This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Whip My Hair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Whip My Hair appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 September 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has some serious style issues. Let me start with some guidance, I hope it is received in the spirit that is intended. The point of including citations is to demonstrate a point. Once that has been done, perhaps a couple of times, then it is time to move on. The entire "critical reception" section keeps quoting people who basically say the same thing, that this song is kid friendly but has broad appeal. That sentence says it all. After that it is repeatitive, and that's why it seems like an advertisement or PR piece to some people. That entire section should be reduced to just that one that sentence, and then maybe 3-5 citations attached at the end. The rest is just fluff that doens't further the article. I started to do this, but I don't want to eliminate anything the original author thought was a new idea...I'm not sure any of it is though.. please fix this.
Otherwise, this article veers wildly off topic and does not have a scholarly tone. As an example - Rihanna is mentioned 22 times even though she has nothing to do with this song. Jay-Z is mentioned 11 times. A passing reference to Jay-Z signing Willow smith after this song is fine (assuming this song inspired that decision or is in some way related) and maybe one reference to this video being released the same day as Rihanna's video is more than sufficient. The picture of Rihanna is completely unnecessary. The rest belongs on the Willow smith page. On the other hand there is no mention of how this song appeared in the game Dance Central 2. That's at least relevant to the song itself. Remember this article is supposed to be fundamentally about this specific song. All facts should relate to this song, effects of this song, context surrounding this song etc. I don't care if other articles are poorly written, just because there are precidents in wikipedia doesn't make this acceptable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DaBjork (
talk •
contribs)
22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why anything about this song exists outside of Willow Smith's own page. There are bigger acts out there that have had their song pages deleted. This song is nothing of note in its own, and should be deleted. 74.108.138.217 ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the song's background information should be moved to Willow Smith as info on signing to Roc Nation is not as relevant and has almost certainly been used to bulk out the article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a small error concerning who wrote "Whip My Hair". Ronald Jackson aka "Jukebox" Wrote and produced "Whip My Hair" not Willow Smith. Also would not consider Jukebox a rookie as he has been producing professionally for Will Smith and Overbrook Ent. since 2005. Here are some references [1] [2] [3] Also, would like to know what your reference was for the writers credit on "Whip My Hair" 04:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darulah923 ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be some controversy as to whether or not Willow Smith should be referred to as "Willow". The Willow Smith wiki page lists her recording name as "Willow Smith", but some sources as well as album art seem to disagree and list her as just "Willow." ( Skoot13 ( talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC))
Amazon has this single up with a release date of September 10. The cover looks pretty basic and it says remix, but the song is the version that everyone is hearing. Fixer23 ( talk) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are no critics who dislike this song for any number of reasons. Personal bias aside, the entire article is littered with praises for Willow Smith while there are no quotes or references to even a single bad review. User:StorminMormon ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is seriously outrageous. Do you people go visit GA or FA articles such as Baby (Justin Bieber song), Just Dance, or Fight For This Love?
It's not a matter of negative reviews, it's the fact that the entire article is written to glorify the song in every way possible. It's a song. This is written like a press release, or even worse, an advertisement. A rewrite is seriously needed.
Ftc08 (
talk)
02:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree--this article needs a major rewrite, or at least some serious trimming. I don't mean to offend any editors here, so please take my criticism as constructive. It's not the lack of negative reviews that make the article's neutrality questionable, it's the overall wordiness and the choice of words/phrasing. I wouldn't go as far to say it reads like an advertisement, but I'd say it reads more like an article in a music column than an encyclopedia article. The writing style is more of an issue than the content. It's well written, but the language is too colorful. We need to work on conveying an impartial tone and cutting down on the puffery and weasel words. Also see: WP:BETTER#Information_style_and_tone (RE: dispassionate tone) and WP:NPOV#Characterizing_opinions_of_people's_work
I'll make some edits as I have time. I'll try to change one thing at a time and be specific in my edit summaries so any objections can be discussed without major reverts. Feel free to bring up any objections here or to my talk page for discussion. But please, if you're not going to start a discussion, at least consider a compromising edit before a revert...I'm sure we'd all like to avoid a potential edit war. Once again, I hope I haven't offended any editors here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. OzW ( talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
can a song that hasn't been released have cultural impact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.87.67 ( talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Willow was the subject of her dad's song, "Willow is a Player" from his Born to Reign album and now she is creating music herself.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ subst:edit semi-protected}}
Digital download is coming out in the UK on the 21st November CD Single is coming out in the UK on the 22nd November
Not the other way round
Rwhitley91 ( talk) 02:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel Dancehall should be included into whip my hair. ``realwords101`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwords101 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was describing the real inflence.-- Realwords101 ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you please take out the part about Nicki Minaj made a remix to this song. She confirmed that it was just an old verse that someone put on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 ( talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So? A lot of songs have remixes like that I just don't think its notable to put on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 ( talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I am writing in response to Candyo32's reversion of my edits of last night. The justification for her wholesale revision was as follows "Major issues with overhall just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive.". I have several issues with this.
