Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Closing cmt
Closed/archived
Line 372: Line 372:


'''Closing comment''' -- This review has been open almost two months and the source spotcheck has proved a stumbling block. I realise it's a letdown when these issues come up late in the piece, and I'm sure there is no suggestion of bad faith, but the concerns should be addressed outside the FAC process. Once that's done it might be worth another Peer Review, or perhaps if they have time Laserbrain or Mike could assist with another (pre-FAC) spotcheck before renominating here. Thanks all for your efforts. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 07:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
'''Closing comment''' -- This review has been open almost two months and the source spotcheck has proved a stumbling block. I realise it's a letdown when these issues come up late in the piece, and I'm sure there is no suggestion of bad faith, but the concerns should be addressed outside the FAC process. Once that's done it might be worth another Peer Review, or perhaps if they have time Laserbrain or Mike could assist with another (pre-FAC) spotcheck before renominating here. Thanks all for your efforts. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 07:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|archived}} [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 07:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:34, 26 October 2014

Ashley Tisdale

Ashley Tisdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale has been my favorite actress/singer for years. I've been working on her main article since 2009 and I've made over 1,300 edits on it since them. I've put a lot of hard work on it after seeing it fail the FA nomination three times - all of them mainly because of the prose. I took some time to rewrite the article and there was major changes since last time it was nominated. I requested for a peer review two months ago (SNUGGUMS, thanks a lot again!) and a lot of improvements were made. After it was achieved, I requested Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors for a FA-quality copyedit and JudyCS was nice enough to help me out. Now I believe the article is finally ready to receive that gold star and therefore here I am for the fourth (and hopefully last) time. decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose..... for now..... this article has drastically improved over the past couple of months, but needs touching up before becoming FA-worthy. My main concern is the references, many of which are malformatted. I would've mentioned this in the PR, but it got closed by a bot before I could do so. Right now, I see recurring instances where a work parameter is duplicated (i.e. using Business Wire as both a work and a publisher). Let's correct them:

Done! decodet. (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm seeing incorrect use of italics with Box Office Mojo, MTV, Emmy Award, Make-A-Wish Foundation, ABC, and AllMusic, and the "M" in AllMusic should always be capitalized. Also, sources like "RyanSeacrest.com", "Sheknows", InStyle, About.com, Daily Mail, and anything affiliated with AOL are definitely not FA-worthy.

Done: I've corrected the italics and switched Sheknows, InStyle, About.com and Daily Mail to other more reliable references.
- About RyanSeacreast.com: ref 95 is used to source something she said on the radio show so I couldn't find any other source to replace it.
- About AOL: ref 49 is a interview so everything she said is quoted, and ref 110 is an album review. Aren't those two particular sources good enough to be used? decodet. (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for other aspects, I think in artistry it would be helpful to add some commentary from Tisdale on her acting influences, especially how the article has quotes on her musical influences. Also, consider adding some detail on the types of characters she's played. For those who haven't seen programs like High School Musical or The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, this would be very beneficial. In FA's like Charlie Chaplin, we see details on character types, acting style, influences, and themes in his "filmmaking" section. While there isn't enough information on Tisdale to have as detailed of a section as Chaplin, his article has some things you could use as a basis. The quoteboxes within "life and career" could probably be removed, with her quote on upcoming music just being regular prose and the Kevin Murphy quote being removed (just having it in "acting" section will do). In regards to "Personal life", it mainly seems to be trivial except for her dating life. I'd remove all except her relationships and intertwine her boyfriends and husband into her "life and career" section since they total up to less than a paragraph's worth of content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Acting influences: I've added some other influences and some quotes as well.
- Characters: The types of characters she's played are already mentioned in the "life and career" section, e.g. Sharpay Evans, a "popular, narcissistic high school". The media hasn't covered Tisdale's characters that much, perhaps with the exception of Sharpay, so if we develop a whole "characters" paragraph/section, it would be pretty much about Sharpay I guess. Wouldn't it be kind of trivial?
