Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [1].

Connie Talbot

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured status because it's the article I most enjoy working on (which is odd, considering I am not a fan- I originally got tangled up in it because I thought it may need to be deleted, and at least needed looking at thanks to BLP concerns...) and so I am confident that I am able to work with recommendations and to keep it at top standard if it is promoted. I am confident it meets the criteria (or will do after a little work, if needed) and I feel now is a good time to nominate as I doubt there will be any major events or coverage involving Talbot in the near future. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Opposed and will remain so until the details of her personal life are deleted. This is a child, and the world does not need to know where she lives, what school she attends or what her siblings are called. GrahamColmTalk 17:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this information has been published in national newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, which are read by thousands of UK citizens. Please state which criteria you are basing your opposition upon, or remove it - this FAC is not a springboard for your opinions. If you feel the FA criteria should include something as regards the privacy of children etc., propose it on the FA criteria talk page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with LuciferMorgan. The information is from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Mirror. Perhaps not the sort of papers I would normally read, but certainly not The Sun or The Daily Sport- they are respected newspapers read by many in the UK and around the world. I do not see why publishing non-controversial information that was reported by such good sources (most of them through articles interviewing Connie/her family) is in any way a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the FA citeria, it is about Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Graham Colm Talk 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you believe that this information should be removed? It is clearly referenced to very good sources, is public (as is shown by the fact it is already published on various high-traffic websites) and is not particularly contentious- no one doubts that it is correct. If it makes you feel any better, the company managing Talbot has seen the article (they donated the images) and did not object to that section being included. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of professional prose, criterion 1a, is writing at an appropriate level of detail for the subject and the audience. I have to admit, the "Personal life" heading gives off a creepy tabloid vibe that is definitely an inappropriate level of detail in many cultures. That this could appear on the main page and have that many readers exposed to this child's personal life is bound to make some people uncomfortable. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be a problem with such a section if Talbot was older. I am not sure I feel that people should be covered in different manners (whether it be because of their age, sexuality, gender, race, religion or whatever) in a neutral encyclopedia. This information has been covered in respected sources, and is of interest to anyone interested in the subject. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I'm not the one needing convincing—I'm just proposing why some people might be opposed to the level of detail in the section. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I get the feeling that if promoted this would be a good one for the Don't-Show-On-The-Main-Page list, at least for a while.
I can understand that, it doesn't bother me to be honest. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, gives more of a chance for mine :-P —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is an English child singer" - why not just "singer" - singing is the same concept even if she's a child...
Maybe this is more of a British thing, but the concept of a child singer is sort of separate to me- we have an article, seems worth linking.
  • "second series of Britain's Got Talent" --> "second series of the show"?
Done.
  • Ref 13 lacks publisher
Done.
  • "Rainbow Recording Company, an offshoot of record label Rhythm Riders made specifically for Talbot,[2] was due to release Talbot's first album on 26 November 2007" - the "was due..." doesn't make sense to me... I think I know what you're saying, might be better if you cleaned up the commas and stuff.
Looking into the future from the past- ignore the parenthesis, it just becomes 'Rainbow Recording Company was due to release...' What would you recommend instead?
Aaah, yes, you are correct - the commas and stuff got me a bit confused. —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music experts have described Talbot as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church".[16]" - what's this got to do with the text around it?
I was trying to give an impression of the small amount of pre-album hype that existed- I've changed it to "Before the album was released, there was much speculation about Talbot and the album with music experts describing her as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church"." Does that sound better?
Yep. —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team behind the album are John Arnison..." - goes back to past tense next sentence; be consistent
Done.
  • Ensure all date formatting and linking is consistent (WP:DATE)
I'll take a look in a second, thanks for all your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've gone for British dating without commas (eg, "[[25 October]] [[1990]]") which is fine, isn't it? J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything's fine; you just need to be consistent (both in your linking/not linking status, and in the format that you've used). —Giggy 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Giggy 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; just took another look and saw nothing of concern. —Giggy 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest, I'm not certain they are reliable. Note that they are both citing the same quote, so removing one wouldn't effect the article, but removing both would mean the quote would have to go. I'd appreciate the thoughts of others on this. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them, and replaced the Cowell quote with another quote from Talbot's mother. J Milburn (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely you could add more about her appearence on Britain's Got Talent. Buc (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I really didn't come across that many sources, though I do seem to remember she was the one the media were all raving about. I'll take another look for some in a minute. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a good bit. Provided that inthenews.co.uk is reliable for very, very uncontroversial information about what happened on the show (and that I can personally remember) that should be an improvement. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "with Talbot being presented a gold disc" - perhaps better as "and Talbot was presented a gold disc"
    • "9 year-old James Buckley" - should be "nine", per WP:MOSNUM
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She was also responsible for the turning on of Walsall's Christmas lights" - maybe better as "She also turned on Walsall's Christmas lights"
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Reviewers in the Harlow Star" - perhaps mention what kind of periodical this is.
    • "Talbot has performed publicly and on television both in Europe and across Asia, where her music had been heard through YouTube." - I found this hard to understand at first. Perhaps reword as "... both in Europe and across Asia, where her music had gained recognition through YouTube."
    Done. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Left-aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections, per MOS:IMAGE.
    • Some incorrectly formatted ellipses, per WP:ELLIPSES
    • "Talbot's mother said she was", "Sharon, Talbot's mother, said", "According to her mother, Sharon" - perhaps state her mother's name only on her first mention.
    • Some incorrectly formatted refs. "Monroe News" in ref 5 and "Billboard" in ref 12 should be italicised. "TV and Showbiz" (ref 2), "news.com.au" (ref 3), "Billboard.biz" (ref 12), "TV & showbiz" (ref 20), "Connie Talbot official website", and "News/Showbiz" (ref 37) shouldn't be in italics.

Epbr123 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Connie_Talbot/archive1&oldid=1138457937"