Talk:Siouxsie Sioux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Siouxsie Sioux was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 31, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
September 4, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


They might have started out as a punk band, but they soon became goth IMHO - Steeev 22:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This page needs to be cleaned up, the beginning sounds too much like the beginning of Siouxise and the Banshees: The Authorized Biography. Zombieliving 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Can someone sort out the whole Dallion/Ballion thing once and for all, with a properly cited source? Please? --Stormie 10:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Ballion. She allowed 'Dallion' to be the misunderstanding because of shame about her home life and not wanting fans to come around and have tea with Mrs. Ballion (her mother)--the fans would come by the family home, and her mother would invite them in and share all kinds of stories embarrassing to an increasingly-popular local singer and club personality. 'Dallion' even appears in the credits of an early movie; whether it was an intentional or unintentional mis-print, Sioux used that to somewhat legitimise the belief that 'Dallion' was correct. In the past, Siouxsie herself has claimed her name to be 'Dallion', allowing the misunderstanding to exist without correction. Her *authorised* biography (see Amazon link, Ballion/Dallion is mentioned in a comment) now clears up the issue: she herself admits that her surname is actually 'Ballion'. can we please fix her name?

Sid Vicious[edit]

Sid left the Banshees to join/form "The Flowers of Romance" - which is where he started using his famous nom de plume - with various people who later appeared in The Slits and The Raincoats (from memory). This band did not gig (as far as I am aware), so I have not edited the article as there is little point. I have edited the Pirroni bit as Adam and the Ants released records in the period between Marco leaving the Banshees and joining Mr Ant.

I also agree that the early period of the article duplicates much of Siouxsie & the Banshees article.LessHeard vanU 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you search google images (sid vicious on drums) there are quite a few pictures of them playing a gig at the 100 punk club

Sid Vicious played for the Banshees at the 100 club for one gig. I think it was because their drummer had gone off somewhere or something else stupid like that, but I'm certain it happened. It's in the various biographies about him that I have Ripswitched (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Controversy[edit]

It would be great if someone could add a discussion of the controversy she faced for wearing swastica-adorned clothing... her critics, her defenses, and what came of that issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomtext279 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's not enough to just say in the article that donning Nazi garb simply "was not a political statement", and it doesn't prove anything to point to anti-Nazi, pro-Israel songs she later wrote "to stop controversy". She may not have written them to stop controversy, and even if she did, it doesn't necessarily affect the original intent of the swastikas. Citations are absolutely needed for these claims. Please find an interview or something where this topic was brought up and official statements were made! —mjb (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But having said that...[edit]

"the Bromley Contingent followed the Pistols to France, where Siouxsie was beaten up for wearing a black armband with a swastika on it." So it's okay if a woman gets beaten up for waering swastika's. Which is completely sexist! And hypocrtical. The "punks" who beat her up were obviously left-wing or Jewish or what have you. but this goes against everything the Left stands for! So why was Siouxsie attacked when many punks of the 70's wore swastikas as well, such as Johnny Thunders (R.I.P), Dee Dee Ramone (R.I.P), The Dead Boys, Sid Vicious (R.I.P.) Captain Sensible and many, many more... So what's the deal?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


User: has removed this image as being "too awful". I disagree - it's not a great image but I think it is very far from being so awful that it's better to have nothing at all (as an aside, it is GFDL licensed). Rather than getting into a revert war, I seek the opinions of others. Is it worth having? --Stormie 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Awful is subjective- I don't see anything wrong with this image. Actually, I think she looks quite nice in it, fairly typical per the Banshees 1980s heyday, if only a bit tired after a show or something. It does a perfectly good job of illustrating what the singer looks like. It's possible the IP in question was a vandal anyway. So, to make a long story short, I'm placing the image back in. The Parsnip! 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, while I disagree with User: on this, he's definitely no vandal, he's a long-time anonymous contributor. But I agree with you on the image: it illustrates very clearly Siouxsie's distinctive look, with the big hair and thick eyeliner, and I think serves the article well. --Stormie 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

there's no problem with records sleeves 'cse every artist page has got a discography page with albums & singles reproducing the pictures of the sleeves. if you start this policy here, I'm afraid you'd have to erase all the discography pictures pages on the wikipedia site. User: 18 july 2007

