Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cher/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 09:44, 29 November 2012 [1].

Cher[edit]

Cher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it for weeks and I finally feel it deserves the bronze star. It is complete, objective, factually accurate (300 notes, 10 references), neutral, well-illustrated, comprehensive, has an appropriate structure and consistent citations. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation the article features many sentences that are long lists of items. This makes for very tiresome reading, and more often than not can be excised without the article really losing anything. Examples, quoting from the article:

  • Academy Award, a Grammy Award, an Emmy Award, three Golden Globe Awards, and the Best Actress Award
  • "Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)", "Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves", "Half-Breed", "Dark Lady", "Take Me Home", "I Found Someone", "If I Could Turn Back Time", "The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss)", and "Strong Enough
  • Carol Burnett, George Burns, Glen Campbell, Tony Curtis, Bobby Darin, Phyllis Diller, Farrah Fawcett, Merv Griffin, The Jackson 5, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ronald Reagan, Burt Reynolds, The Righteous Brothers, Dinah Shore, Sally Struthers, The Supremes,[45] Teri Garr, Chuck Berry, and Dick Clark
  • Pat Boone, David Bowie, Ray Charles, Steve Martin, Tina Turner, Dion, Wayne Newton, Linda Ronstadt, Lily Tomlin, Frankie Valli, Tatum O'Neal,[66] Raquel Welch, Wayne Rogers,[63] and Labelle
  • Frankie Avalon, Muhammad Ali, Raymond Burr, Ruth Buzzi, Charo, Barbara Eden, Neil Sedaka, Farrah Fawcett, Bob Hope, Don Knotts, Jerry Lewis, Tony Orlando, The Osmonds, Debbie Reynolds, The Smothers Brothers, Tina Turner, Twiggy, and Betty White.
  • Beyoncé,[271] Boney M,[272] Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Meat Loaf,[273] Captain & Tennille, Carpenters, Eurythmics, Marilyn McCoo & Billy Davis Jr.,[274] Chrissie Hynde,[275] Christina Aguilera,[276] Eros Ramazzotti,[277] Helena Vondráčková,[278] Jennifer Lopez,[279] Kelly Osbourne,[280] Lady Gaga,[281] Madonna,[282] Pink,[218] and Tina Turner

What is the " Berman & Napsha 2001" ref supposed to link to?—indopug (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, maybe with the exception of the guests lists of her 1970s shows, that those lists are relevant to the article. The first one denotes an achievement of hers, since she's the only person in history to receive all of these awards. The second is a mere list of her biggest hits—it appears in many music biographies which are FA—, and the last is a list of people who were influenced by her and her work. Should I delete the guest-stars lists?
Corrected the Berman reference. Lordelliott (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely remove the guest-star lists, they are not relevant at all to her biography. The influenced-artist list is redundant to the four large paragraphs you spend talking about how all-encompassing her influence has been (can you imagine if the Beatles article were to list all acts inspired by them?).
Even apart from these, I think cuts would be beneficial to the article's readability (at nearly 13000 words, this article is even longer than Mitt Romney). For eg: the first paragraph of "1990s: Ups and downs". Since Cher has released so many successful singles, I think listing them out just because they managed to chart reasonably well is unnecessary. If somebody wanted to know about Cher's chart hits, I'd visit Cher singles discography.—indopug (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Moved the guest-stars lists to The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour page. I think the article is "long" because she has a six-decade career, but not overlong. However, I cut out the singles list on the first paragraph of "1990s: Ups and downs" and the influenced-artist list (replaced it with: She was credited by Chicago Tribune as "the person who paved the way for Madonna, Lady Gaga and many more."). Lordelliott (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on spending the last hour reading through this. It's a very interesting article in which you've obviously invested a lot of time and effort. Just a couple of suggestions though:
  • I swapped some refs round (133 and 121, and 140 and 5). It's probably not strictly necessary, but I think they look better if they appear in numerical order when together.