- Quoteboxes: removed.
- Personal life: Couldn't agree more. I believe it looks better now! I'm just wondering if her nose surgery, which received media coverage when she underwent it in 2007, is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article or not.
I really thank you for your input, Snuggums, I believe it really helped me to improve the article. Now I'd appreaciate if you could take another look at it after I've worked on your issues and let me know if there's anything else I can work on or if you believe it's FA-worthy now! :) decodet. (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my pleasure, Decodet, we're getting there :D..... For characters, I was referring to personas (i.e. naggy, class clown, geeky), though what you've added also helps. Also, add her voice range and some of Tisdale's own commentary for her music and songwriting. Remember, FA's should not leave out any important details on subjects, we're now filling missing spots. I'll go into specifics on prose and refs and such, but had to point out general aspects first. In "Public Image", I would specify that the "I'm not just the young girl" quote was for Allure. One thing I forgot to mention is how Ok! magazine is definitely not the best of sources, and neither is "TV by the numbers" (it is part of Zap2it) after further thought, but I take back what I said on Ryan Seacreast- he's actually fine to use, but do use a better source if anything better comes up. Just keep in mind that FA's should have the most high-quality sources possible, and I can't say "PopEater" is among them (even if they claim to be an interview). Nose surgery..... I'm gonna say don't include that, even if covered by many sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums - I've put some Tisdale's commentary on her music and songwriting but I couldn't find anything about her vocal range. I did specified that Allure quote and replaced OK! magazine and TV by the numbers references. I only kept ref 64 because it's a press release issued by Disney Channel. PopEater is also no longer in the article. Thanks for your recent edits on the article! decodet. (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure helping, and good to know about the press release. I'm gonna look through again, expect a more detailed review within 3 or 4 days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
! Ok, I'll be waiting! Thanks! decodet. (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go.....

Lead
  • The citations aren't necessary here since the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the rest of the article (WP:LEADCITE). I'd move the citations to appropriate locations within the body.
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink "Sharpay Evans" since she doesn't have her own article
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the "spin-off" by name, which is Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make note that Phineas and Ferb premiered in 2007.
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had significantly lower sales than her previous album"..... if included in the article, shouldn't be in the lead
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include detail on her upcoming third album
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2004–06
High School Musical and rise to prominence
  • See note in lead regarding Sharpay Evans
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide a citation for the release date of There's Something About Ashley
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2007–09
Studio albums and film career
  • Include who won the Emmy's that High School Musical 2 was nominated for
Wouldn't it be unnecessary to mention the categories the film was nominated for and also who it lost the award too? I'd agree if Tisdale herself were nominated, but since it's the film we're talking about, is it necessary? decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tisdale began work on her second studio album"..... Guilty Pleasure should be introduced here by name
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rather than "this was significantly lower than the first-week sales for her previous album", I'd include a more recent sales figure
The most recent sales figure we have for her studio albums are from 2010 if I'm not mistaken so they are outdated as well. Since we mentioned both albums' first week sales, isn't it better to discuss just those sales? decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could include most recent available sales for both albums.....? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the elder sister of the family" is not needed
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2010–12
Return to broadcast television and producing
  • "fiercely intense" from "the fiercely intense captain of a cheerleading team" is unnecessary
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who directed most of her music videos"..... it would help to give the names of these videos
He directed five of her six music videos, is it really necessary to name them all?. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but not required Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two reconciled in 2012 but later ended their relationship" is not supported by the given citation (FN54), so remove this bit
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2013–present
Established career and marriage
  • "Tisdale continued to work simultaneously as a producer, actress, and recording artist during 2013 and 2014"..... awkwardly phrased and fluff
I really don't know how I could rewrite this. Do you have any particular suggestion? decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying to scrap it (which I've done myself) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four years after the release of her second studio album Guilty Pleasure in 2009, Tisdale, during an interview with MTV in April 2013, said she was inspired to make music again and confirmed that, since 2012, she has been recording her third studio album"..... quite a mouthful, keep it simple with something like "In April 2013, Tisdale told MTV she was recording her third studio album, which she began work on in 2012".