Actually there is a big problem with using album cover images to illustrate other articles, the many and varied uses of "fair use" (i.e. copyrighted and not freely usable) images is one of the major copyright issues that has been debated on Wikipedia this year. Have a read of Wikipedia:Non-free content (and the many many screenfuls of argument on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content) - basically, using album cover images on list/discography pages is not considered an acceptable use of non-free content, and they are being cleaned up (slowly). Indeed there is a strong body of opinion that you should not even use album cover images on the article about the album, unless it contains content specifically discussing the artwork in question. --Stormie 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
that 86 picture was also made by someone and one hasn't got the copyright of the author. one needs a glamourous picture & that 86 picture is not. the goth awful porcelaine years look is 1983-1987. (note : the "tinderbox" LP is not the heyday of her career, it's considered by the critics to be the opposite). that 86 picture also shows her smiling & she never did it for promotion. so, that 86 picture doesn't represent her in a proper way.
important : universal tolerates the use of the record sleeves when it's made for promotion & so far, the record sleeves are paid by the artist. so a beautiful picture is better than a bad picture. User: 20 july
No, one does not need a "glamorous" picture. That picture is not "bad", except in your own opinion. I happen to think she looks quite lovely in it. Using a non-free image to indicate what an artist looks like is not acceptable if that artist is living. Album art is fine and dandy on articles about the album in question, or next to a paragraph in the artist's article ABOUT the album in question, but it can't be placed in an Infobox. The Parsnip! 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"that 86 picture was also made by someone and one hasn't got the copyright of the author" - hmm, actually, User:Andwhatsnext that uploaded the picture asserts that she took the photo herself and releases it under the GFDL. As for Universal tolerating the use of sleeve images, unfortunately, Wikipedia policies with regards to non-free content are rather stricter than the laws regarding such things (although as I said, the exact boundaries are currently under heavy debate). --Stormie 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am absolutely shocked to find out someone would actually say that the photo in question is "awful". In my opinion it is a wonderful picture, it shows Siouxsie the way she is, in real life. A kind-hearted woman who will stop for a minute or two for a fan to take a picture and even an autograph. Many celebrities are/were surrounded by a bunch of bodyguards and people are often threatened so they don't take candid pictures. But anyway to the point, the reason why I'm here is that I love that photo so much that I wish to know what to do in order to use it in my wiki at Wikia about Siouxsie. Wikia is open most of the times to anything that is allowed in Wikipedia and they even have a few templates to show pictures accordingly. Rules about including pictures off Wikipedia and even the web are also not a strict as in some Wikimedia projects, one of their options is to show pictures "found on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project" so I'm almost sure I can use it. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why we can't use the album cover in the infobox[edit]

This is already policy, and nothing new being started here. You can see it in examples 16 and 17 here, WP:NONFREE#Examples_of_unacceptable_use. Wikipedia has a strong preference for free rather than copyrighted images, because under direction from the Foundation we are a part of, we try to make the articles as freely reusable as possible, not just here but on other websites. Copyrighted pictures cannot always be used on other sites, so whenever there is another picture that will do we use that one. As a band that is still active (sort of), anyone who wants to get a totally free picture can take a photo of them at a concert or a publicity event, and more than likely there are some out there already. Therefore, instead of using the record album cover photo we should look for a free image. Most artists do not have album covers as their main picture, and that is allowable only under specific circumstances. Artist discographies are usually lower in the page, and they can and are being erased under the policy. That's the reason in a nutshell. The Parsnip! 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Siouxsie, Steve Jones and that dirty old man Bill Grundy[edit]

OK, so there have been some reverts made regarding whether we should say Steve Jones "insulted" Bill Grundy, or that he called him a "dirty fucker". Can people put forward their arguments here, rather than reverting and discussing via edit summaries?

