I forgot about this section entirely. I have included a link to the music video. It is already cited in a citation, but it may be more helpful to include the link here as well for easier access to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the possibility of an external links section, the article looks comprehensive enough and I think the lead section does a good job of summarizing the body. I like the tone of the article and the grammar looks great. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: Thank you for your review and kind words! I honestly struggle with writing the lead section so I greatly appreciate that. I have tried my best to make this article on a rather silly song the best that it could be. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments, but please let me know if I either missed anything or something else could be improved. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other issues to address, so I am happy to support this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be running smoothly. Speaking just for myself I am inclined to leave it until around the three week mark to see if it attracts any further comments, and then have a proper look at its situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. It is always good to try and get as much feedback as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 16 January 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.