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 2013, Tisdale teased on her Twitter account about a 'special project' related to music. She confirmed that the project was a single titled 'You're Always Here', which was written about her late grandfather. The song was eventually released independently to digital stores that same month"..... too much detail, just say that "You're Always Here" was released as the lead single in December 2013.
"You're Always Here" was just a non-album single, it's not the lead single of her third album. Wouldn't it be a little awkward to just say "The song was released in December 2013", out of nowhere?. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artistry
Acting
  • I'm guessing you meant this for Andy Webster's review
Yes, thanks. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Influences
  • "Tisdale has mentioned numerous musicians and actors who have influenced her careers" → "Tisdale has taken influence from numerous musicians and actors"
done. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since photos of Katy Perry and Robin Williams are used, give a quote on Williams' influence on her since you have a quote on her talking about Perry
I had to remove her quote on Perry because she said it to AOL and you asked me to remove it. decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. If you added quotes on other influences instead, it would help. However, this isn't required. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


References
  • FN1: Link CBS Interactive
  • FN3: Link Billboard (magazine).
  • FN4: Remove italics from Emmy Award
  • FN8: Unlink Emmy, and should read "Emmy Award"
  • FN10: Remove "InterfaithFamily.com"
  • FN11: To match the other refs, this should read in Last name-First name format, so switch "Laurie Heifetz" to "Heifetz, Laurie"
  • FN12: Used rather excessively (I count 10 instances), try to use some other sources in place. Also, AllMovie should not be italicized
  • FN13: 5 instances is a bit much, replace an instance or two.
  • FN15: Also used excessively (8 times)
  • FN21: E! should not be italicized
  • FN22: Should match FN8
  • FN24: Should read Apple Inc. instead of "Apple"
  • FN25: MTV should not be italicized
  • FN26: 7 instances is excessive
  • FN37: Melinda Newman → Newman, Melina
  • FN39: Link Reuters, which shouldn't be italicized, and publisher is The Woodbridge Company
  • FN40: Daily News (New York) should read out "New York Daily News"
  • FN41: Same as FN39, but don't link Reuters or The Woodbridge Company
  • FN44: Same as FN25
  • FN45: Owen Gleiberman → Gleiberman, Owen (use "authorlink" parameter)
  • FN48: Link Business Wire, which shouldn't be italicized
  • FN49: Same as FN24
  • FN63: Same as FN's 25 and 44
  • FN67: An AOL-affiliated source like this has to go, sorry
  • FN73: Rotten Tomatoes and Flixster should be linked without italics
  • FN74: Link Metacritic and add "Interactive" to CBS
  • FN76: Same as FN21
  • FN79: Same as FN's 25, 44, and 63
  • FN82: Same as FN's 24 and 49
  • FN83: Same as FN67
  • FN86: CNN should not be italicized
  • FN89: Same as FN's 25, 44, 63, and 79
  • FN91: Should link to AfterEllen.com and TheBacklot.com, no italics
  • FN95: Remove "Australia", and 6 instances is over-the-top
  • FN's 96 and 97: Same as FN's 25, 44, 49, and 89
  • FN101: Same as FN's 25, 44, 63, and 79
  • FN's 102 and 103: missing publishers
  • FN105: Same as FN's 25, 44, 63, and 79
  • FN107: Another AOL-affiliated site, needs to be removed/replaced
  • FN115: Publisher is Guardian Media Group
  • FN119: Not working properly
  • FN120: Same as FN's 25, 44, 63, 79, and 105
  • FN121: Unlink NBCUniversal, and there shouldn't be a space between "NBC" and "Universal"
  • FN122: I don't know where the arbitrary "Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation" bit came from, but that should be removed
  • FN123: Just use "Philanthropy Is" once and without italics
  • FN124: American Broadcasting Company should not be italicized
  • FN's 129 and 130: Daily Mail is very unreliable and must be replaced/removed
  • FN's 131 and 138: Same as FN67
This is simply the most annoying thing to do (lol) but after some hard work, I believe all of them are ok now! PS.: FN119 works for me.