Personally, looking over the transcript at Bill Grundy, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Grundy "..tried to flirt with her. In reaction, Pistols guitarist Steve Jones called him a "dirty fucker"". Jones' reaction to Grundy's flirting was to call him a "dirty sod" and a "dirty old man" - the "dirty fucker" and "fucking rotter" insults only came after further goading by Grundy. So, while I'm perfectly happy to have offensive language reproduced in this article (per WP:NOTCENSORED), I just don't think it's factually correct in this case. --Stormie (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A very reliable source, the NME, says that he did flirt with Sioux [1] which makes it relevant to this article as she was one of the main catalysts. --JD554 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I never said that he didn't. I said that Steve Jones' "dirty fucker" insult was not in response to Grundy's flirting, it came later in the exchange after Grundy specifically goaded Jones to "say something outrageous". His response to the flirting was "You dirty sod. You dirty old man." --Stormie (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Stormie. Jones' comment "You dirty bastard. You dirty fucker" was because grundy told him to say something outrageous: Click here to watch the clip on youtube

Influences section[edit]

Since consensus can change and User:Carliertwo is the only editor who insists on adding in all the irrelevant and too detailed information whilst other editors have not reverted the changes, it is clear that the consensus has changed. If Carliertwo can build a new consensus here to show that information should be re-added I will happily back down. --JD554 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You should read more properly. No one has changed the "influence on other artists" since 14 months and no one complained about this chapter in the talk page. Here, above, there is only one remark from a goth fan who wasn't agree with the Shirley manson statement of the "musical genre" part. Member JD554, you haven't got any authority here so, you're not allowed to write "If Carliertwo can build a new consensus here to show that information should be re-added I will happily back down" : message received loud and clear. I hope. Reminder : The content of the "influence on other artists" has been judged valid since 14 months. apart from three people JD554, the follower of Wesley Dodds, and an anonymous member. these three people are in a minority, only here to make trouble. That is now patent. Carliertwo (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest you read WP:OWN. I have every right to edit any article on Wikipedia and cite any Wikipedia guideline to back up my edits. Just because the article hasn't been edited in 14 months doesn't make it correct to have it that way, if an article needs fixing it doesn't matter how long it has been. --JD554 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft[edit]

Please stop edit warring on this point. With multiple editors opposing its inclusion -- I don't think the sourcing is solid enough, and it really is trivia -- and the objection about it having nothing to with musical influence is well taken. If it were only my objection, I'd drop the point, but with two editors opposed and only you supporting, you should make the case for your content here and try to gain consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I repeat what wrote on User:Carliertwo's talk page. "Please do not delete it because you think it is trivial. Other people may be interested in this. This page is about Siouxsie Sioux the public person and she has inspired some game makers to include a reference to her in a game that is played by millions of people. Her cultural influence extends further than just music. Thank you." I see that someone has placed a note in the "Hailed By" section. This seems like a good place. Thanks for everyone's input on this! It is important to include all information on a subject, even if it is your personal opinion that it is trivial. What is trivial for one person may not be trivial for another. There are over 11 million subscribers to World of Warcraft - this is more people than there are living in Moscow, New York City or Tokyo.Michaelbarreto (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sioux or Siouxsie?[edit]

For the sake of consistancy we must choose either Sioux or Siouxsie and use it throughout the article. May we have a consensus? I'd like the input of other editors. I for one support Siouxsie. It is basically what she's called in most interviews and reviews.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Siouxsie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripswitched (talkcontribs) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:SURNAME states: People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. It seems to me that Siouxsie Sioux has a recognizable surname: Sioux. In this case, we should follow the Manual of Style and use "Sioux" throughout the article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I am going in tomorrow to change this article to conform with WP:SURNAME unless there are any reasoned objections. Elizium23 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't really make sense. There are exceptions and this is one of them. For the pseudonym Snoop Dogg, users have not reduced it to "Dogg". In this case, all the press articles and medias always present her as "Siouxsie", or "Siouxsie Sioux" but never as "Sioux", like in these 2 instances : a tv interview and a front cover of Mojo. One has to note that all her solo releases only mention "Siouxsie" on the front sleeve like the following instance, Dreamshow. Everybody knows her as "Siouxsie" and if you reduce it to "Sioux", people will make a confusion with Sioux of the Sioux indians. There's not a consensus on this case yet. Only one person defends the point of view of "Sioux" only" where as this page is seen at the average of 25000 times per month.Carliertwo (talk) 17 May 2011. 18:00 (cet)
Actually, I do have consensus already, because the Manual of Style is specific about this. Did you read it? It specifically addresses the case of Snoop Dogg, whose name does not include a recognizable surname. There are cases where the Manual of Style says to follow what is published in reliable sources, but this is not one of those cases. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine, now can you point to a reliable source that indicates that Sioux is her surname - either legally or implied? Her original surname is Ballion according to all WP:RS - and is currently, although for a while it was Clarke - and Sioux as well as Siouxsie are derivatives of her first name Susan. Siouxsie Sioux was her performing name with Siouxsie and the Banshees, and initially with The Creatures. The latter releases by her and Budgie referred to her as Siouxsie, and her solo career has been under the Siouxsie moniker. I understand that WP:MoS wishes to adopt a neutral tone in referencing it subjects, but the neutral single name for this artist is and has been Siouxsie. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been Siouxsie, and never Sioux alone, since everybody at university got interested in her in the 1980s. When we needed a surname for her, it was always "Dallion" [sic] since Dallion was commonly known to be her real name back in the '80s.
Sioux was never a surname; it is a redundant given name, Sue. A "Johnny Boy" would never be known simply as Boy.
Varlaam (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)


