Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I don't know her/archive1

I don't know her

 * Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit of a unique article is about a circa 2003 quote by Mariah Carey about Jennifer Lopez that later become a popular meme. To this day, Carey refuses to utter Lopez's name and refers to her not as a "singer" but instead as a "dancer" and an "entertainer". I look forward to any feedback. Best, Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a drive-by comment – I won't do a full review of this article but it looks as though the prose could do with a thorough copyedit. Some examples of prose which I do not consider to meet WP:FACR's requirement of "engaging and of a professional standard": Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "... due to its proliferate use by other celebrities."
 * Removed "proliferate"
 * "Five years of involvement in Lopez's music career by Carey's former record label Sony Music and her ex-husband Tommy Mottola preceded the phrase"
 * Can you clarify the issue?
 * Firstly, I'm not sure that "... preceded the phrase" is meaningful. Secondly, the whole "five years of involvement ... Mottola" section reads super awkwardly to me.
 * Rephrased
 * "Sony and Mottola's alleged actions in duplicating compositions of Carey's songs for Lopez's benefit contributed to the appearance of animosity."
 * Can you clarify the issue?
 * Again, the whole thing reads awkwardly; "alleged actions in duplicating compositions" is particularly grating on my ear. (And as an aside, I'm not sure the body supports that it was Carey's compositions that Sony/Mottola/Lopez allegedly duplicated; it was her choice to sample a particular pre-existing record and collaborate with a particular artist, neither of which I would consider "compositions")
 * Changed to sample and rephrased
 * "Carey's feelings toward Lopez became rife with rumors"
 * Reworded to "Carey's feelings toward Lopez became a subject of gossip"
 * "Carey responded to Lopez's notions she gets eight hours of sleep per night"
 * Reworded to "Carey responded to Lopez's comments about sleeping eight hours per night"
 * "Carey continued using the phrase toward Lopez" - is "toward" the correct word here?
 * Reworded to "Carey used the phrase to address Lopez"
 * "On her end, Lopez had not acknowledged 'I don't know her'" - "on her end" is superfluous fluff here
 * Removed
 * Thank you for the comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by F4U

I haven't gone through all the sentences, but I'm quite concerned at the amount of text that is unfaithful to the source, either as a result of poor phrasing or simple misreadings. I recall rephrasing a similar line in the article when I promoted it to DYK. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * — The word "likewise" doesn't match the source because the source goes on to state a “no comment” for the social media age that epitomizes the act of “throwing shade.”, going against Bryant's interpretation.
 * I thought it could be considered both given the authors statement that "Maybe you've used “I don’t know her” to genuinely express lack of familiarity with someone", but I have added this to the "shade" interpretation sentence.
 * Billboard source states that the meme traces back to message boards and blogs, not singling out LiveJournal. LiveJournal and the year 2010 is cited to the Washington Post article which cites Know Your Meme, a user generated content site. They state Know Your Meme, a website that tracks and researches memes, traces the circulation of this GIF back to at least 2010, when it was popular on LiveJournal.
 * Incorporated more of the origins described in Billboard and removed the Washington Post reference per your concern.
 * Don't think is the right nuance here. I don't think it's wrong per se, but it does have the meaning of "being surrounded by"; simply using During the recording process, would be better.
 * Changed to "during"
 * This is the crux of the conflict, but the phrasing makes it hard to understand what went down. Firstly, the article isn't very clear on what "Firecracker" (1978) is. Also, the Vulture article states that her allegations were that Sony officials had heard her intentions to use the "Firecracker" sample, the article isn't very clear on that—in particular this sentence implies that she did end up using the sample when she didn't. Think the sentence should also cut out on the album J.Lo
 * Reworded to make it clear that "Firecracker" is a song, cut "on the album J.Lo"
 * The source includes a quote from Carey saying "After hearing my new song, using the same sample I used..." This is not just an "intention" to use the sample, she did use it, and things happened "after" it was incorporated in "Loverboy".
 * During an interview with New York City radio station WWPR, Carey said "I don't know her" in response to whether she had a feud with Lopez. - Article should make clear that this was likely before the famous interview clip.
 * It is already in the "background" section.
 * Around 2003, Carey was interviewed by the German tabloid television program taff. - Don't think this fully aligns with the source (but audio and visual cues suggest the interview took place in 2003 or 2004)
 * The source refers to "Carey’s head of Charmbracelet-era blonde curls; the prominent use of “Work It Out” (Beyoncé’s 2002 debut solo single)". Charmbracelet was released in 2002. The wording "Around 2003" does not exclude 2004 from being a possibility, so it is still faithful to the source. It does not say "in 2003", and as a person very familiar with Carey I am confident in using my editorial discretion to summarize "2003 or 2004" as "Around 2003" and "circa 2003". Carey did not look like that in 2004. Time magazine reviewer says 2003. Los Angeles Times reviewer says 2003.
 * - Leaves out that she's making this allusion while writing about the sampling controversy.
 * Added
 * - Poor phrasing. The author is stating that tabloids have been misinterpreting it as an insult despite the intention being a "no thank you" response
 * Removed "In contrast".
 * In your rephrasing, you added two page numbers to the citation even though the quote is not mentioned on them. That's not me misreading, that's you interpreting the material more broadly. Heartfox (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The selection did not argue that . ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa
Link to (initially) reviewed version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_don%27t_know_her&oldid=1189925181