It is indeed annoying, but is required to be FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there's definitely work to do, Decodet, I don't think it's bad enough to the point where this nomination should be withdrawn. Get to it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS I really appreacite this detailed review. I've worked on all of your issues (except some of them but I explained what I think of them above). Hope that everything is OK now. Thanks! decodet. (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through again..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decodet, after looking through again and doing some more tweaks, I have one last comment: After giving thought to Jared Murillo and Scott Speer, they actually might not be significant enough to include after all..... at least in comparison to husband Christopher French. Thoughts? There's also more to say on her husband than her exes, anyway, especially with him co-writing one of her songs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums, thanks for your edits! About her exes, I'm not sure because she actually dated Speer and Murillo for a long period of time each and she also worked with both of them. As already said in the article, Speer directed five of Tisdale's music videos and Murillo worked with her in HSM and also was a dancer in her performances in 2007. She has dated other people, like Boys Like Girls' Martin Johnson, but I thought this one was significant enough because they dated for a short period of time. What do you think? decodet. (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a thought, but yes Martin Johnson isn't significant enough.Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a detailed review and extensive work/improvements from you, Decodet, I now officially support. Ms. Tisdale would be very proud of your work, kudos for your efforts :D ! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Resolved comments from Mike Christie

I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

  • The external links checking tool shows some dead links.
  • "making it the fourth biggest week's sales for a soundtrack album": since this could change in the future, I'd suggest adding an "as of 2014" to this.
  • "Disney Channel picked up the animated series Phineas and Ferb in 2006, and its producers began the process of casting. Tisdale was cast as ...": how about trimming this to "Disney Channel picked up the animated series Phineas and Ferb in 2006; Tisdale was cast as ..."?
  • "premiered right after High School Musical 2": not clear on this -- do you mean that it premiered after the premiere of HSM2? If so, I'd make this "The series' first episode was broadcast immediately after the premiere of High School Musical 2"; it's going to be pretty difficult to get the word "premiere" in there twice without making an ugly sentence.
  • In the 2007-2009 section, you have "She received critical acclaim for her performance in the film" and later "She received acclaim from critics". I think the first one is OK, because you don't quote specific examples, but I'd cut the second one -- the examples are positive and the reader doesn't need to be told that they constitute acclaim. [Added]: having now checked the sources for the first one, I think "acclaim" is overstating it -- I'd dial this back to something like "positive reviews".
  • "Future projects Tisdale and her production company have been working on include three digital series": the context in the source makes it clear what "digital" means, but some readers will need a bit more explanation. Perhaps "include three series intended for online-only release"? Or "internet release"?
  • "Her output makes use of electronic instruments such as drum machines, guitars, and pianos": this is pretty bland and I think you could just cut it.
  • "a statement and a reflection of what [she went] through over [2008] and how [she has] grown up": what happened in 2008? I can't see anything in the earlier part of the article that she might be referring to.
  • "and added writing it made her vulnerable": she actually says in the source that having other people hear it makes her vulnerable. However, even with this corrected, it's a little oddly phrased; typically someone would say that something makes them feel vulnerable. I think it might be better to cut this, because I don't think it would be OK to rephrase away from what the source actually says, even if that's probably not what she meant.
  • "John Caramania of The New York Times praised the sound of the album and her voice; however, he believed the songs were not "radical" enough to attest to Tisdale's purpose of proving herself as an adult." This is not a very good reflection of the source. The only truly positive thing that Caramania says is that Tisdale "pulls off 'It's Alright, It's O.K." with verve". And he doesn't say that the songs aren't radical enough to fulfill Tisdale's goal of proving herself an adult; he says they aren't radical, and that coming out as an adult is unimaginative, and that being bad (referring to the bad girl imagery in some of the songs) is boring.
