Cher

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Comments from GabeMc

General
I will work on that too. Lordelliott (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on that. Lordelliott (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. I also removed the "theater plays" section since it only contained one play and it is described in the article body. Lordelliott (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I delete some images/quoteboxes to avoid this? Lordelliott (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If needed, yes. Keep the best ones that are either free-use or will pass WP:NFCC. Also, you could consider reducing the longest quoteboxes into blockquotes as a tactic for avoiding the sandwiching of text. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The: "I could do a whole album with Snuffy [Garrett] in three days" quote could be worked into the prose at the appropriate place using ((Quote| TEXT )). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Reduced three quoteboxes into blockquotes and deleted one. Also, is the clear left template really necessary? Lordelliott (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "is the clear left template really necessary". No, but I think it makes for a less cluttered and cleaner look when used effectively. Other may agree or disagree but by all means, feel free to remove it. I would suggest taking another good luck at the "early life" material, and see if you missed any good bits from the sources that could be added to the section, which is a bit small IMO. This would eliminate any need for a clear in that section. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other users found this section overlong, so I am a little bit confused, but I will take a look. Lordelliott (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some new info on the "Early life" subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some more research and added a few interesting bits of info from her early life. I think this subsection is pretty tight and covers all the main points of her early life well. If you still think it needs expansion, would you mind pointing out the kind of information you'd like this section to cover? Lordelliott (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This section looks quite good now. Well done Lordelliott! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Lordelliott (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Capitalization states:

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization states:

Currently, (particularly in the 1960 section) the definite articles in band names are uppercased throughout, e.g. The Ronettes, The Righteous Brothers, The Supremes and The Beatles. Bring your capitalisation in-line with the Wikipedia MoS.
 Done. Lordelliott (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't understand it. Could you explain me better? Lordelliott (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, replace all the <ref name="Berman Pg. 18" />" (and similar) with ((sfn|Berman|p=18)) or ((harvnb|Berman|p=18)). Is that more clear? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look here for an example of how the sourcing could be simplifed/improved and made consistent. This will trim the overall size of the article and increase its load time. You can use sfn unless you need to bundle cites, then use harvnb and ref tags. For another example see: <ref name="hollywoodsongsters-p151">((harvnb|Parish|Pitts|2003|p=151))</ref> There is no need to name a templated cite, ((sfn|Parish|Pitts|2003|p=151)) is more than enough. Is this more clear? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Now I would like to know how to work the books list into the "Citations" section. Lordelliott (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I usually will have a citations, sources and a further reading section, which ideally should include any video documentaries which you think might be helpful to a reader wanting to learn more about Cher. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. You observed that the "Bibliography" section (now named "Sources") "is more of a 'Further Reading' section, or perhaps a list of books that should be worked into the 'References' section." Actually, the "Sources" section is a list of books that were used twice or more on the "Citations" section. Am I being clear? If so, do you still think the books on the "Sources" section should be worked into the "Citations" section? Lordelliott (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other here. The "sources" section looks fine to me now, though if you prefer to call the section "References", that's your personal choice. I prefer "sources" to "references" as a header title, but either is acceptable. To clarify, your citations and your sources should be two different sections, so none of the books need to be, nor should they be "worked into" the "citations" section, which isn't really possible anyway. "Citations" are references to specific locations within a "source", though some cites are also references to sources, but using them only once or twice does not justify adding them to the "Sources" section per se, though you certainly can if you want to. Some prefer to add each and every source used to "Sources" and link via template to each regardless of the number of times the source is cited. I only add a source to the "Sources/References" section when I intend to cite to it more than twice in the article. Is this point more clear now? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my fault, I thought you said that the books on the "Sources" section should be worked into the "Citations" section even when they are used several times on the article. Now I get it. Lordelliott (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle the multiple cites alphabetically by the author's last name and indicate specifically what they are verifing. Ala, <ref>((cite web|last=Cheever|first=Susan|url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20110424,00.html|title=In a Broken Land|work=[[People (magazine)|People]]|date=May 17, 1993|accessdate=October 28, 2012|publisher=[[Time Warner]])): Crouch's German ancestry; ((harvnb|Bego|2004|p=11)): Crouch's Irish and English ancestry; ((harvnb|Berman|2001|p=17)): Crouch's Cherokee ancestry.</ref>. Of course, if one reliable source covers Crouch's Irish, English, German and Cherokee ancestry, then the other two can be removed.