Number one, I personally have no problem with including positive OR negative reviews. Whatever best illuminates the critical response--good, bad, and/or neutral. I do have an issue however with the excessive enumerations of reviews in nearly every section of the article. If there was an overwhelming abundance of negative reviews (or even an endless cataloging of ANY reviews), I would have the same response. This is not a promotional article, a press release, an extensive cataloguing of reviews (good or bad), or a magazine article. In an encyclopedic article, one expects a general summary of the critical and popular response, with perhaps one or two quotes to highlight or exemplify the tone or reaction. There is no cause-- indeed there is a need to NOT have-- an endless hagiographical litany of media quotes.
Second, I must address the suggestion that "just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive." This statement is false both in its premise and in its conclusion. It is not at all difficult to find negative reviews of this song, both from the public as well as professional critics. I expect that whomever did the research and supplied the near-endless volume of positive reviews must have discovered them, but decided not to include them for whatever reason. I know Willow's father has. The conclusion too is lacking-- there is no lack of positive reviews cited even in my tightened version. But I will insist that there is certainly no place for value-judgement "reviews" in sections that have nothing to do with critical response, and the article was littered with this.
In summarily reverting my edits wholesale, Candyo32 also removed reference to two negative reviews that came from notable sources, both citing the song as one of the worst of 2010. As it happens, I personally like this song. But the article must be even-handed in acknowledging that the reviews were mixed and not place undo weight on any particular POV. If Candyo32 is sincere in her regard for including the "lack" of negative reviews, not to worry-- I found some without difficulty, and they must be acknowledged in the critical reception section of the article.
This brings me to the most serious issue with Candy032's revision-- the outright reversion of 19 edits in one go. As there were many, many edits improving grammar, tightening of verbage, removal of irrelevant biographical asides, focusing clarity, enforcing adherence to topic, removing redundancies and hyperbole, etc., one would expect these edits would be evaluated individually. I request that Candyo32 do this in future.
Finally, I wish to point out that simply citing a media source that is in some way connected with the article topic is NOT sufficient justification for its inclusion in the article. Such citations must be relevant, representative, concise, purposeful, and connected in some way with the section heading. It must also serve an illustrative or informative purpose. This article contained many many instances of the same thing being said again and again-- such as the endless quoted comparisons between Smith and Rhianna. If such a comparison has been made, say so ONCE and maybe give an example or two, and that's it. Similarly, an section about the music video should be concise-- there is no need in an encyclopedia to quote the director saying how wonderful the artist is-- unless it serves to highlight or exemplify something very specific. Publicity-style quotations may be appropriate for a magazine article, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is not a neutrality question in my mind. It is a question of what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Similarly, the poorly-written synopsis was long, difficult to read, and mired in detail irrelevant to the lay reader.
Thank you, Candyo32 for reading this and for your contributions thusfar. I look forward to the improvements to this article and will continue to follow it closely. -- Replysixty ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we not just remove "so I’m confident she’ll kill it" and leave it at that? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Whip My Hair was nominated for Outstanding Music Video at the 2011 NAACP Image Awards, [5]. I wasn't entirly sure where this should go (I assumed the video reception, but you may want a separate awards section), so I thought I'd let someone who knows what they're doing put it in. :) - JuneGloom Talk 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In 2011, Internet mash-up artist DJ Earworm included "Whip My Hair" in the mash-up "The Only Time Is Tonight", which also included Enrique Iglesias' "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)", Chris Brown's "Yeah 3x", and four other songs. The mash-up was created to promote the YouTube app for Android."
