Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hey Ya!


 * 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 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Hey Ya!
You should know by know that I just can't stay away from FAC. This time it's not Gwen Stefani-related, but the song's just as schizophrenic as anything she's done. It was at peer review for a week and had one comment but no reply, so I closed the review to bring the article here. Have at. ShadowHalo 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC) "The song's pop rock origins allowed it some crossover success,"...can't digest the sentence.Can be controversial.
 * 'Support if...' The final section, on cover versions, needs a few refs. Otherwise, this is a superb article. It's well-cited and completely comprehensive, the images are excellent without being superfluous, and it's written near-perfectly. Aside from that one little issue, this is about as good a candidate for Featured status as any. Kicking222 don't mess around 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you recommend using for references? I was thinking the same thing, but it doesn't look like any of the covers (except Weddle's one) received media coverage; pretty much, they're all "referenced" to the albums on which they're included, the way plot summaries are "referenced" to the films from which they come.  ShadowHalo 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If the covers were commercial released, the record itself can be the source as long as you specify which album it was released on. WesleyDodds 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it currently doesn't include the names of the album. I'll try toying around with that section later today to see if there's some arrangement that can include the albums without turning it into a really awkward list.  ShadowHalo 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support but The lyrics of "Hey Ya!" open with a description the persona's concerns and doubts about a romantic relationship"....What is "Persona"??

The whole first paragraph of the COVER VERSIONS section seems to be unscourced. User:Luxurious.gaurav
 * The persona article tells what a persona is. Does the word need to be linked in the article?  Would "sound" work better than "origins" there then?  ShadowHalo 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that "the song being a pop rock genre was the reason it was a hit."Does it mean that all the songs which are pop rock will be hits.Thanks for telling what a persona is.I don't think it should be linked to that page. User:Luxurious.gaurav
 * In this case, the word crossover refers to crossover (music), which just means that it got listened to by people outside OutKast's usual audience. In this case, the other part of the sentence is "it reached number sixteen on the Modern Rock Tracks" since OutKast is not an alternative rock group.  ShadowHalo 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I get you point.Complete support on my behalf.User:Luxurious.gaurav


 * Comment - This is a great article, but is it just me, or does ""Shaking it like a Polaroid picture", a phrase popularized by the song and its music video." need a reference? I mean the CNN thing pretty much covers it, but that seems to be the only thing that shows in any that it has actually become a pop culture phrase. If a ref/refs is/are added, or you point out that there is a ref and I've missed it, or you convince me that one isn't needed because the CNN ref fully covers it, I'll support. Gran2 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's kind of funny, actually. I wrote a paragraph about the song's effect on the Polaroid Corporation as well as how Polaroid marketed it.  I'm looking right now at where and how to add the paragraph.  ShadowHalo 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Okay, as my concern has now been dealt with, I support. Gran2 07:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "Music and lyrics" section could use some more development - there's no mention of some of the most distinctive parts of the song, e.g. the xylophone in the chorus, the funk-inflected beat, the acoustic strumming underneath. I'm also unsure about the pop-rock origins line - is there really anything much rock-ish about the song? I think the reason it was on the Modern Rock charts is because it is not straight hip-hop in that it feels 70s-ish. Compare to Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, which also made Modern Rock charts without much in the way of rock elements because it is soul-inflected hip-hop song. (Unless you want to say that something by definition has elements of a rock song if it appears on a rock chart, which is defensible but not something I would agree with.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added what I can to the Music and lyrics part, including the song's chord progression. There's no good way to go about describing the bassline, and though it's obviously funk-inspired, stating so would be original research since there are no sources that analyze the sections.  The sheet music does have some of the xylophone-sounding synth part, but it unfortunately overlaps with another part, so the part can't be cited to the sheet music.  If it would help, I can add detail about how long each part of the chord progression is used since the odd time signature makes is non-obvious.  There is indeed a pop rock side to the song, and the Writing process states that the guitar part was inspired by the Ramones, Buzzcocks, and The Smiths (the song also drew comparison's to various rock bands).  ShadowHalo 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - This article is of exceptional quality. Perspicacite 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment – The name of the article is confusing, because from the 'Hey, Ya!' many people won't understand what the article is about. It should be renamed to 'Hey, Ya! (song)'. Ruslik 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "(song)" ending is only used when there is something from which to disambiguate it, and so far as I know, there aren't any other articles with Hey Ya! in the title. The title is supposed to identify, not describe, the subject and if there's any doubt, the fact that the first words are "'Hey Ya!' is a hip hop song" will remedy the issue.  ShadowHalo 07:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I was litterally nominating the article myself when I saw it had already been done. A great piece of work. - Mysekurity 08:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  Object —Content and prose. Neutral: not happy that it was nominated prematurely.

This attempt at musical analysis is very odd indeed:


 * "Hey Ya!" is a hip hop song in the key of G major. Each phrase, or each cadential 6 measure phrase, is constructed using a change of meter on the fourth measure, equaling three measures in 4/4, one in 2/4, and two in 4/4. The song has a fast tempo at 160 beats per minute, delineated by the song's I-IV-V-VI chord progression. Throughout the entire song, G major and D major receive one 4/4 measure and one 2/4 measure respectively, while C major and E major are each two measures long. Harmonically, the dominant D major chord receives the least amount of actual time since it is only played on the 2/4 measures. Although the deceptive cadence on E is not uncommon, its alteration to the major mode is a key feature of the song's sound.


 * "six-measure", please; the "6" conflicts with the other numerals here, and needs to be hyphenated. What does it mean by "Each phrase, OR each cadential six-measure phrase"?
 * What equals what? The change of metre equals three measures in ..."?
 * The fast tempo is delineated by the chord progression?
 * "I-IV-V-VI"—no, the hyphens need to be en dashes (see MOS on this).
 * "Throughout the entire song, G major and D major receive one 4/4 measure and one 2/4 measure respectively"—I have no idea what it means: "entire"? Are "G major" and "D major" chords or keys? (G major was previously a key). To talk of either chord or key receiving measures is odd; the expression is different in the subsequent clause; why?
 * Who cares how long the D major chord lasts for? Why on earth is this bizarre stuff taking up so much space? If it's intended to count as analysis, please save us the trouble of reading it: it helps no one to understand the style of the song, the artists or the genre.
 * Deceptive cadence on E is uncommon (but it's common on D?). What does "its alteration to the major mode" refer to? Does a cadence alter to a mode?
 * The song's sound—should this be "distinctive style"?

And more at random:
 * "The beginning and end of the video blend with that for "The Way You Move""—What does "that" refer to? It's singular, I see.
 * It's so heavily linked, most of it necessary, so why silly links such as "piano" and "Internet"? Who doesn't know what "tempo" means? Do we not know what "live television" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, July 6, 2007
 * Oh, phew. I had some of the same concerns that you did about the section.  An anon rewrote and expanded the paragraph awhile ago.  The revision flirted the line between what can be referenced to the sheet music and what was OR, but I only removed/rewrote the obviously bad parts (e.g. "creating an ambiguous feel") since I was worried that it might have just been be trying to WP:OWN the article rather than improve it.  I've redone the paragraph and done some delinking.  The info about time signature and chord progression is now contained in three sentences, which seems a good amount to discuss a unique feature of the song.  I've also removed citations from consecutive sentences that used the same reference to reduce overreferencing and get rid of some more blue.  ShadowHalo 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.