The multiple sources in this case covers the following sentence: Her father, John Sarkisian was an Armenian American truck driver with drug and gambling problems, and her mother, Jackie Jean Crouch was an occasional model and bit-part actress with Irish, English, German, and Cherokee ancestry. This is a very long sentence and I don't know how to write consistent notes to it on the citation. Can you help me? Lordelliott (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I am more than happy to help. What specifically are you unsure about? Perhaps it would look more like:
  • <ref>((cite web|last=Cheever|first=Susan|url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20110424,00.html|title=In a Broken Land|work=[[People (magazine)|People]]|date=May 17, 1993|accessdate=October 28, 2012|publisher=[[Time Warner]])): Crouch's ancestry; ((harvnb|Bego|2004|p=11)): John Sarkisian's profession and personal problems; ((harvnb|Berman|2001|p=17)): Jackie Jean Crouch's profession.</ref>. Just let me know which aspects of this point that I need to clarify further. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources are used in this case: Cher's father was rarely home when she was an infant, and her parents eventually divorced when she was ten months old. They would marry and divorce twice more over the years. The first one (((sfn|Parish|Pitts|2003|p=147))) covers all the info except for the "ten months old" detail, which is covered by ((sfn|Berman|2001|p=17)). How should I bundle these sources? Lordelliott (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<ref>>((harvnb|Berman|2001|p=17)): Cher's parents divorcing when she was ten months old; ((harvnb|Parish|Pitts|2003|p=147)): Cher's father was rarely home when she was an infant. Her parents would marry and divorce three times.</ref> Or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks man, I will work on that. Lordelliott (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled the multiple cites on the "Early life" section. Can you tell me if I did it right? Lordelliott (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what should I do when a multiple cite is used again on the body of the article? Lordelliott (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Looks great, nice work 2) If the exact multi-cite is used again, you can simply name it, such as: <ref name="CSGL">((harvnb|Smith|2012|p=1)): German; ((harvnb|John|2011|p=2)): Armenian.</ref>. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the exact multi-cite but a ref bundled with others. (Not sure if I'm being clear) Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If by "ref" you mean an article or website citation or the like, you can add any source to "Sources" and as long as you add the "ref=harv" field you can cite to it in the same way as any book source. Feel free to give me a specific example if this point is still unclear. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very valuable help!! Thanks a lot! Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some more work on that. Could you review it to me? Lordelliott (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can I refer to a cite on the "Sources" section when it doesn't have an author? (as the RIAA website) Lordelliott (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so, but I'm not sure. She was refered to as Cher Bono very often in the 1960s and 1970s; her name on her first albums was printed "Chér"; and Bonnie Jo Mason and Cleo were her first stage names. Also, according to some sources she was born Cheryl Sarkisian. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include her born name and "Cher", but if you disagree that's fine. It will likely not be an FAC sticking point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I kinda agree with you but I'm still unsure. I think I'll wait to see what other users think. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to only use the ampersand on the first mention of groups. Should it be changed? Lordelliott (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an issue with that logic, but it may come up at FAC. If it does, it will be an easy fix anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
Lead
Stephanie Brush of The New York Times wrote that Cher "performs the function for women moviegoers that Jack Nicholson has always fulfilled for men. Free of the burden of ever having been America's sweetheart, she is the one who represents us [women] in our revenge fantasies ..."
He agreed that, with her "schticky as near dominatrix" over partner Sonny Bono and her stage costumes, she led the way to advance feminine rebellion in the rock world, with contemporaries Marianne Faithfull and Nancy Sinatra being her followers.
  • "Self-actualization": Cher's "integrity" and "perseverance" were highlighted in the Reaching Your Goals book series of illustrated inspirational readers for children, in which her life was detailed emphasizing the importance of self-actualization
Throughout her career Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of "whole new" personas, for which she was called "the ultimate pop chameleon" by professor Richard Aquila from Ball State University.
Phill Marder from Goldmine wrote that "[f]rom top to bottom, Cher was the prototype of the female rock star, setting the standard for appearance, from her early hippie days to her later outlandish outfits, and her attitude—the perfect female punk long before punk even was a rock term."
Biographer Mark Bego wrote, "Just when you think that she has done it all, Cher recreates herself and takes on a whole new persona."