  • "During her career, Tisdale has taken influence from various musicians and actors. In her musical career, Tisdale names pop stars": suggest compressing this to "Tisdale has named many influences on her musical career, including", and then cut the list -- this is a bit too long to be very informative. Is there any basis for picking just a few of these -- perhaps ones she has named repeatedly, or which she cites as particularly strong influences?
  • "named the sixth best-paid tween in Hollywood": this makes no sense; she was in her twenties in 2008.
  • "Tisdale was cast as the voice of Candace Flynn, a main character whose primary motivation is getting her brothers in trouble": is uncited.
  • "Jazmine, an engaged young woman": she gets engaged in the episode, so I'd cut this. How about describing her as the sister of Rebel Wilson's character, since it seems Wilson is the lead?
  • "Tisdale claimed those two performances were important for her to "challenge herself" as an actress, because she finally began to leave her "comfort zone"." This isn't quite what she says in the interview. She says that Scary Movie 5 was out of her comfort zone, and that she wants to keep challenging herself; she doesn't say that Sons of Anarchy was a performance that challenged her. She doesn't directly say it about Scary Movie 5 either, but I think it's pretty clear from context. How about: "Tisdale commented after Scary Movie 5 that the role had taken her out of her comfort zone, and that she planned to continue to challenge herself in the future"?
  • "Her acting performances have been met with praise by critics and film producers. Named a "scene stealer" by many critics, she is often considered the "breakout star" in the productions in which she appears": the citations for this don't appear to support it; can you explain how you get this from the sources?
    • "the breakout star is Ashley Tisdale, whose Sharpay makes narcissism a goofy, bedazzled pleasure." (in ref 49) and "Tisdale, who in the first film served more as comic relief and nasty foil to the lovelorn Troy (Efron) and Gabriella (Vanessa Hudgens), practically steals the whole sequel." (ref 96). decodet. (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Took me a minute to figure out that these have now been renumbered to 48 and 95, but I got there. I think you're making a bit too much of these sources -- you have one critic who refers to her as a breakout story, and one critic who says she steals the show in HSM2. No question they're positive comments, but you can't say "many critics", and "often considered", unless you have other examples. And you use the "breakout" cite earlier in the article. Incidentally, it's not necessary for this FAC, but you might want to listen to Mark Kermode's podcasts; if you can find the ones where he reviews the HSM movies I recall he's a big fan. You'd have to cite to the voicefile with a time offset, but he's certainly a respected critic who could be cited. (And his podcasts are pretty good.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see what you meant. So I've done some coypedit on that part. Is it better? About the Kermode's podcast, I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip! I'll take a listen whenever I have free time. decodet. (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's much better. One last related question: are there negative reviews of her acting from respected sources? You're only quoting positive reviews. You don't need to include a stack of negatives, but if there are reviews from respectable sources that say negative things about her acting we need to make the reader aware of that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I added some! decodet. (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a pass through. Some minor prose issues that are easily fixable. I'm a bit more concerned about the occasionally weak connection between the sources and the statements in the article, but the issues seem mostly to be with reception and critical opinion, and I've now checked most of those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your review and I've worked on your issues. I hope I have your support, thanks! decodet. (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of outstanding points above. I expect to support once everything is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just footnote 109 left, plus my question above about negative reviews, plus I still want to think about reorganizing the relationship sentences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I addressed relationships in my review. See above for details. If anything, I feel some commentary from Tisdale herself could be added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you suggested merging the personal life notes into the separate time-organized paragraphs because there was so little detail, and that was done. What do you think of the point I make above, that it's not clear what "over the past year" means to her? decodet suggests it's because she ended a relationship, but the source doesn't specify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that expanding the personal life section might solve this, though I hate to suggest adding gossipy material to a solid article. But a quick google seems to indicate that she and Murillo had no major breakup; they just drifted apart. So perhaps the best we can do is leave the "past year" quote as is without comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Tisdale has kept her personal life private, she doesn't talk much about it. I think we should keep the way it is now. By the way, I've commented on your two remaining issues above :) decodet. (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If including a personal life section, that's asking for fancruft and gossip. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I don't see a better option than leaving it as it is. @Decodet: we're in luck; archive.org has a link to that billboard page, here; let's just use that instead. The other edit you made looks fine, so once the footnote is fixed I'll support. (Might be tomorrow as I'm about to pack it in for the night.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done! :) decodet. (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you changed the wrong one -- you changed 104, and the one that errors out is now 111. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ops! It was late, I was about to go to bed as well so, you know... haha But it's fixed now, thanks for pointing it out. decodet. (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I checked a few sources for close paraphrasing and accuracy and requested a couple of changes as a result. Other than that there were no red flags; the prose is good enough, and it appears comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my support; see comment below after Laser brain's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead

Temporary oppose because of sourcing and formatting. The websites and publishers should be linked in the "citation template" if they have Wiki articles. Also, you should write the author if the article has one. Here are few examples I'm worried about:

  • ref 7—What makes JCC of Greater Monmouth County a reliable source? The text is not authorized, the original link is dead, and the content in the archived link doesn't seem like a high-quality report.
Replaced it. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 14, 23, 30, 53, 88—What makes an online music/movie seller such as iTunes Store a reliable source? Also, why is this so frequently used?
Removed ref 14 as it was unneeded. Replaced them, except for ref 88 (now 85): I am sourcing the release of the song to digital retailes: a digital retailer link cannot be used in this case? decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 29—It appears that musicline.de is in German. This content is unauthorized, but I'm wondering what information are you sourcing with this website?
You are right, this source wasn't actually needed. Just got lost in the there. It's been removed. By the way, what do you mean by "unauthorized"? decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text is not accredited to a journalist.--Retrohead (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 58, 77—What kind of website is The Numbers? If you are sourcing box office success, why don't you use Box Office Mojo?
Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 117—the author is not credited (Jill Heller)
Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic has different publishers. Which is it: Rovi or All Media Network?
Done. decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Retrohead - I've worked in your issues but I couldn't understand what did you mean with "The websites and publishers should be linked in the "citation template". Can you explain that for me, please? Other than that, is there any other issues I need to work on in order to receive your support? Thanks for your review! decodet. (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if you are using The Hollywood Reporter as a source, The Hollywood Reporter should be linked in the 'References' section. I'll post a more detailed review shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't it be linked once in the reference section? Otherwise, wouldn't it be overlinking? decodet. (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you can go that way too. I thought you opted to link the website/publisher in every citation.--Retrohead (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she announced her intention to make music again"—Can you shrink this a little bit, losing the intention clause? It seems too wordy.
Done. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made further modifications. Think it reads better now.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by charitable "causes" in the 'Philanthropy'?
For example, "Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief" is a cause. Make-A-Wish foundation is an organization. That's why we have both in the first sentence. Is that what you meant?
Ok, thanks for the explanation.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got two back-to-back "however" in the first paragraph of 'Philanthropy'.
Done! decodet. (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, the same wording is still present.--Retrohead (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I forgot to save my edit but thanks, it's copyedited now. decodet. (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, Retrohead. Anything else I need to work on or everything is good? :) decodet. (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delink some of the common words that are unrelated to the topic: bullied, graduating, etc. Also, a single term is supposed to be linked only once in the article's body. You've got ABC linked several times, for example.
Delinked the words. I thought a term should be linked once in a section, not in the entire article's body. For example: High School Musical is linked in the introduction. Does it mean we can't have it linked again in Career, Acting and Filmography sections? decodet. (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I checked other FAs and apparently it's a standard to have a term linked in the lead and then the first time it appears in the article's body. I've delinked some terms. decodet. (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you eliminate the empty spaces in the citation templates? They seem to overload the page with unnecessary bytes.