I am rather baffled by this edit. I created that hatnote explicitly because I was confused about these two singers. Despite their spellings, their names are pronounced identically, and it is unlikely that I will be the last person confused between the two. I am going to place the hatnote back, and would appreciate some discussion before it is removed again. Thank you. (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to mention this because the popularity of these two singers is not comparable. Siouxsie is a well known influential singer who reaches 3,240,000 results on google1 where as the other singer Susie reaches 200 000 results.2. No person with a pop-rock culture will confuse them : this looks like a lame attempt of a fan to make the name of her singer know by a bigger audience. This request is rejected. Carliertwo (talk) 29 April 2011. 18:00 (cet)
User:Carliertwo's comments in italics, followed by my responses:
  1. There is no need to mention this because the popularity of these two singers is not comparable. Well, first of all, WP:HAT says nothing about using popularity or renown to make decisions about hatnotes. It speaks of making clear that which might otherwise be confused. But even if it did have a role, WP:GOOGLE makes it clear that using a search engine result to determine issues of notability has only limited utility. But again, as I've already said, notability is not the issue here. The issue is avoiding confusion, and I came here myself out of initial confusion.
  2. No person with a pop-rock culture will confuse them. That may well be so, (I'm not even going to try to guess what is meant by a "person with a pop-rock culture", a phrase so vague as to have no discernible meaning), but it doesn't matter. The article Siouxsie Sioux does not sit on the Wikipedia servers waiting to be read by "person[s] with a pop-rock culture", it is here for everyone, even people who have never heard of either of these women. If we start writing our articles presuming the cultural backgrounds of our readers, we're going to confuse even more readers.
  3. This request is rejected. Request? Request? I didn't "request" anything. I am a legitimate Wikipedia editor, and I do not need to submit "requests" to edit articles. I do expect, however, that all editors will practice civil behaviour, which includes engaging other civil editors in discussion on matters of dispute. Now I must give Carliertwo credit for the fact that this time, unlike the first time, she at least came here and explained her revert. But there would have been no harm in leaving the hatnote up while the discussion was ongoing. Instead, it was taken off without waiting for a reply to the talk page post. But, as I said, at least it was explained this time, so it's not that big a deal. However, the thing that Carliertwo said that I actually did take offense to was this:
  4. this looks like a lame attempt of a fan to make the name of her singer know by a bigger audience. I am not a "fan" of either Susie Suh or Siouxsie Sioux. I am a Wikipedia editor who comes here when I have a question about something, and then I usually jump from subject to subject, editing where I see need. Usually it's an edit or two, occasionally I take on a major project. The presumption that I am a fan of one of the singers was not, in of itself, unreasonable. However the presumption that I allowed it to affect my editorial judgment is incredible, given Carliertwo's own editing history. Look at her edits to date:
  • 45.2% of all non-anon edits to Siouxsie Sioux (513 of 1135) have been made by User:Carliertwo
  • Not only does User:Carliertwo dominate editing to this article, Carliertwo's own editing history is overwhelmingly dominated by Siouxise Sioux; a provable minimum of 57.4% of Carliertwo's edits (at least 1547 out of 2692, and quite possibly more) have been pertaining to Siouxie Sioux. This can be seen when we include edits to Siouxie's band (382 edits), Siouxie's recordings (498 edits [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]), Siouxie's band members (106 edits [15][16]), and this very talk page. (48 edits)
  • And these numbers don't state the whole picture. For example, I did not include her edits to Siouxie's warmup band or their music--I just thought that was overkill. Also, there may very well be edits to additional Siouxsie-related articles; the search does not show us Carliertwo's edit numbers on articles for which she has 25 edits or less. So while it appears that "just" 57.4% of her edits are Siouxsie-related, the total could very well be much higher.
I, on the other hand, have contributed one, single, solitary edit to Susie Suh. And I'm being accused of being a "fan"? That's just patently absurd.
Yet here's the thing. I can acknowledge that, despite the fact that I am a real life person who was confused and felt a hatnote was needed here, there may be policies that I have not learned over three years of editing that would indicate that the hatnote does not, in fact, belong here. And I'm okay with that. But what I am not okay with is having the matter decided by someone with a severe case of WP:OWN. Is that too much to say? I don't think so; my fully-explained edits were removed with the words, "This request is rejected." What kind of an editor has the temerity to believe that other editors need to "request" to make an edit (and a fairly innocuous edit at that). Since I'm completely objective about the subject of the article (apparently unlike some other editors here), I am placing the hatnote back on the article, where I believe it is useful. I will accept it's removal, but only by an uninvolved party, preferably a sysop. At the very least someone who does not edit about this singer, and someone with no history of working with Carliertwo.
Really, this whole episode is amazing to me, as I can't even see why this is even an issue. It's not like a BLP dispute, it's about a stupid hatnote, with no disparaging content at all. Just amazing. (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
What a long long reply for a one line hatnote.Carliertwo (talk) 9 May 2011. 13:00 (cet)
Indeed. And had you accepted my original, brief, completely reasonable explanation[17], my leviathan post would not have been necessary. If your intent is to deride my post, you mock your own spawn. (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