  • "Self-actualization" and "female autonomy" are the main keys of her influence and legacy. I tried to do a resume of it to put on the lead, but I assume this passage can be vague because paraphrasing is not my strong suit. Lordelliott (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems well sourced to me, and its not an issue of your paraphrasing really, which is quite fine here, I just wanted to be sure this isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. This may or may not be an issue at FAC, it all depends on which reviewers drop-by. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that, but I think her outrageous imagery is well known and should be mentioned on the lead. What do you think? Maybe this passage should be reworded? Lordelliott (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you like it keep it. Its a minor point and nothing to be too concerned about. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done peculiar -> particular; removed "warm" (which refers to their harmony in the body of the article) and the quote marks. Lordelliott (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of: "After the duo's monogamous, drug-free lifestyle had lost its appeal to American youth due to the rise of the drug culture"?
  • Yeah, that sounds like you are on the right track there. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She loose popularity but kept working all the time. What do you suggest here? Lordelliott (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anything that makes it clearer that though she perhaps lost some popularity, she continued to work, versus taking a respite, which is what is currently being implied. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: After the duo's monogamous, drug-free lifestyle had lost its appeal to American youth due to the rise of the drug culture, she returned to stardom in the 1970s as a television personality with her shows The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour and Cher, which attained immense popularity; Lordelliott (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time" refers to her career with Sonny since 1965. Cher began her solo career at the same time of Sonny & Cher's career. Sonny & Cher's career continued until they separated both romantic and professionally in 1975. It is not clear because I could'nt think of a better paraphrase. Can you help me with that? Lordelliott (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll take a look. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the lead, Cher and Sonny's divorce is mentioned, but it is not clear that they were married before that. What do you think of "Cher came to prominence in 1965 as one-half of the folk rock husband-and-wife duo Sonny & Cher"? Lordelliott (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, sounds like a fine solution to me. Nice work BTW! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man! Lordelliott (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well therein lies the apparent contradiction. "Monogamous and drug-free" does not really speak to 1960s counterculture. Why did the article previously point to the rising drug culture as a reason for S&C's fading popularity? Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the drug culture is a "subculture" of the counterculture of 1960s. Sonny and Cher were labelled as "the first hippies" when they started, and the hippie culture was also part of the counterculture of 1960s. Lordelliott (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, and I think your clarification deals with this issue nicely, vis-a-vis drug use, yet we are still linking to the 1960s counterculture. Still, if S&C were indeed among the first hippies, then why/how did the rising drug culture negatively affect their popularity? This isn't necessarily a point that needs explicating in detail in the lead, so long as its sufficiently covered in the article body we are fine, but I find it a bit confusing so I wanted to make sure this point is not convoluted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was because one subculture eclipsed other. As an example, in the mid-1970s punk rock and disco were "rival" genres, even though they were both part of the counterculture. Lordelliott (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Sonny and Cher were embraced as part of the counterculture until they made an anti-drug PSA on television. Should it be mentioned on the article? Lordelliott (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the PSA was a significant factor in their popularity loss, and it can be properly sourced as such then that's exactly what we need so this point is made more clear. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a major factor, but only one from a series of events that resulted in them being kicked off the pop stardom. BTW, some new info was added:
As the 1960s came to a close, Sonny and Cher had fallen off the charts. According to biographer Connie Berman, "the heavy, loud sound of groups like Jefferson Airplane and Cream made the folk-rock music of Sonny and Cher seem too bland."[42] Cher later commented, "I loved the new sound of Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, the electric-guitar oriented bands. Left to myself, I would have changed with the times because the music really turned me on. But Son[ny] didn't like it—and that was that."[43] Their monogamous, anti-drug lifestyle had also lost its popular appeal among American youths during the period of the sexual revolution and the rise of the drug culture.[44][45] According to biographer Mark Bego, "in spite of their revolutionary unisex clothes, Sonny and Cher were quite 'square' when it came to sex and drugs."[45]
Is this passage still confusing? Lordelliott (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is no longer confusing, nice addition. That's excellent work and exactly what needed to be explicated. Well done! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source, their particular sound became "in", and they competed with BI and the MTS. Again, I couldn't think of a better paraphrase. Lordelliott (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would tend to word it in the general way, as I suggested above, again, only if this isn't changing the meaning, which it doesn't sound to me like it would be. S&C were one act of many that successfully competed with the BI and the MTS, they are surely not they only ones who did so. Does the source credit them as being the leaders of this successful competition? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The particular smooth sound is credited solely to them, but they are not credited as the leaders of the competition. Lordelliott (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then this point seems resolved to me, though as I said before, it may well come-up at FAC; you can clearly defend the point if it does and it's well sourced in the article so you should be okay, but FAC can be a finicky place. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specified: At the same time, she established herself as a "serious rock and roller" by releasing platinum albums such as Heart of Stone (1989) and hit singles such as "I Found Someone" and "If I Could Turn Back Time". Lordelliott (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it reads: In the 2000s, she embarked on the highly successful Living Proof: The Farewell Tour and signed a $60 million per-year deal to headline the Colosseum at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. Farewell Tour's success is resourced on the 2000s subsection. Better? Lordelliott (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, man! Looking forward to work with you on the rest of the article.
