- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Good Kisser edit
.jpg)
- ... that Usher's (pictured) single "Good Kisser", according to Rolling Stone, includes lyrics "praising one particular set of lips", "setting the scene with lots of specific imagery"?
- Reviewed: Kettle Creek (Pennsylvania)
Created by EditorE (talk). Self nominated at 10:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
I am troubled by the tag. Surely one would expect that a song called "Good Kisser" would be praising someone's kissing. Likewise, one would likely not offer up a tag to the effect of "did you know that McDonalds starts with Mc?". I was hoping I could offer a better ALT myself, but reading over the article it seems like this was a rapidly forgotten song with very mixed reviews. The only standout comment in the entire article was that last review, which perhaps is the proper ALT in this case. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Issues still outstanding after 6 days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)- ALT1 In order to make the song "less x-rated", Usher (pictured) changed the lyrics to his single "Good Kisser" to remove the sexual innuendo?
- ALT2 In order to make the song "less x-rated", Usher (pictured) changed the lyrics to his single "Good Kisser" by replacing the word "suck" with "kiss"?
I prefer 2, but given other issues that have come up lately, I offer 1 as a cleaned up version. Oddly, I can now say I know what Usher was thinking, probably the first and last time I'll be able to. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Review for ALT1 and ALT2: New enough (for 5 May), and long enough. Both hooks check out with online citation #5. Hook image is free. QPQ OK. Two external links are flagged as redirects, but they work fine. Issues: (1) One disambig link to be corrected: "idolator"; (2) Co-production needs a hyphen; (3) Even though the long blockquote in the middle of the article is credited to citation #5, that quote is far too long for material that is still in copyright. Please re-write this in your own (different) words, including only small quotations. If you would kindly deal with the above three issues, this nom will be good to go.--Storye book (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed the quote. I don't know what the other two are, can you do them? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Maury for correcting the quote (issue 3). The hyphen has been corrected (issue 2). All that's left now is to de-link "Idolator" (issue 1). As this remaining issue is so minor, I think this nom is good to go.--Storye book (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