re "Influence on other artists" section[edit]

Reading this in conjunction with Siouxsie and the Banshees#Legacy and influence, there seems to be a lot of duplication - of more concern is that much of the material in this article is artists referencing the band. I think that only those quotes that are directly noting Sioux's specific contribution to the band, singing and stage presence and maybe lyrics, or contemporary culture, style and attitude, should be kept. Any comment that references the band or its music properly stays only in the band article, since the music was mostly a collaborative and joint effort which is acknowledged by the credits on the records. Unless there are sources which clearly define Sioux's individual contribution to the general comments regarding SatB (or The Creatures, but I may have missed those) I shall be removing them in a short while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Currently, there is no dominant English variant in the article. Some editors have used American English, and some have used British English. Therefore, I propose to standardise the article and use British English throughout, due to Siouxsie's strong national ties with England. Any objections? Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the article has already been tagged with {{Use British English}} since May 2011, so this is settled. Elizium23 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research and unverified claims[edit]

This article is loaded top to bottom with original research and unverified claims. It is very much lacking in sources. I will begin removing unsourced claims if they are not sourced. Night Ranger (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The "BLP sources" and "original research" tags (added yesterday by Night Ranger)) were abusive as the content of this article is based on 80 reliable notes and references coming from biographies, articles published in the british press and professionnal websites. Adding these tags looked like both excessive and pettifogging. It also looked like demonstrations of both bad faith and bad will from an user in reaction of a different point of view expressed about his "Bill Grundy-Punk'76-Lydon episode" edit. Had this user put "citation needed" at the end of a few sentences, a good will and a good will would have been shown but it was not the case. I saw that this user also posted on Bill Grundy (and that he/she is a reader of a Glen Matclock' Biography which is fine). If this user is interested in both "ethics" and all the truth about history of punk, I suggest that he/she also bothers to post on Sex Pistols that "Johnny Rotten" and co also wore a swastika on various occasions like we did for the Siouxsie'page. One sees Rotten appearing with a swastika making a nazi salute on that picture shot during a S.P's swedish press conference. (Bowie was accused in 1976 to have made a nazi salute at the Victoria station in London and we mentionned it on wikipedia). Rotten also used a visual with a swastika for the Pretty vacant video. I presume that if his/her concern is to tell all the history of punk on wikipedia, he/she is going to mention this on the Pistols page. Will he/she ? I contacted the main user of the Sex Pistols page but he/she didn't bother to add these informations where as he is very aware of it. Hiding bad episodes about a band is revisiting history, it is writing a hagiography, isn't it! So, I presume that Night Ranger could also help to resolve this issue on Pistols. I watched the Bill Grundy video many times, it is on youtube and I have a different point of view. Indeed, when a young girl told an old man "I've always wanted to meet you", it is "teasing" and it is also a mockery. Carliertwo (talk) 1 December 2011. 18:00 (cet)