Done (after a quite hard work, I'd say). decodet. (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me to report the progress. I'm coming to this page once a day, so I'll be monitoring the updates.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern I have is the frequency and accuracy of the quoting. For example, take a look at the opening sentence of 'Acting'→"with every character, [she] just [brings] something that [she] can make [her] own". There are too many brackets, which worries me that the original quote might lose its meaning. Why don't you paraphrase this one?
Done! decodet. (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the 'Musical style', I want to ask why the Allmusic reviews are singled out? As far as I know, this section should be an overview of her style, not just reflection on what one website thinks about her. Is there something on Google Books about this topic that might serve as general source?
Done! Is it better? Couldn't find anything on Google Book. decodet. (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to replace the Allmusic comments with another ones. I meant to give an overview of the critic's comments about the albums. Metacritic would be the best source to see if the album was well-received or not. For example, writing that "the Los Angeles Times gave the album a negative review" should be noted in the album's article. This one should present the overall reception and general view.--Retrohead (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I do any changes, I just want to discuss something with you, Retrohead: her debut album Headstrong doesn't have a rating on Metacritic, only her second one has one (48%). So you suggest (1) we only discuss her second album based on Metacritic; or (2) do that but also keep the critic's comments about Headstrong? decodet. (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Metacritic as a website that gives overall critical reception of certain albums. 48% indicates neutral/mediocre overview. As for the first album, isn't there anything on the net that we can use as a reference to write how the debut album was received, without going in detail?--Retrohead (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit in that piece and tried to make it have an overview of how received her albums were. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music style sections aren't supposed to read that way. Take a look at Megadeth or Pearl Jam to get the idea. No need for writers' statements unless they mention something extraordinary. By the way, the word "critics" is used far too often. Give overview of the style, lyrics, reception, etc. Don't go into details how Billboard didn't approve her vocal performance and similar.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tisdale has released only two studio albums so far which didn't perform that well commercially so there isn't much material to use, unlike Megadeth and Pearl Jam. However, after reading those articles, I tried to make it somehow similar. That part pretty much only have how the albums were received without getting into details and quotes. What do you think? decodet. (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose was better the old way.--Retrohead (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I revert that section back to what it was, then? decodet. (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've compared both and think the oldest version is better structured.--Retrohead (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some adjustments, what do you think? decodet. (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to broadcast television? How is this different from television?
Television can be either broadcast or cable. She used to have cameos on broadcast series in her early career, then she moved to cable (Disney Channel). decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood.--Retrohead (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • guest appearance in an episode (instead of on)
Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as serve→and serve
Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it per Wiki's manual style companies to be italicized? Check Blondie Girl Productions. Also a description as "company" is fine because we can see it is a production from its name.
Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second paragraph in 'Established career and marriage' aren't chronological. The first one report event in 2013, while the second talks about mid-2012.
Is it supposed to be chronological? I mean, I personally thought it would be better to use each paragraph for a different theme, e.g. 1st paragaph is about her work as a producer, 2nd is about her word as an actress and 3rd about her music. I thought the information is offered better in that way, otherwise it'd be something like "acting -> producing -> acting -> music -> producing -> acting -> producing"... you see my point? decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a rule, just my personal preference. But if you're following a certain writing pattern, nevermind.--Retrohead (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be consistent with the formatting. If you are using album (year), correct the "Guilty Pleasure in 2009" from the third paragraph.
Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little date trimming would be useful in this section. Omitting "April 2013" and "since 2012" from "Tisdale told MTV in April 2013 that she has been recording her third studio album since 2012", for example.