Please add these words to "Cultural Impact"! 76.127.187.71 ( talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Whip My Hair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Whip My Hair appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 24 September 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has some serious style issues. Let me start with some guidance, I hope it is received in the spirit that is intended. The point of including citations is to demonstrate a point. Once that has been done, perhaps a couple of times, then it is time to move on. The entire "critical reception" section keeps quoting people who basically say the same thing, that this song is kid friendly but has broad appeal. That sentence says it all. After that it is repeatitive, and that's why it seems like an advertisement or PR piece to some people. That entire section should be reduced to just that one that sentence, and then maybe 3-5 citations attached at the end. The rest is just fluff that doens't further the article. I started to do this, but I don't want to eliminate anything the original author thought was a new idea...I'm not sure any of it is though.. please fix this.
Otherwise, this article veers wildly off topic and does not have a scholarly tone. As an example - Rihanna is mentioned 22 times even though she has nothing to do with this song. Jay-Z is mentioned 11 times. A passing reference to Jay-Z signing Willow smith after this song is fine (assuming this song inspired that decision or is in some way related) and maybe one reference to this video being released the same day as Rihanna's video is more than sufficient. The picture of Rihanna is completely unnecessary. The rest belongs on the Willow smith page. On the other hand there is no mention of how this song appeared in the game Dance Central 2. That's at least relevant to the song itself. Remember this article is supposed to be fundamentally about this specific song. All facts should relate to this song, effects of this song, context surrounding this song etc. I don't care if other articles are poorly written, just because there are precidents in wikipedia doesn't make this acceptable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DaBjork (
talk •
contribs)
22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why anything about this song exists outside of Willow Smith's own page. There are bigger acts out there that have had their song pages deleted. This song is nothing of note in its own, and should be deleted. 74.108.138.217 ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the song's background information should be moved to Willow Smith as info on signing to Roc Nation is not as relevant and has almost certainly been used to bulk out the article -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a small error concerning who wrote "Whip My Hair". Ronald Jackson aka "Jukebox" Wrote and produced "Whip My Hair" not Willow Smith. Also would not consider Jukebox a rookie as he has been producing professionally for Will Smith and Overbrook Ent. since 2005. Here are some references [1] [2] [3] Also, would like to know what your reference was for the writers credit on "Whip My Hair" 04:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darulah923 ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be some controversy as to whether or not Willow Smith should be referred to as "Willow". The Willow Smith wiki page lists her recording name as "Willow Smith", but some sources as well as album art seem to disagree and list her as just "Willow." ( Skoot13 ( talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC))
Amazon has this single up with a release date of September 10. The cover looks pretty basic and it says remix, but the song is the version that everyone is hearing. Fixer23 ( talk) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are no critics who dislike this song for any number of reasons. Personal bias aside, the entire article is littered with praises for Willow Smith while there are no quotes or references to even a single bad review. User:StorminMormon ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is seriously outrageous. Do you people go visit GA or FA articles such as Baby (Justin Bieber song), Just Dance, or Fight For This Love?
It's not a matter of negative reviews, it's the fact that the entire article is written to glorify the song in every way possible. It's a song. This is written like a press release, or even worse, an advertisement. A rewrite is seriously needed.
Ftc08 (
talk)
02:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree--this article needs a major rewrite, or at least some serious trimming. I don't mean to offend any editors here, so please take my criticism as constructive. It's not the lack of negative reviews that make the article's neutrality questionable, it's the overall wordiness and the choice of words/phrasing. I wouldn't go as far to say it reads like an advertisement, but I'd say it reads more like an article in a music column than an encyclopedia article. The writing style is more of an issue than the content. It's well written, but the language is too colorful. We need to work on conveying an impartial tone and cutting down on the puffery and weasel words. Also see: WP:BETTER#Information_style_and_tone (RE: dispassionate tone) and WP:NPOV#Characterizing_opinions_of_people's_work
I'll make some edits as I have time. I'll try to change one thing at a time and be specific in my edit summaries so any objections can be discussed without major reverts. Feel free to bring up any objections here or to my talk page for discussion. But please, if you're not going to start a discussion, at least consider a compromising edit before a revert...I'm sure we'd all like to avoid a potential edit war. Once again, I hope I haven't offended any editors here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. OzW ( talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
can a song that hasn't been released have cultural impact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.87.67 ( talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Willow was the subject of her dad's song, "Willow is a Player" from his Born to Reign album and now she is creating music herself.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{ subst:edit semi-protected}}
Digital download is coming out in the UK on the 21st November CD Single is coming out in the UK on the 22nd November
Not the other way round
Rwhitley91 ( talk) 02:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel Dancehall should be included into whip my hair. ``realwords101`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realwords101 ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was describing the real inflence.-- Realwords101 ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you please take out the part about Nicki Minaj made a remix to this song. She confirmed that it was just an old verse that someone put on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 ( talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So? A lot of songs have remixes like that I just don't think its notable to put on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.242.11 ( talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I am writing in response to Candyo32's reversion of my edits of last night. The justification for her wholesale revision was as follows "Major issues with overhall just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive.". I have several issues with this.