  • Abbreviations such as USO should appear in full, unless she is directly quoted as describing herself as "an unnamed entertainer with the USO". Even then the full name can appear afterwards in square brackets: "an unnamed entertainer with the USO [United Service Organizations]".
Having said that these are only minor points and shouldn't prevent this from being promoted. Good work. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment, leaning towards oppose – this article suffers from a similar problem to pages such as Mariah Carey and Lady Gaga. I feel that the biography section of the article has a lot of superfluous information and less important events are getting more emphasis, such as the school musical production she did. Other excess details are that such as "A re-released "Baby Don't Go" peaked at number eight on the Hot 100." Summary style should be practiced more effectively. And although I do agree that quotations from the artist and those associated with her bring the article to life, too much reduces the conciseness, making for boring reading. I think part of the Legacy section suffers from this. There lie also several prose inconsistencies, but in an article of this size, these are somewhat inevitable. In summary, focus trimming repetitive information and quotations, and excess coverage on less important things, such as single/song reception and information that does not have much relevance to Cher's overall life. Look for easy grammar fixes too, like "In a appearance". That's a starting point. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are "superfluous" information on the article. In fact, even though the article is considerably "long" due to her six-decade career, it is succint, considering that much more recent music acts (such as Britney Spears and Lady Gaga) have articles that are almost or as long as the Cher article. I think the musical producction she did when she was a child shows her early desire to be a star and where "it all" began. I also think the summary structury works well, as it shows her success in the three main areas of her career: music, TV and film. The Legacy sections focus on scholar comments about her work and influence; it contains only one quotation from a person associated with her (David Geffen).
As for the proses inconsistencies, I agree with you. I worked on it for a few weeks and, although english is not my first language, I tried to be as correct and clear as possible, but there are still some errors on it. Feel free to edit and correct. Lordelliott (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed the "In a appearance" issue and similar.Lordelliott (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will surely try to do as much as I can with regards to prose. OK, I can understand your reasoning for the musical info, after having reread that part. But perhaps please reduce the number of long quotations in the article. Otherwise, we get what's called a WP:QUOTEFARM. Every few sentences in the Early life section gives a full sentence quotation. I think the overdetailedness is found more so in the Career section, where there is excessive coverage on songs and chart accomplishments. Also, problems arise in the third paragraph in the Legacy section, in which almost every sentence has a long full-sentence quotation. When writing about a career this long, it's especially important to consider what's important to cover and discuss just that. Another approach is to see if the same information can be presented in less words. Try and eliminate redundancies and condense information. Also, use less specific critical opinions of songs, instead describing how they were generally received by the critics. On a different note, pay attention to stylistic errors: sentences with quotations must always be followed by a citation, and the manual of style discourages links inside quotes. Altogether, the article does not quite meet the standards of an FA biography, but you've done some excellent research. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done All the quotations are now followed by a citation. Lordelliott (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for presenting the same information in less words, eliminating redundancies and condensing information, is this what you are talking about? Also, I restructured the last two paragraphs of the Legacy section, removed some overdetailed chart performances and integrated some "specific" opinions into the text, giving it a more "general" approach. Lordelliott (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done All the links were replaced outside quotes (except in nine much-needed cases). Lordelliott (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to condense the information on the article, but I just realized that Mariah Carey's article, which is featured, is much longer—Carey began in 1988 and Cher in 1963. Honestly, I'm confused. Lordelliott (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful which FA you take as a model. Carey was promoted 6.5 years ago, and had its latest review five years ago. Standards have improved since then, although even version that passed the latest review was reasonably short. Clearly it has attracted a lot bulk since then.
I instead recommend the David Bowie article as a model. He shares several similarities with Cher (both are highly influential shape-shifting pop stars from the '60s who have worked extensively across media), yet his article is largely free of the chart minutiae that bogs down Cher's. Instead the article focuses on the qualitative/subjective aspects of his career; what kind of sound did he pursue on an album, why, what was his latest avatar, what inspired it... I feel the same can be done here too.—indopug (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking Mariah Carey's article as a model. It just happened to me that her article is much longer and, still, is a FA. Now that you have explained it, I clearly understand.
