Talk:Kelly Clarkson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Kelly Clarkson was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Lede image[edit]

Ok, so there's a bit of back-and-forth regarding the potential lede images:

I am of the opinion that the first image is the one to use, for reasons below:

  1. It shows her actual face best of the three images. This article is about a person, and so we should choose the best image available of her
  2. Following on from the first reason, the second image is fine for the article itself, but the focus of the article is not what Kelly Clarkson wears, but who she is - her coat should not take up the majority of the image.
  3. The third image is too small in detail to adequately show who Clarkson is. Not only is she small in the middle, but her pose means that most of her features are hidden or obstructed.
  4. Although MOS:LEADIMAGE is not specific, it does say "It is common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article—​​often in an infobox—​​allowing readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page", and in this context a head shot of the article subject is more immediately clear than a full body shot.

I invite comments, rather than edit wars? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kelly Clarkson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

Kelly's work, especially her early work (see My December & Breakaway), have been described as either rock, or pop rock in their stylings, as can also be seen on their own album pages.

Therefore, in order for the genre in the infobox of this article to remain accurate, I propose that the genre should either be altered to Pop rock, or that Rock should be added as an additional genre.

Bhavik333 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Simply releasing one or two albums, that are credited within the "pop rock" genre, does not mean she is a "pop rock" singer. Plus, pop rock is considered a fusion genre of pop music, therefore, it is covered under "pop" itself. Kelly, for the better part and most recognizable part, is a pop music artist. livelikemusic talk! 00:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd disagree, many people agree that My December is solely a rock album, as it is credited on wikipedia itself. Furthermore, all of Kelly's work, in every album, have elements of rock, I don't think she only has a few albums which dip into rock, those were just examples, many of her songs are categorised under the pop rock genre (more recently Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)). Also, I think (as I stated above) the genre can be altered to be simply pop rock, or "Rock" can be added as a separate genre, solving the problem of having both "pop" and "pop rock" as listed genres. Lastly, many artists who are recognised for the most part as pop artists, even some who I would say have less of a rock influence, and only sparingly have rock influenced songs, much less albums (such as Katy Perry have the sub genre of pop rock, or rock added to their info box. Other examples include Pink (singer) and Madonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavik333 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with "Livelikemusic" that "Rock Pop" is a subgenre of "Pop music". Also, I have a question, if Kelly is releasing an album that is a "soul" genre in the future, would that be added as an additional genre? Raritydash (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely, which is why I would also not regard Kelly as a rock artist. When I think of rock artists, I go to Joan Jett or The Rolling Stones, etc. not Kelly Clarkson. Kelly Clarkson is a pop music artist. livelikemusic talk! 23:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, of Kelly's 6 studio albums, 4 of them are classified as pop rock, so I think Rock probably should be added as a second genre this has been done for many generally regarded "pop" artists (like the ones I stated above) have, despite not being solely (like the ones you mentioned) rock artists. You don't have to think of her as a rock artist for her to have pop-rock music. e.g: Maroon 5, OneRepublic are more pop than rock. If you're adding soul, I'd say there is a definite need to add rock because Kelly only has one (unreleased) soul album compared to 6 albums, of which all of them have rock songs on and 4/6 have been listed as pop-rock, or rock on wikipedia.Bhavik333 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An infobox is a summary of the article. So let's look at what the article actually says. Her music is mentioned as: rock - 2 times, pop rock - 1 time, pop (alone) about a dozen times; also, soul - once, talking about a future album, and country - 4 or 5 times, mostly about her collaborations, but once about a possible future album. Now, my opinion is that I would not be opposed to "pop rock" or "pop, rock" (probably the latter would be better). But, I don't think that just "pop" is sufficient. When I think of a pop singer, I think of someone like Britney Spears. Even the "King of Pop" has (much) more listed than just "pop" (and that's a featured article). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we also need to take into account that the pop rock genre was reliably sourced, which is more so that what normally happens during music genre edit wars. Currently her albums are marked in the infoboxes as pop (x7), pop rock (x4), rock, Christmas, jazz, country, soul, electropop, orchestral pop, power pop, EDM (x2), so both pop and pop rock would be a good overview of them. Currently her songs are marked in the infoboxes as R&B (x4), soul (x2), pop (x12), pop rock (x17), folk pop, power pop (x4), glam rock, alternative rock (x2), electropop (x3), folk blues, dance-rock (x2), electro, synthpop (x6), funk rock, rock, country pop, dance-pop (x2), country, country soul, soft rock (x2), Christmas (x5), neo-jazz, trance, gospel, EDM and electro rock, so both pop and pop rock would be a good overview of them, with maybe something along the lines of electro/dance. I would think having either pop and pop rock or pop and rock would be an accurate summary of her article and recordings. Aspects (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Philantrophy and personal life sections[edit]

Although I appreciate the changes that were made on Kelly Clarkson's wikipage recently, I really do think that the sections about her personal life, political views and philantrophy should make a comeback. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.51.153 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Same here. In my opinion it was fine how it was for years. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Once again just my opinion.:) —HappyAppy10 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree, for now, and it should be discussed here. Unlike mentioned in the edit summaries, it looks like none of the information from the other ventures and personal life sections were not merged into the article. Her husband, Brandon Blackstock, and their children are not mentioned. Her book, River Rose and the Magical Lullaby is only in a bibliography section. Ron Paul, Idol Gives Back, March of Dimes, Houses of Hope, UNICEF, Opportunity Education and Feeding America are not mentioned.
If the example a good article to follow is Katy Perry's, then this information should be listed because her article has an Other ventures section, with Philanthropy and Politics subsections. At Perry's talk page, it is mentioned that there is not a personal section about relationships because it would turn into gossip, the opposite should be here when it consists of a husband and children. While I agree that the greeting card and Jane Austen ring sections are not necessary. As such I am going to add back the other sections, but not these two. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to make this article into WP:GA. So you guys, if you don't do anything useful, then just don't mess it up. Those very very little sections entitled Books and Personal Life already included on the main body, so it's completely useless and repetitive. As for political views, Kelly Clarkson is not a politician and hasn't done anything significant towards politics. Tweeting your President choice isn't included, sorry. Madonna is very very vocal about Politics, yet her page doesn't have Politic section. All we have to do actually is expand her Artistry section, she's a musician fo God sake. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So, by your most recent edits, would admit that you lied that the Books, Personal life and Philanthropy were already included, since you just added them in the main body. It would be helpful for you to discuss the edits here, instead of continuing to make the same types of edits without a consensus formed for them. Aspects (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh lord, just take a look at my sandbox and see the history. Why would I lie? All I have done is just improving this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that the Personal Life section is important, even if it was "short". I mean, the purpose of wikipedie is to contain information regardless of their length, isn't it? Same thing goes for the Jane Austen affair which was quite discussed at the time. Like, why delete information without including them somewhere in the article? I know that something about her husband and kids is currently included in one of the sections but if someone looks for such an information, he doesn't want to read 5 paragraphs just to find out whether she is married. Let alone the fact that the information there are incomplete as it is not mentioned anywhere there she has also a son who was born in 2016. Or at least I don't see this informaton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.51.153 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)