Number one, I personally have no problem with including positive OR negative reviews. Whatever best illuminates the critical response--good, bad, and/or neutral. I do have an issue however with the excessive enumerations of reviews in nearly every section of the article. If there was an overwhelming abundance of negative reviews (or even an endless cataloging of ANY reviews), I would have the same response. This is not a promotional article, a press release, an extensive cataloguing of reviews (good or bad), or a magazine article. In an encyclopedic article, one expects a general summary of the critical and popular response, with perhaps one or two quotes to highlight or exemplify the tone or reaction. There is no cause-- indeed there is a need to NOT have-- an endless hagiographical litany of media quotes.
Second, I must address the suggestion that "just because there is a lack of negative reviews does not mean not to include positive." This statement is false both in its premise and in its conclusion. It is not at all difficult to find negative reviews of this song, both from the public as well as professional critics. I expect that whomever did the research and supplied the near-endless volume of positive reviews must have discovered them, but decided not to include them for whatever reason. I know Willow's father has. The conclusion too is lacking-- there is no lack of positive reviews cited even in my tightened version. But I will insist that there is certainly no place for value-judgement "reviews" in sections that have nothing to do with critical response, and the article was littered with this.
In summarily reverting my edits wholesale, Candyo32 also removed reference to two negative reviews that came from notable sources, both citing the song as one of the worst of 2010. As it happens, I personally like this song. But the article must be even-handed in acknowledging that the reviews were mixed and not place undo weight on any particular POV. If Candyo32 is sincere in her regard for including the "lack" of negative reviews, not to worry-- I found some without difficulty, and they must be acknowledged in the critical reception section of the article.
This brings me to the most serious issue with Candy032's revision-- the outright reversion of 19 edits in one go. As there were many, many edits improving grammar, tightening of verbage, removal of irrelevant biographical asides, focusing clarity, enforcing adherence to topic, removing redundancies and hyperbole, etc., one would expect these edits would be evaluated individually. I request that Candyo32 do this in future.
Finally, I wish to point out that simply citing a media source that is in some way connected with the article topic is NOT sufficient justification for its inclusion in the article. Such citations must be relevant, representative, concise, purposeful, and connected in some way with the section heading. It must also serve an illustrative or informative purpose. This article contained many many instances of the same thing being said again and again-- such as the endless quoted comparisons between Smith and Rhianna. If such a comparison has been made, say so ONCE and maybe give an example or two, and that's it. Similarly, an section about the music video should be concise-- there is no need in an encyclopedia to quote the director saying how wonderful the artist is-- unless it serves to highlight or exemplify something very specific. Publicity-style quotations may be appropriate for a magazine article, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is not a neutrality question in my mind. It is a question of what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Similarly, the poorly-written synopsis was long, difficult to read, and mired in detail irrelevant to the lay reader.
Thank you, Candyo32 for reading this and for your contributions thusfar. I look forward to the improvements to this article and will continue to follow it closely. -- Replysixty ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we not just remove "so I’m confident she’ll kill it" and leave it at that? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Whip My Hair was nominated for Outstanding Music Video at the 2011 NAACP Image Awards, [5]. I wasn't entirly sure where this should go (I assumed the video reception, but you may want a separate awards section), so I thought I'd let someone who knows what they're doing put it in. :) - JuneGloom Talk 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In 2011, Internet mash-up artist DJ Earworm included "Whip My Hair" in the mash-up "The Only Time Is Tonight", which also included Enrique Iglesias' "Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You)", Chris Brown's "Yeah 3x", and four other songs. The mash-up was created to promote the YouTube app for Android."
Please add these words to "Cultural Impact"! 76.127.187.71 ( talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)