I think Bowie is a "conceptual" kind of artist, while Cher is a "charts" kind of artist. Bowie didn't have the same success on the charts that Cher enjoyed, purely because he was more focused on the concept of his albums, while Cher was focused on staying contemporary and appealing to a young audience by adapting her musical style—what, I think, is largely covered on the article. Also, the musical aspects of her albums are already being discussed on the "Musical style" section. Given that, I cut out some excessive chart information and now I think the reading is working well.Lordelliott (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to remark that I have cut out some more "excessive" information about chart performances and sales, replacing it with "subjective" aspects of her work. I tried to make a balance between it and her commercial performance in the "Career" section, even though the musical aspects of her work are already full-covered on the "Musical style" section. Said that, I think it's Done. Lordelliott (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what you said about the summary style, I wrote a new version of it. Lordelliott (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So here are the changes I made after the comments:
  • -12,228 bytes after trimming
  • Reduced the song mentions on the article to only her major hits
  • Summarized three of the four paragraphs on the "Legacy" section
  • New summary made after suggestions
  • All quotations are now followed by citations
  • Replaced links outside quotes
  • Summarized "Musical style" section
  • Removed excessive chart coverage
  • Reduced reviews in the "Career section" to a minimum (kept only five under the criteria)
Pendent: Prose inconsistencies. Since I'm not an English-native speaker, this is the best text I could write. I would like to have a help from the users on here.Lordelliott (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these are band articles and don't have to concern themselves with personal life info, but I like to recommend to people two FA rock band articles I've had a hand in, R.E.M. and Nirvana (band), as exemplars to follow. Both articles are very concise compared to this one while still being totally comprehensive. (To be fair, that's partly because both rely primarily on the many books available about these subjects--when someone else has done all the research already, it allows you to summarize more effectively). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the main point is that Cher is not only a musical artist—she's a media personality too. Sometimes her personal life attracted as much attention as her musical efforts. Given that, and the fact that Cher is primarily a "mainstream" artist who focus on chart success, I don't believe this article, R.E.M. and Nirvana (band) belong in the same category. Lordelliott (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare the way the articles cover their musical careers and musical styles, and in comparison the Cher article can be needlessly dense in places. You really need to summarize more effectively. Also, this article is overly reliant on album reviews (mainly Allmusic) for factual information. Stick mainly to books and new articles for facts, and reviews for the opinions expressed therein. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Summarized the "Musical style" section. Lordelliott (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While my initial concern is being taken care of, I would like to raise another major issue: the sourcing. There are some non-high quality reliable sources used here. For instance:
  • What are the author's editorial qualifications? What kinds of fact-checking are done? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make it necessarily a high quality source. This is a ticket broker site for Cher, and is not affiliated with her in any way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to use it for definitions, but what you've cited is a blog with an unnamed author for whom we do not know the qualifications. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Even though I think the article needs an explanation about the accute acent she used in her first albums (and this site is the only reliable and complete source I found on the web), I removed it. Lordelliott (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since those sites have essential information about her 1970s TV shows that can only be found in books that are currently unavailable on the web and are not used as sources to sales figures, I really don't see any problem. Lordelliott (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a celebrity gossip site. For one of the authors, Perricone, I found she wrote for New York Daily News and a few reputed magazines, but did not find anything on Scordo, the other co-author. omg! is a popular website, but what makes it reliable? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are some quick examples. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm afraid I cannot withdraw my "leaning towards oppose" quite yet. You've put in some hard work, but the article's writing isn't up to par. This is from the lead:

  • "...the latter of which has been known to induce controversy." – part of good prose, is presenting ideas concisely. "Has been known" is puffery. Get to the point: "the latter of which has induced controversy." Also, "induce" is moreover used in a positive context. "Caused" is much better.