I saw her in concert in the 1980s and have "known" her surname to be Dallion for a quarter of a century, until 3 minutes ago.
The article should still mention that she was long known by an incorrect name, if that is really the case.
Varlaam (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Clarke?[edit]

So... According to imdb and one another website, she's been married to a guy named Patrick Clarke since 2007. Is that accurate, or was there just a mix up? (Since Budgie's real name is Peter Clarke). Le Rusecue (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Siouxie is married to Pete Clarke, also known a Budgie. (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siouxsie Sioux/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw a more detailed review was required for this article, so I'll post it shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What does "splinter group" means? Something like her side project, or an offshoot of the original group?
  • Released would be a better fit over produced. Also, a string of "hit singles" is vague assentation. It can be either a number 1 song, high-selling record, or fan-favorite.
  • Generally, the lead should summarize the article's body, thus references are not necessarily needed, unless they support some controversial or disputed information.
  • If you quote "one of the most influential British singers of the rock era", the publication is also required.
  • "a wide range of other artists including"→"artists such as"
  • I think Central London can safely be omitted.
  • Constructions such as "10 years separate her from her elder brother and sister" are considered verbose. Ten years younger than her two siblings would be much better.
  • Why are "seriously sexually assaulted" and "totally ignored" in quote marks? Are you suggesting the event was magnified by the media or you're indicating that it did not actually happen? (scare quotes)
  • "prematurely" and "first" are extra (3rd paragraph)
  • "the string of students" is an awkward wording; perhaps "group" would suit better
  • From the first sentence in the second section, I'd conclude that Siouxsie and the Banshees were consisted of Siouxsie and the bass guitarist? Not true, I suppose.
  • It's written that "Hong Kong Garden" was depicted by critics... All I see is one critic.
  • The cite about Nick Kent from NME goes at the end of the quote.
  • change in musical direction; also, who considered McGeoch "one of the most innovative and influential guitarists of the past 30 years"?
  • Why are so many one-sentence paragraphs in the third and fourth section?
  • Overall, the biography text section doesn't have fluidity. It is plain chronology, with all those dates and publications listed.
  • If two rappers covered her songs, that doesn't mean she influenced them greatly. Unless this is sourced, it constitutes original research. Covered should be de-linked.
  • Personal life is not fully covered. Information whether she had kids, reason for divorce are not stated.
Closing note: I found this article needs serious work to reach GA status, and the usual seven day span certainly won't be enough. I also noticed that the nominator, Avario87, hasn't been active in the last two months, so it's not likely that I'll receive a swift response. When the notes are addressed, feel free to re-nominate the article. I'm closing it as failed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration[edit]

Retrohead, Carliertwo has been active in the article lately, and just had the dismaying experience of dealing with now-indeffed PapaJeckloy as the GAN reviewer in the GA1, before the review was taken away from him and the nomination put back in pool. (PapaJeckloy was indefinitely blocked a couple of days ago for sockpuppeting and other disruptive activities.) Since the article had taken six months to get to the point of being reviewed, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to give this another chance—in particular, to give Carliertwo the opportunity to give you that swift response you were hoping for, and to work on the issues you've raised above. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He can address the notes and re–nominate the article. I promise to take another look right after he's done. My point was even if I put the article on hold for a week, it still won't be enough because it needs to be re-written from scratch. By seeing his edit history, he was editing Wikipedia only three days in August, and I seriously doubt he will return on time. Sorry.--Retrohead (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks. If the article needs that much work, then there isn't much point in putting it on hold, and the offer to review once the rewrite is done and the article renominated is quite generous. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Siouxsie Sioux. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Siouxsie Sioux. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siouxsie Sioux. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Bilingual in what?[edit]

"Her mother, Betty, was a bilingual half-Scots and half-English secretary,"

She was bilingual in Scots and English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siouxsie Sioux. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)