Talk:Madonna in media
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
Template (Fram)[edit]
Hello Fram would you kindly point what are yours (main) concerns based in the "POV-Fan" and "Disputed" templates. I meant, personally I try to move with "edit summaries" and talk first (or later advise) in article's talk pages.
I'm not a native English-language speaker, and a copyedit is required, including word choices, considering the nature of the topic. And certainly we can also argue a contemporary artist (Whitney Houston i,g) could be referred in similar terms as "one of the artists" of "x situation" like Madonna, but here prose have sources and those aren't "hagiographies" or "Madonna-centered biographies" as far I can see.
Note many artist's wiki biographies (including FA/GAs) openly deals with social media metrics/impact; Madonna's main article doesn't and in this case, article tends to cover the areas she "impacted" based in both critical/popular perceptions (not mine opinion), or how also affected Madonna's public career. I'm curious about your point, therefore, how this can be improved. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Fan POV is from things like "was almost instantly named a pop icon and media icon" (doesn't seem to be supported by the later sources like Bayles or this, which calls her a pop icon but nothing about "almost instantly"), or "resonated in diverse areas over decades", which sounds a lot like WP:WEASEL. The nicknames are problematic as well, "Original Queen of Pop Media" doesn't seem to be used in any reliable sources. "Alone in the 20th century, her media coverage led some authors to consider her as the most overexposed female artist/celebrity of modern times": well, one poll in one year called her the most overexposed actor or actress, so not "some authors", not "artist/celebrity", and who knows if she was "alone in the 20th century" to get such a title? So lots of hyperbole, and that's just from skimming the lead section. Fram (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fram I see. In my understanding almost all have references that prove things. If you look at nicknames, all are derived from discussions/authors/editors claim, including "the original queen of pop media" (Peter Robinson, The Guardian). If the lattermost deserves a lead inclusion, that's another thing. In my understanding, lead is also supposed to be a summary of next sections; the "most overexposed" claim is actually found in "Media-cultural ubiquity: Traditional media and Internet age" where not only one author, but more than one explain how she received more media coverage/saturation (by a female artist/female celebrity), then I used "overexposed" as a one-short description (word choice?); there is one poll in "Celebrity lists" calling her the most overexposed but the context actually is based in the above sub-section. "Resonated in diverse areas over decades" (word choice?) it starts from "Critical background" (critical: media studies/mass media communications) to most popular discussions (Pop condition). Timeline/sources speak itself nor Madonna wasn't only a thing from the 1980s. Regarding "almost instantly named a pop icon", I don't object to remove the word; because I've lost some sources that specify directly this. Although is proven also in Madonna terms, the initial critics never considered her a musician, but an "image" first. May some things sounds hyperbolic, but the rest of the article is verifiable as far my concern; in comparison don't expect a source treat so directly as "the most" to contemporary singers like Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston ("one of the most" fit more), or discussing so directly how their fame helped to development critical areas, or they do?. As I said, sources aren't hagiographies. Article seems to have WP:UNDUE too. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- A description used once or twice is not a nickname. "Queen of Pop" is a Madonna nickname, these others not. Being an "image" more than a musician is not the same as being an instant pop icon, Milli Vanilli or Samantha Fox were images, not (so much) musicians, but they are hardly "pop icons". I don't see how the whole "alone in the 20th century" sentence is sourced in the body, certainly the sources accompanying the claim there don't support such a statement. Obviously she is mega-important and so on, but we shouldn't overdo it. Fram (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree they weren't nicknames nor common in Madonna's literature, even more when we compare Oprah Winfrey nicknames related to her media presence (Queen of TV or similars). No the big deal, but my 2 cents is that an author attribution could fit, considering article's nature and the fact various (no only one or two) similarly discussed or called her with those superlatives; outside the article, feels arbitrary. With the pop icon thing, I saw sources but don't know where I archived/saw them. No problem with that point. "Alone in the 20th century" thing; as a debutant icon of the 20th century (the era when she reached her peak), sources seems to agree with different degrees: "she got more saturation, media coverage than anyone, present and past" / "The press has in turn made Madonna the most visible, photographed, and debated female in modern times". Maybe re-word the phrase would be more than welcome or gave author attribution. Some 20th century female celebrities such as Oprah received big coverage in North America, Princess Diana or Queen Elizabeth worldwide while Madonna competed with them; something that seems to be more sure is regarding a female singer "competitor"; her media coverage/attention was compared with that of Michael Jackson in perspective. The fact that a plenty of sources like AvClub further refers to her as "the most discussed, analyzed, and debated pop star" add weight too, or The British Journal of Photography (2006) called also the most photographed woman on the planet. And there are other sources I didn't add. I feel the main concern relies with lead, while I wouldn't have a problem if someone or you personally bring help to reword it and bring tone. Regarding the rest of the article, I feel the introduction to the first sentences would require a copyedit, and in my concern following proses are quotes/author's explainations. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- A description used once or twice is not a nickname. "Queen of Pop" is a Madonna nickname, these others not. Being an "image" more than a musician is not the same as being an instant pop icon, Milli Vanilli or Samantha Fox were images, not (so much) musicians, but they are hardly "pop icons". I don't see how the whole "alone in the 20th century" sentence is sourced in the body, certainly the sources accompanying the claim there don't support such a statement. Obviously she is mega-important and so on, but we shouldn't overdo it. Fram (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fram I see. In my understanding almost all have references that prove things. If you look at nicknames, all are derived from discussions/authors/editors claim, including "the original queen of pop media" (Peter Robinson, The Guardian). If the lattermost deserves a lead inclusion, that's another thing. In my understanding, lead is also supposed to be a summary of next sections; the "most overexposed" claim is actually found in "Media-cultural ubiquity: Traditional media and Internet age" where not only one author, but more than one explain how she received more media coverage/saturation (by a female artist/female celebrity), then I used "overexposed" as a one-short description (word choice?); there is one poll in "Celebrity lists" calling her the most overexposed but the context actually is based in the above sub-section. "Resonated in diverse areas over decades" (word choice?) it starts from "Critical background" (critical: media studies/mass media communications) to most popular discussions (Pop condition). Timeline/sources speak itself nor Madonna wasn't only a thing from the 1980s. Regarding "almost instantly named a pop icon", I don't object to remove the word; because I've lost some sources that specify directly this. Although is proven also in Madonna terms, the initial critics never considered her a musician, but an "image" first. May some things sounds hyperbolic, but the rest of the article is verifiable as far my concern; in comparison don't expect a source treat so directly as "the most" to contemporary singers like Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston ("one of the most" fit more), or discussing so directly how their fame helped to development critical areas, or they do?. As I said, sources aren't hagiographies. Article seems to have WP:UNDUE too. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Fram I like audits and to reach transparency. I also like others to make the assessment of the articles I create, not me. So in the meantime, once I have time I'll try to do my best in this space regarding the overall concerns and would be great if you are able to take the second look. Please note (while may I have missed some points) most sentences have author attributions as far I can see. Might this can sounds fanatic, but look at a comparative like this: "Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Cyndi Lauper among others helped made MTV" to specifically find something like this: "How Michael Jackson redefined MTV?" or "How Madonna shaped MTV?". That's a comparative for how most points here are present in print sources (or online sources). How Madonna impacted media/formats and how media impacted Madonna. What were those criticisms and praises. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)