  • Quotations always need a direct source, as is supposed to be the case here: "Cher came to proeminence in 1965 as one-half of the folk rock duo Sonny & Cher, which popularized a peculiar "smooth, warm" sound that competed successfully with the predominant British Invasion and Motown Sound of the era." And here: "At the same time, she established herself as a "serious rock and roller" by releasing a series of platinum-winning rock albums and hit singles such as 'I Found Someone', 'If I Could Turn Back Time', and 'The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss)'."
  • More reundancy here: "After a period in which the duo became outdated due to the rise of the drug culture". Also, what do you mean by "outdated"?
  • ...and here: "Throughout, she cemented her status as a fashion trendsetter with her daring outfits, and was noted as being the first woman to expose her navel on television." Also, "cemented her status" is too informal here.
  • The lead is meant to give a very brief overview of the article. Try to avoid specific critical opinions and quotations, although they cn sometimes work if they themselves help summarize.
  • Period should come after quotation mark: "...attitude[.]"
  • "she became one of the most acclaimed film actresses of that decade by starring in a string of hit films" – more informality "a string of".
  • Missing "the": "...which revolutionized recording industry because of its pioneer use of Auto-Tune (also known as the 'Cher effect')."
  • Avoid meaningless redundancies like "a series of" and "in history". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the review. I fixed everything from the list. The only thing I kept is the specific critical opinions on the lead, since they show the influence of her work, rather than present her as just a girl who sold lots of records and won some awards. Lordelliott (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I thik some things in the lead are getting into a bit too much detail, such as Cher being the first woman to expose her naval on TV, as well as the Goldmine quotation. It's getting into more detail than what's needed. All the lead is supposed to give the reader is an understanding of what the article is about: who is Cher and what does she do. Also, I think neither "obsolete" and "outdated" work, but I'd pick the latter. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted "obsolete"/"outdated" for "After the duo's success declined". Removed the "first woman to expose her navel on television" detail. As for the Goldmine quotation, I still think the lead needs a subtle approach on her impact at the time, as on the David Bowie and Madonna articles. Lordelliott (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - There are problems with the formatting of references, 66, 75, 77, 80, 83, 85, 89, 92, 95 96 and 108. And, Gracyk, King and Parish (2005) are not cited despite their being listed in the Bibliography. Problems with the prose are immediately apparent as in "Referred to as the Goddess of Pop for being an influential figure in popular culture, she is also known for continuously reinventing both her music and image—ensuring the longevity of her career—, her distinctive contralto and her outrageous imagery which have also been known to induce controversy." There is an emdash followed by a comma, a lack of parallel structure, and in the use of restrictive vs. non-restrictive clauses. There is lots of interesting and informative information here, but without more work towards a professional presentation, I can't see much hope in this candidate's prospects for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed the problems with the formatting of refs. As I said, I worked on it for a few weeks and, although English is not my first language, I tried to be as correct and clear as possible, but there are still some errors on it. I would like to have a help from native English-speaking users to verify and correct the text I took so long to research and write. I believe that, with a help from other users, we can make the changes to promote it as a FA. Lordelliott (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the image licensing in this article is totally unacceptable. I take a fairly non-paranoid attitude towards copyright issues (I think!), but the claim that File:Sonny & Cher Show 1977.JPG is PD because it doesn't have a copyright tag on an ebay listing (posted by an account which gives no indication of being the original creator/owner of the image) seems highly questionable. Ditto File:Sonny and Cher David McCallum Man From Uncle 1967 Cropped.JPG, File:Cher Don Knotts Sonny & Cher Show 1976.JPG, File:Sonny & Cher 1973 Cropped.JPG, File:Sonny and Cher Sonny and Cher Show 1976.JPG, File:Farrah Fawcett Cher 1976.JPG - to sustain a claim that these images were released without any copyright notifications you need verifiable sources which trace directly back to their original owner (eg, if the images were released as part of a press pack which included a written copyright statement I imagine that copyright would still apply. File:Sonny-and-Cher.jpg is marked as copyright at its source on Flickr and isn't CC-BY as claimed (there's no indication on the Commons record of a CC-BY status being confirmed by an admin or trusted user at the time the file was uploaded). File:Sonny and Cher live 1971 Cropped.jpg has a copyright marking on the record company's logo (and Google states that it's 'copyrighted material', for whatever that's worth) so the claim that it was released free of a copyright declaration is questionable. File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (3).jpg and File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (2).jpg and File:Heart of Stone tour 1990 (5).jpg need an ORTS release or similar as the screenshot provided doesn't verify the claim that they've been released under a CC license, though it appears likely to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed all the images with questionable licenses, except for File:Sonny-and-Cher.jpg because I remember it had a CC-BY status when it was uploaded. Lordelliott (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've struck my oppose. Due to my near total ignorance of this topic (and I don't like the Cher songs I've heard) I won't post a full review, but good luck. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Lordelliott (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hi Lordelliott, I have come to weigh in my opinion as you have requested. Unfortunately, presently I cannot support the nomination as the article has some very outstanding issues remaining.