 * General comments
 * This is very short for a WP:Featured article candidate at fewer than 1,300 words (including the lead). Even so, there is a fair amount of material that seems like padding for length.
 * It is now slightly over 1,000 words. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "The remark was adapted within the queer community" – "adapted"?
 * Changed to adopted
 * "Vanity Fair deemed mid-2016 "The Summer of Not Knowing" due to its use by other celebrities." – this phrasing makes it seem like "its" refers to mid-2016. A similar issue is likewise present in the body.
 * Rephrased
 * "Vanity Fair deemed mid-2016 "The Summer of Not Knowing" due to its use by other celebrities." – is this really WP:LEAD material?
 * Shows the extent of its notability/usage; this title received secondary coverage in The Washington Post.
 * "Carey contended it is not an affront to Lopez because she does not know her personally; Lopez has stated they do not know each other." – what verb tense are we employing here?
 * Converted to present tense
 * "or consider it akin to the phrase no comment." – not in the body.
 * Rephrased the body and removed this


 * Background
 * I can't help but notice the extent to which this section relies on sources that predate the remark. Of the sources that are more recent (i.e. post-2003), I took a look at the freely-available one (which is cited relatively heavily here), and it doesn't mention the remark at all. This is a problem; articles on topic X should be based upon sources on topic X.
 * The article is based upon sources about "I don't know her". You cited one of two post-2004 sources that don't specifically mention the phrase, which was cited a mere three times (the other, Mamo 2019, only being used in a note). Under what definition is that a "heavy" reliance? Anyways, I have replaced a Vulture citation with Billboard 2020: "For those who don't know why Mariah's infamous 'I don't know her' dig was directed at Jennifer Lopez, it's because... [I'm Real sampling controversy]"
 * Like I said, relatively. In the version I reviewed, the post-2003 sources cited in this section were the following: Hirsch 2023 (cited once in the text and once in the image caption), Curto 2020 (cited twice in the text and once in a footnote), Freydkin 2004 (cited twice in the text), and Mamo 2019 (cited once in a footnote). TompaDompa (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the level of detail here to go beyond what's necessary to establish context by a fair amount. It basically amounts to recapping a bunch of celebrity gossip. By word count, this is the lengthiest section, and it makes up more than a third of the entire article.
 * Cut much of the third paragraph.
 * "During an interview with New York City radio station WWPR, Carey said "I don't know her" in response to whether she had a feud with Lopez." – why is this in the "Background" section?
 * Cut this


 * Description
 * "Around 2003, Carey was interviewed by the German tabloid television program taff." – maybe this is just my unfamiliarity with the terminology used by this industry, but "tabloid" and "television" seem like they should be mutually exclusive.
 * Cut "tabloid"
 * "By 2018, "I don't know her" emerged as one of the most popular Internet memes and GIFs in history." – this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that requires way stronger sourcing.
 * Reworded to "By 2018, "I don't know her" became known as a popular Internet meme and GIF"
 * "During a 2016 interview, Lopez stated that they have "met many times"." – so what?
 * Adds more to Lopez's version of events so the article does not seem biased toward Carey
 * That's certainly a good ambition to have, but I don't really see how this contributes to that aim. It's definitely possible to meet someone multiple times without knowing them. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "due to the proliferation of celebrities repeating it at the time" – "proliferation"?
 * Rephrased "proliferation" to "the number of celebrities"
 * "It is used within the queer community and inspired "I don't know her"-themed club nights and clothing." – this tells me very little. What am I missing?
 * It became adopted as a term used within the queer community and was used as a club theme night and on clothing


 * Analysis
 * This section does not distinguish clearly enough between Carey's use of the phrase in relation to Lopez and the broader use of the phrase. Madsen is speaking in the specific while Lalancette and Small are speaking in the general, for instance.
 * Reworked to focus on the general

I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose this. Frankly, I think this is a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. The main points are that Carey said it about Lopez, that it became a meme, and that it has variously been interpreted as a perfunctory dismissal and a non-response. The first two are already mentioned at Mariah Carey, and the third could trivially be added there. Perhaps consensus here will lean otherwise, but that's where I stand. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your comments above, but your oppose is somewhat non-actionable as there is only so much I can do when you don't think the topic merits an article. Heartfox (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Call it a WP:FACR 4 oppose, i.e. one based on length. I suppose it could also be viewed as a 1d issue, i.e. neutrality (in particular, WP:PROPORTION). But as I said, consensus may be against me here. That being said, I don't think "this does not merit an article" should be considered non-actionable; we have delisted FAs that were deemed not suitable for stand-alone articles before, the most (in)famous example probably being Lewis (baseball) (AfD, FAR). TompaDompa (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My edits did nothing to address your comments? Okay I guess. Regarding opposing on FACR 1d, FACR 1b says "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". In the background section, the cited sources contextualize "I don't know her" by illustrating Carey's relationship with Lopez and the latter's record label before the phrase was used. Sources such as Billboard 2020 and Hirsch 2023 make the link explicitly between that 1998–2001 relationship and "I don't know her". It is not original research or disproportional to provide additional contextualization with sources from the time period to add further details. A two-paragraph background section is not disproportional to the significance of the rest of the topic, it is essential information to understand why the phrase came to be. Regarding opposing based on FACR 4, I don't know how more focused on the main topic it can be without losing essential background information. I cut a whole paragraph already, and apparently that was not enough. And it is never going to be enough because you have already said you don't think the article needs to exist. I would be happy to address additional comments, but the oppose is pretty non-actionable at this point. Heartfox (talk)
 * I mean, you could, at least in theory, add more qualitatively different material to demonstrate that this is a subject that does indeed warrant a stand-alone article. I'm guessing there isn't a whole lot more to say about it or you would have presumably already added it before coming to WP:FAC, but that would be a way to address my concerns. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this nomination and work on it more off-FAC. I definitely plan to renominate, but I don't feel that adding references is something that should be done during the FAC process. Thank you to everyone who commented so far as they have helped improve the article. Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Heartfox, will action -- please take the usual minimum two weeks before another nom, this will give you time for references and perhaps also to get some eyes on it before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)