Done. decodet. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- It looks to me like Retrohead's review is still in progress, correct me if I'm wrong . Also I can see we've had some extensive source reviewing for formatting/reliability but I would want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing by a reviewer at some stage soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my review is still in progress, but on the positive side, the comments above are all resolved. I'll be unable to do spotchecks, but plan to finish the review by the end of the week.--Retrohead (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done with the prose review. Regarding the non-free media used here, there are no audio samples, and the images have free use license. I would suggest using smaller image sizes, as the current ones appear too large.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! decodet. (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check from Laser brain

  • Ref 23, source does not support article text (b and c)
  • Article text: "Love and heartbreak are major themes in Tisdale's songs."
  • Source text: I don't know where you're getting this out of Phares's review. She mentions that one song is a "typical angry breakup song" but that doesn't equate with "major themes" on the album.
I've changed the references and copyedited the sentence a little bit. Is it better? decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article text: "Heather Phares of AllMusic defined Tisdale's voice as "pleasant", but criticized her lack of "character" on her debut album Headstrong."
  • Source text: Again, not really. Phares writes that her voice is "pleasant enough" but not "distinctive" so it's more of a slam than a complement. You are presenting it as praise for her voice. Phares also writes that Tisdale "had more character singing in character as Sharpay" which isn't really the same thing as what you wrote. I appreciate your efforts to paraphrase, but I think you are getting away from what the review is really saying.
Did some copyedit in here. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 88, source does not support article text. This source is used 4 times, 3 of which are incorrect.
  • Article text: "She is commonly offered young roles and she believes that is because of how young she looks."
  • Source text: Just states that she believes she looks young for 23. It doesn't say anything about that being why she is offered young roles.
Again, done some copyedit in there. I've changed the idea a little bit. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article text: "Her main acting influences are Shia LaBeouf, Kate Hudson..."
  • Source text: It's a pretty big stretch to interpret what she says in the interview as "main acting influences". She says she wants to "emulate" Shia LaBeouf's career, but that doesn't really speak to acting methods or style, just commercial success really. She goes on to say she loves watching Kate Hudson act, but I don't see how that means Hudson is an "acting influence".
Is it better how the idea is presented now? decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 111, OK.
  • Ref 122, source does not support article text
  • Article text: "She collaborated with the Make a Wish Foundation in 2008 by visiting sick children in hospitals and helping to raise funds for the organization."
  • Source: The PDF really confirms only that the wish "to meet Ashley Tisdale" was granted. It doesn't say it was in a hospital or that Tisdale helped raise funds in any direct way. I think what you've written is overly generous in that all we can really tell is that she showed up somewhere for a few minutes at the request of the foundation.
I've changed the references. The new one specifically says she visited sick children in the hospital. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I am pessimistic that sources have been interpreted and used correctly throughout the article based on this sample. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my birth language so sometimes I may misunderstood the idea of a text while editing paraphrasing. I try my best not to, but sometimes it does happen. I swear it's not bad faith. Anyway, I've worked on your issues. I appreciate your source spotcheck and if there are any more issues please let me know and I'll try to fix them. Thanks, Laser brain. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinators: I had supported above. I did do some spotchecks, found some issues and requested some changes, which were made. Seeing Laser brain's lengthy list above, it now seems to me unlikely that the sources have been interpreted and used correctly, as Laser brain says. I've withdrawn my support above. I would support again if a subsequent review found all problems had been corrected.
By the way, another note to decodet: I would recommend not using the collapse template on other people's comments. It's better at FAC if it's easy to read other reviewers' comments; they shouldn't be hidden in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we could do that, I'm sorry. Thanks for letting me know. decodet. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal; and I don't think there's a prohibition. Just my opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This review has been open almost two months and the source spotcheck has proved a stumbling block. I realise it's a letdown when these issues come up late in the piece, and I'm sure there is no suggestion of bad faith, but the concerns should be addressed outside the FAC process. Once that's done it might be worth another Peer Review, or perhaps if they have time Laserbrain or Mike could assist with another (pre-FAC) spotcheck before renominating here. Thanks all for your efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ashley_Tisdale/archive4&oldid=631156310"