  • Prose - Just by looking at the lead
    • and self-actualization into entertainment industry -> the
    • and for having worked extensively across media -> as a third-party reader, this is very vague and I am not quite sure what you mean
    • Cher first caught the eye and ear of the public -> There's a plethora of more simple and adequate ways to say this
    • which popularized a peculiar smooth sound that competed successfully -> smooth sound? What? I have no idea what you're trying to describe
      • That's not me who's "trying to describe". It is according to ref 27. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • a period in which the duo became obsolete -> I don't think obsolete is the right word here. They are not machinery
    • which attained immense popularity -> This is very problematic. It borders with NPOV and OR. Who are we to measure immense popularity? Especially without sources.
      • Again, that's not me who's measuring "immense popularity". It is according to Cintra Wilson from Salon: "... in 1971, 'The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour' hit the small screen. Its success was enormous." Ref 31. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • which dealt with unusual subjects in mainstream popular music -> Maybe you mean subjects in culture? This should be clearer
    • she became one of the most acclaimed film actresses of that decade -> Whoa there. That is a strong statement. Where are references for this? This leads me to another issue; the validity of your claims. I looked into the article body, where you reference the above, and only found sources for certain awards. No critical commentary at all. This means it's just your own opinion. I think I made my point already that factually and grammar-wise, the article needs a lot of polishing.
      • According to ref 76 (http://dancemusic.about.com/cs/features/a/CherBackDean.htm). Actually, there's not a single information on the lead that isn't resourced on the body of the article. All of the other issues are done. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lordelliot, in a GA, About.com would pass muster, because depending on a case-by-case analysis, it can be reliable. However, in a potential FA, we look for high quality reliable sources, and About.com does not quite cut it. There have even been a few instances, where an About.com author has cited Wikipedia. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the remark. I'll replace the About.com references. Lordelliott (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References - Many issues. You have absolutely no consistency with them (not to mention many are incorrectly formatted).
    • Aside from the fact that several are questionable (in terms of their reliability), you choose to not list most publishers, only works. This would be technically acceptable if you were consistent. Also, the refs have no links to the works. They don't look very professional in any aspect.
      • In fact, I didn't have a good time with the refs format. I've checked several featured articles and every single one of them had a different way of formatting refs. So I decided to stick to the Reese Witherspoon's article "model". Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 16, Why is Allmusic in italics? Why do you list the Rovi Corporation in this one and not is the others?
    • What makes numbers 1, 3, 31, 66, 80, 96 etc. reliable?
