Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gangnam Style/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 not promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

Gangnam Style

 * Nominator(s): Order of the sword (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the song made by Psy. This song has hit very high population numbers in Youtube. This is the first time this article has been nominated for a featured article. It already is a good article. Order of the sword (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments/Oppose
 * This is way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too detailed. 60,000 characters for a song? No. Period.
 * You have very few edits to the article, if any. Have you contacted the main contributors (A1candidate, Sp33dyphil, et al.) to see if they think the article is ready? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I can only agree with Crisco 1492  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, an experienced editor like yourself should not oppose an article due to 60k characters size. It's hardly too long; it is the most famous cultural product of a major nation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, my comment above was lazy. It's the fact that the nominator has not edited the article and is unlikely to be able to respond to comments adequately that concerns me, rather than its length  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, read WP:SPLIT again. At 60k, splitting is strongly suggested. That sub-articles were backmerged here is just a blunder that's come back to bite us. This needs serious pruning. "Amazing Grace", with a much longer pedigree and greater societal influence, is only 37k characters in length. William Shakespeare, probably the most-written about author in history, is at 38k characters. Both are FA. This is clearly not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Order of the sword. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I recognise that we should expect this article to be relatively long for an article on an individual song, in recognition of its extensive cultural impact through things like large numbers of parodies, and its adoption in many campaigns (far more than for many other songs). I also recognise that it is appropriate that the article talk about the song's impact on interest in Korean wave and Korean music. I still agree with Crisco, though, that it is too long. This reflects the lack of filtering applied to the article, separating the important from the unimportant, and the fact that the article tends to try and list everything in a category (every instance of a parody or cover) rather than only listing major examples, or seeking secondary sources that have themselves summarised the significance of the work. There is needless duplication, for example having a section on 'reception' but a separate section on 'year-end media picks'. Why is there a section on review of the music video, and then later a para on year-end picks for the video? The 'see also' list is miles too long and appears to duplicate a large number of links in the various tables in the article. It can probably all be deleted. On the subject of filtering material - why do we have this massive list of weekly charts? Do I care that it charted at 42 in Romania? All of the subsections of text on charting information are absurdly detailed and can be reduced to a single short paragraph for each region. On the plus side, most of what is needed will already be here, and there's no shortage of references! (But on that subject: four citations for the fact that Obama might do it for Michelle? In fact, please remove that trivia altogether). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. 1) Just one comment: please incorporate the term remix culture into the article. 2) The first three paragraphs for "Cultural impact" section need their own subsection heading 3) there's at least one clarification needed tag 4) copyright issues are discussed in several places: at the end of "Production", and at the end of "Background and release". Please merge. I'd also like to see more, if possible, on the industry reaction to the spread of technically illegal parodies. Consider the following sources for expansion:, . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose In a way, this article does very well to reflect its subject—I got the same sense of "WTF!" reading it that I did when I first saw the music video. More seriously, the version that was awarded GA in Nov 2012 is much tighter and more concise. Since then, going by the top of the article talk page, several daughter articles have been merged wholesale into this parent article as the result of several AfDs. Subsequently, the current clusterfuck has risen.

To fix this article, I reckon the the GA-approved version would be a good starting point. Unless that is done, this doesn't even deserve to be a GA.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note Yes, i'm aware this is a very long article. However, note that the korean pop songs have been going on for a long time. This allows this for a GA nomination, along with many citations. Plus, Open Gangnam Style IS a popular song, after all, and many people that like it likely had a lot to say about this. Order of the sword (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword
 * Yes, but a good encyclopedia article doesn't report all of it in the way this article does. The article could make use of good secondary sources that summarise and filter the information to present what is most important. Or editors need to filter it. But this article does not sufficiently 'summary style'. That's my view anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the nominator read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and see how it can be better applied here. That this song is a year and a half old, which in no way makes it "have been going on for a long time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is connected with other Korean songs for some time, and as I saw, there were a couple of mergers to it. All are valid resources to it.Order of the sword (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword
 * "It is connected with other Korean songs for some time," - If you are saying that this inspired other music... that's kinda what famous songs do. It's not unique to Gangnam Style. Again, read WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.