As for "and managing the film production company, Isis", I think "a film production company" would sound better. Am I right? Lordelliott (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TMK, because we are identifing a specific noun, we should then use the definite article. If you left out "Isis", then "a" (an indefinite article) would be more appropriate to indicate that a generic/non-specific noun was to follow. However, I do not claim to be a master grammarian and I may be wrong on this particular point. User:Rothorpe would be a very good person to ask if you want a second opinion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • She is called only "Cher" since childhood, although her first singles were released under different names. Lordelliott (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the article should explain why her early releases were issued under different names? Lordelliott (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Spector chose to release her first single under the name "Bonnie Jo Mason" because he felt "Cherilyn" and "Cher" were un-American. Her second single was released under the name "Cherilyn" to erase the failure that her first single had been. Are these reasons notable? Lordelliott (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source only name her mother's bloodlines, without going into any detail. Lordelliott (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source cites "television shows" in plural, with The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet being an example. However,  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if you can find another example if possible, otherwise its fine now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He called her intelligent and creative, but I don't know if he did personally know her during these years. Should I remove this? Lordelliott (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm ... does Berman's surrounding text indicate how he came to this conclusion? It seems to me that he is merely repeating something he read or heard from somone in a position to know this. I wouldn't remove it just yet, its a good datum, but I would like it to be linked to an opinion other than just Cher's biographer. It's okay to say, "according to Berman, Cher's teachers said she was ...", as long as the source supports this and it's not a WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Perhaps this is merely an opinion synthesised by Berman, in which case it should likely be removed. Though, as I said, its a good datum that is almost certainly factually accurate, so lets retain it if possible. What are your thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berman himself called Cher "intelligent and creative" during this time. The sources reads: In classes, Cher was not a top student. She did well in French and English, however, and she was intelligent and creative. She usually got good grades on term papers and essays. Lordelliott (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in that case I think it's fine to leave the datum, so long as it is attributed to Berman in-line. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
  • The source says exactly: Sometimes she danced in small clubs along Hollywood’s famed Sunset Strip. While most of the town was fast asleep, young Cher was dancing her heart out in the wee hours of the morning. Lordelliott (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe do some more digging so we can determine if she was a stripper or a dancer. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's the only source that says she danced on clubs around Sunset Strip; all the others are secondary. Perharps it is an exclusive information from Connie Berman. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still waiting for your response to decide where to go with the "intelligent and creative" issue. But one user on the FAC wrote that biographers and similar should be always refered to with full name, unless the second mention is very close to the first. What do you think about that? Lordelliott (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should retain the "intelligent and creative" datum as an important point about her as a young adult. Refer to an author using their full name on the first mention, then only if it's been a while since, but definately not on every instance, that is certainly wrong. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, Connie Berman is refered using her full name on every instance, but I think it is right because they are really far from each other. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the mentions are far enough apart then I think that's fine. I doubt it will be an FAC issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to one source (which is not used on the article), Late in 1964 Cher and Sonny became romantic partners. Recognizing that they were really in love, the couple performed their own wedding ceremony in a hotel room in Tijuana, Mexico, exchanging rings and vowing eternal love. Although they told people they were married, the ceremony was hardly official. It seems that the ceremony was merely symbolic. Should this passage be reworded? Lordelliott (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it a good bit of info. Were they ever "officially" married? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and it is described later on the 1960s subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this "good bit of info" be worked on the article? 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the material currently in the article body is sufficient in this regard. Further explication would be more appropriate at Sonny & Cher. Alternatively you could consider adding a "notes" section in which to add more detail for the reader without expanding an already long article. A "notes" section would also prove extremely helpful after we finish with the prose and move on to some trimming. Notes are a great way to retain (or add) useful information while allowing the article to properly summarise the subject without being overly detailed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They emerged as a duo the same month they were married. Lordelliott (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are original Sonny & Cher songs. I always avoid red links too. Should I wikilink these songs anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If they aren't the same songs then do not link to them, perhaps consider writing, or at least starting a few of the articles if and when you have the time. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty busy right now, but I will consider starting these articles after the Cher peer review. Lordelliott (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I've made some research and found that all the three singles are cover versions.  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, too bad it never cracked number one. Was there a particular LP that prevented it from reaching the top spot? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I can't find which album did it. The source only provides info about the five weeks. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me that according to Craig Rosen's Billboard Number One Albums, it was the Stones' Out of Our Heads and the Beatles' Help!. What was the exact US release date of S&C's debut LP? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album was released in August 1965. Even if I had the exact US release date of the album, I doubt it would be helpful because in the 1960s albums didn't enjoy a number-one debut. Lordelliott (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says they became popular but doesn't specify where. Lordelliott (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm ... then I would leave it as is, though I tend to think they were popular first in America, then the UK, but I'm certainly not a reliable source. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, they were popular first in the UK, then in America. They travelled to London at the Rolling Stones' advice (band members said their weird clothes would be better received in the UK), then the hotel incident happened and they were propelled to stardom. Back to America, they became a sensation mostly because people thought they were part of the British Invasion. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite interesting. Is that excellent datum properly explicated in the article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do. Adding some of this material may help fill-in a few holes in the chronology. However, having said that, I assume this is covered at the S&C article in detail, so if you do add it here, keep the brevity of this article and redundancy with the other in mind. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some work on the chronology of the 1960s subsection and added a good bit of info. Do you think it's fine now? There are still holes on the chronology that should be filled in? Lordelliott (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section looks pretty tight overall in my opinion. I'll take another look tonight for gaps, but otherwise I think we can move on to the 70s, if and when we feel that all the above and below issues have been resolved. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One observation: I noticed you removed "as they became known collectively" after the first mention of "Sonny & Cher". Since they were previously known as "Caesar & Cleo", I think this passage should stay. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it excessive but if you like it, I don't see any harm in adding it back. One issue (which we will deal with later), is that the article is about 3,000 words too long, so we need to trim where we can and farm the details out to sub-articles where possible, but as I said, don't worry about the article's length too much right now. At least until we finish tightening up the existing prose and decide what should stay and what should go. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I surely agree with you. I think a casual reader would be confused when the article initially refers to the duo as Caesar & Cleo, then as Sonny & Cher without explanation. Lordelliott (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"as they became known collectively" is an awkward way to say that at X point in time they became known as "S&C". Feel free to leave it in of course, but I do predict that it will be an issue at FAC, though admittedly a minor one. If you think the reader will be confused, then just tell the reader when the name change occured. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest? Lordelliott (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "By Somethingember, 196X, Caesar & Cleo had begun calling themselves Sonny & Cher. Signed to the Atco Records division of Atlantic Records in (insert month) 1965, they released their first album, Look at Us, in month. It spent five weeks at number two on the Billboard 200." Or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't provide this information, and I couldn't find it anywhere. Lordelliott (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough one. While most editors will certainly know what an "it" couple is, I think it may be a bone of contention at FAC, in terms of prose. One solution would be to include the statement inside a quote, so as to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to say it. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide and become, according to Time magazine's Ginia Bellafante, rock's "it" couple. - Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "by designing a line of marketed wardrobe" still seems awkward to me. Try: "by designing a fashion line", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That leads me to a new question: one source (Allmusic) says that Cher's solo career at Imperial ended with the lapsing of her contract in 1967 (even though she released two albums for Imperial in 1968); however, Mark Bego's biography says that she was dropped from the label in 1969. What should I do? Lordelliott (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, IMO, if Cher released two albums for Imperial in 1968, then her career with them didn't really end in 1967 as allmusic states. Perhaps her contract lapsed and was not renewed but she still "owed" Imperial two albums? In which case allmusic isn't entirely incorrect, in that she no longer "worked" for Imperial despite the two forthcoming releases (were they also recorded in 1968 or just released in 1968?). Can you find a third or fourth source to compare to allmusic and Bego's dates? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some research and I found nothing but unreliable sources. The sources I found state that she left the label in 1969, and the album Backstage, released for Imperial in 1968, was also recorded in 1968. It seems that the Allmusic source is wrong. Since the "political problems" are resourced by Allmusic, should it be removed? Lordelliott (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's probably a good place to trim if it comes only from allmusic and other WP:RS do not support their claims. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not added it to the article yet, take a look: That same year, the duo spent $500,000 and mortgaged their home to make the film Chastity. Written and directed by Sonny, who did not appear in the movie, it told the story of a young woman, played by Cher, searching for the meaning of life.[36] The art film failed, putting the couple $190,000 in debt with back taxes. However, some critics noted that Cher showed signs of acting potential.[37] - Is that right? Lordelliott (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


1970s
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't provide this detail. Lordelliott (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's too bad. See if you can dig-up a few examples from another source. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added: "for being uncommercial". Is this enough? Lordelliott (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because the label recruited Garrett to work with them against Sonny's will. Lordelliott (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how about " ... Kapp Records recruited Snuff Garrett to work with them"?