      • All of them are reputed websites. What's the big deal? Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but in all honesty, this article is very under-prepared. I would suggest a strong copy-edit/revaluation of factual content, MOS checks, complete reformatting and structure of references, Peer-review and GA. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I surely agree with the copy-edit issue. English is not my first language, so I made what I could with my mid-level English skills. If you could help me with the copy-editing and prose issues, I would be very, very happy, because I've not been able to find any user. As for the "strong" statements on the lead, all of them are resourced on the body of the article. I can assure you "my opinion" isn't anywhere on it. Lordelliott (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry man, but it seems you yourself really don't understand what makes an FA (at least others strive for it, you are simply lost). I'm trying to sound as polite about this as I can, but if you are not understanding what's wrong with the article, how can you fix it? It's going to take more than striking those few comments I made to make this FAC ready. Its a large article, with a boat-load of needs. Not only that, but you haven't really addressed any of my concerns :/ My Oppose stands and I really suggest you withdraw. It's far from FA material.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the biggest issue is that I'm not an English native-speaker user, so I always sound "unprofessional" when I discuss on here. Yes, I understand what makes a FA. I'm an user of Wikipedia in portuguese (my native language) since long time. Cher's article on the pt Wikipedia is featured because of my edits. But that's not the point. Your main issues are the validation of content, the reliability of the refs, the refs format and the prose. As for the first two "issues", these are actually not issues at all. All of the content presented on the article is referenced by reliable sources. The refs can be easily "re-formatted", but I would need a little help from other users. The main issue on here is the prose inconsistencies, but it is beyond my control. I would REALLY need the help from other users to fix it. I may sound "noob" or whatever, but I'm really into what makes a FA and I'm ready to make the changes neccessary to promote it. English is not my speciality, but all of the others main points (with the exception of ref formats) are ok. Lordelliott (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I'm not saying it should be promoted because I did "the best that I could". I'm just stating that the main points are done; what the article needs to be a FA is strong copy-edit and a "re-format" of refs. Copy-edit on an article that long may seem to be hard to do, but writing it was harder. Copy-edit is not something from another world. Lordelliott (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just reformatted and restructured all the references on article per your request. Also, I should say I took The Emancipation of Mimi as a model. As for the reliability of references
  • I appreciate the further work you've put into the article. I can see this soon being of GA quality. However, my Oppose still stands. While the references are looking much better, many are still deemed unreliable. Additionally, you seem to be confusing the "cite web" and cite news" formats for the references. Still, the prose need a lot of work. Before even GA, I would suggest a thorough copy-edit and PR. Due to the overwhelming work ahead, and the fact that this is becoming more like a Peer review, I must again suggest a Withdrawal. Keep it up, you're definitely getting closer. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your appreciation. I'd like it if you could point out the unreliable references, since all but two of the refs you questioned as unreliable before are reliable (and the two unreliable refs were removed). I'll be working on the formats for the refs and on the prose. Lordelliott (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember, FAs represent Wikipedia's best work, so we require only the most reliable of sources. Here are handfuls. 1 (Yahoo biography is not a high quality source), 32 (I am not convinced at all), 46, 67 (I don't find this to be FA quality), as an example 64 and 82 should be using the cite news format (many have this error, 83 as well), 117, 137, 171, 207, 235, 237, 246, 275, 285, 286, and 287. Not forgeting that you still have major formatting errors and inconsistencies.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on the reliability of the refs right now. A few of the refs you mentioned are (in my opinion) reliable, but I'll do a little bit of research to be sure of this. I'm also working on the cite news/web formats. Aside from this, what major formatting errors and inconsistencies are you talking about? Lordelliott (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed and/or substituted all of the refs you've pointed out, except for those refs:
          • Salon is a well-known website and the journalist Cintra Wilson is reliable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
          • I don't know what makes this ref unreliable.
          • I also don't know what makes this book unreliable. It is not a self-published book.
        • By the way, I've also worked on the cite web/news issue. Lordelliott (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sheer volume of issues found here after the first Support declaration-- including sourcing issues-- it is apparent that the first Support should be disregarded as not engaging the criteria, this article should be withdrawn or closed and re-worked. After a month and a lengthy review, there is no support based on comprehensive review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see followup discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (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_candidates/Cher/archive1&oldid=1140169112"