Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gwen Stefani/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC) [1].

Gwen Stefani

edit
Notified: WikiProject Gwen Stefani, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Punk music, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject California, WikiProject Southern California, WikiProject Women

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over nine years since the article passed for FA (this is what it looked like at the time) and it isn't up to par. Here is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

First series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • No. Problems include (but are not limited to) how "descent, and worked as an accountant before becoming a housewife" is an incomplete sentence, "Hit" is too informal, and "The albums third single" is missing an apostrophe. It might help to integrate "Early life", "Career", and "personal life" into one "Life and career" section seeing to it that all her mentioned partners were in some way involved with her professional career.
 Done I don't agree with combining "Personal life" elsewhere, but I did integrate "Early life" and "Career" per your suggestion, and fixed the errors mentioned previously on August 30. Carbrera (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • I wouldn't say so. There's no discussion of the themes of her solo work, and the "Artistry" section lacks any detail on her most recent album This Is What the Truth Feels Like.
@SNUGGUMS: I added details regarding the third album, but where would you suggest adding themes during the "Career" section or the "Artistry" section? Just wondering, thanks. Carbrera (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Themes are best for artistry section Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added themes and details about This Is What the Truth Feels Like; finished on August 15. Carbrera (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • Not exactly. Dead links need to be fixed, statements like" In 2010, they resumed writing their record, which was later recorded in 2011", and "The track debuted and peaked at #80 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart", and "Kuukuu Harajuku will be distributed worldwide by DHX Media" are missing citations, and there are subpar sources like "Breathe Heavy", "That Grape Juice", The Sun, and Us Weekly.
Dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced on August 25. Carbrera (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bad sources have been removed and replaced, statements missing citations have been fixed, and once again, dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced. Carbrera (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • "Notably" in "notably appearing on the cover" is a subjective description. Same with "were more natural and better described where she was in her life".
 Done Removed on August 4th. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • Nothing of concern.
 Done Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Almost. While the main No Doubt article's lead should obviously have more detail than the one here, it would help to discuss some of her work with the band here given Gwen's success with them.
 Done Definitely fixed! Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Looks fine to me.
 Done Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • Far from it. Lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated. Many are also malformatted (i.e. "Billboard Magazine" should read simply "Billboard" in italics, "E! Online" should just read "E!" without italics, and "MTV.com" should read "MTV" or "MTV News").
@SNUGGUMS:, could you further explain "lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated"? I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. Carbrera (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that another user fixed much if it here. What I'm saying is that there are citations that include a work as well as the company that owns said work (i.e. Viacom owns MTV, Prometheus Global Media owns Billboard), and that we don't tend to include the companies that own them within citations these days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 Done Removed both images on August 4th. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • There isn't really any need to mention mere Grammy noms when there are already Grammy wins mentioned, and they certainly don't belong in "Artistry".
 Done Removed on August 5, 2016. Carbrera (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While not necessarily doomed, this will definitely need work to retain its FA status. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on this too now. Expect fixes very soon. Carbrera (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Shouldn't these issues have first been mentioned at the article's talk page? According to FAR procedure, the first step involves "attempt[ing] to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article" on the article's talk page without listing it on the page of FAR nominations. This article skipped that step altogether and was brought to the second step, a.k.a the review nomination. Carbrera (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did leave comments here a while ago, and the sourcing seems to improved somewhat between then and when I started the FAR, but not enough to be on par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity; SNUGGUMS, would you ever be interested in addressing any of the article's issues? Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Far too little time for that I'm afraid :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Apart from the sourcing, what other issues do you feel are outstanding? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Looking through again, this has for sure improved. Here are some things I notice from a glance:

  • The lead should include genres of her solo work
 Done Genres were already included but I spruced it up a bit since a previous user kind of removed what I had originally intended. Carbrera (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hit" in "hit singles" is too informal
 Done Removed.
 Done Removed.
  • "At the 2005 Grammy Awards, Stefani was nominated for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for "What You Waiting For?", and at the next year's awards, Stefani received five nominations for Album of the Year, Record of the Year, Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Best Pop Vocal Album, and Best Rap/Sung Collaboration"..... seems like a bit much if she didn't win those and we already discuss Grammy wins; let's not overfocus on Grammys here
 Done Removed.
  • There's no discussion in the article body of her upcoming voice role in Trolls or the songs she contributed to its soundtrack
 Done Added.
  • I'm not so sure people she influenced belongs in "Artistry", though I certainly am not against mentioning such influence within the article entirely
@SNUGGUMS: Where else would you suggest the artists she influenced? I'm afraid I can't think of a better section than here. This is the last issue I believe needs to be resolved from your second round of comments. Your first round have been taken care of accordingly. :) Carbrera (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of thing more often tends to be included in a section on one's legacy/impact. Madonna, Justin Timberlake, and Lady Gaga's articles all have good examples of what the structure of such a section should be like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If things improve, we'll see where this can stand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have now finished any edits to the page. I've had to kinda put it on the back-burner due to my schedule lately, but I am glad to say that I think I am done now. Feel free to take another glance at it. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
Sorry to nitpick so much, but here's what I find when looking through the refs again:
  • Use MDY date formats per MOS:DATE since this is an American subject
  • The "Style.com" ref shouldn't have Vogue along with it; just use one work name or the other
  • Not so sure "E! News" should be italicized, but you either way need be consistent on whether you use that or just "E!" and only link it in first ref used
  • Only link Slant Magazine in its first use (ref#22)
  • AOL-affiliated sources tend to be subpar, so maybe try to find something better than AOL Music Canada
  • Remove "Hung Medien" from the Ultratop refs since use of parent companies for refs is largely deprecated when work is already included
  • Remove "Warner Bros" from the Extra ref; same rationale as the Ultratip refs
  • Be consistent on whether you capitalize the "D" in "NoDoubt.com"
  • Italicize The Washington Post
  • Ref#57 only has a title with no work or accessdate parameters; big problem
  • Not sure if Associated Press should be mentioned within ref#90 unless as an author parameter
  • Link Animation World Network without italics
  • What makes this a good source?
  • ref#97 should read "harajukulovers.com"
  • Try to get something better than Twitter
  • Something much better than Huffington Post is needed, particularly for something like dating life
  • "Tribune Company" shouldn't be included in the Chicago Tribune ref; see previous rationale on Extra and Ultratop
  • Blender shouldn't have "Alpha Media Group" in its ref; same reasoning as above
  • For ref#90, "The Canadian Press" should be where "CTV" currently is, and author is Victoria Ahearn
  • "VICE" should link to Vice (magazine) and not be fully capitalized
  • Since 34th Street Magazine is part of The Daily Pennsylvanian (TDP), something more professional is needed since TDP is a student newspaper
  • I'll assume good faith that ref's 94 and 95 are credible, but they both need to be complete with titles, work names, authors, and dates
  • Be consistent on whether you use "Pitchfork" or Pitchfork Media", and only link in the first ref used (ref#47)
  • ref#98 just links to a general home page, and Hello! isn't a very good source to use anyway
  • Is "Fashionista" any good?
  • Zimbio isn't exactly the best of sources
  • Location isn't needed for ref#173
  • Please tell me how this is supposed to be any good
  • I'm sure you can find something better than MySpace
  • "Popsugar" is by no means an ideal ref
  • "Toledo Blade" → The Blade
  • InStyle is one word, not two
  • Daily Mail is a very poor source, particularly for a BLP
  • "Geni.com" is a dubious reference
  • Is "Rekwired" reliable? I've never heard of it and don't know how usable that is.
  • Not that Digital Spy is the worst, but it isn't something I would recommend for an FA; let's find something stronger
  • I'm pretty sure "Interscope Records" belongs in the author paramter for the PR Newswire press release (ref#169) if anyway
Keep – After doing a large quantity of work on the article, I agree with SNUGGUMS that this article is now in a much better state. Carbrera (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gwen_Stefani/archive1&oldid=742967223"