  • I think this citation could be paraphrased. Do you agree with me? If so, can you help me with the paraphrasing? Lordelliott (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it has to do with the genre, but with the lyrics. Garrett's lyrics were too "trash-pop" for Sonny. It is my own opinion and the source doesn't say that. I'm stating that because I don't really see any difference between the genres of Cher's albums produced by Garrett and Sonny. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think see what you mean. This is a tough one. As it reads right now it sounds like Garrett wanted to take Cher down a different musical path then did Sonny, yet if the material is nearly indistinguishable, then this needs clarifying. Can you find any sources that explicitly state what it was that Sonny didn't like about Garrett's creative leadership? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. The source on the article only says they disagreed on the kind of material Cher should be recording, nothing more, nothing less. I think Sonny was unhappy simply because he wanted to control every aspect of their careers. Lordelliott (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise you to keep digging. Ideally, you would find a quote from Sonny explicating his creative differences with Garrett. Otherwise, it could likely be left as it is, though I think others may find this datum lacking explaination, but maybe not. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Both singles received late recognition; DMA magazine described the latter as having "one of the catchiest choral hooks ever recorded".[76] Lordelliott (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Under the rubric "Allman and Woman", they released in 1977 a duet album called Two the Hard Way, which was later regarded by History as "the worst of either artist's respective career".[70] Lordelliott (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The resulting album, Stars, received negative reviews, with Janet Maslin of The Village Voice writing: "Cher ... Lordelliott (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "High lifestyle" means crazy, controversial lifestyle. As for "put-down humor", S&C's TV return went on air one hour later than S&C Comedy Hour; this allowed them to make "dirtier" jokes about themselves and the fact that they were still together on TV despite all the court battles they were involved. The public went confused, and the show flopped. Lordelliott (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's awkward and confusing IMO. If "High lifestyle" means crazy, controversial lifestyle, then just say that. If "put-down humor" means "dirty jokes" then say that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1980s
  • It's alright, but maybe not the best prose. Try: "after a couple of months", or similar if accurate. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "after a couple of months" is not quite accurate. I changed it to "Black Rose broke up soon". Do you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was only singing. She always make jokes on her shows, but that's not what this show was about. Lordelliott (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you suggest here? Lordelliott (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... offered her at $150,000 the part of Meryl Streep's lesbian girlfriend ... Lordelliott (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the $150,000 figure especially notable? Was it an above average salary at the time for a female actor? If not, I would consider trimming it out as an awkward datum that does not seem to add much, unless, as I said above, the figure is notable and not trivial. E.g., we don't mention her TV show salaries. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is notable for being the opposite of an average salary. The $150,000 salary she received for this film was half the salary she earned weekly in Vegas. I think it shows how "underappreciated" she was in Hollywood at the time. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Then I think you should make that clear by adding something about how the salary was relatively low. With inflation and everything else, a reader might not make the connection that the salary wasn't the "going price" for a respected actress. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking again, the article already says the audiences were skeptical about Cher's ability as an actress when she starred in Silkwood, so I think it's fine to remove the $150,000 figure. Do you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would see if it could be sourced, but it's likely more relevant at the Mask article. "a severe head deformity" seems a bit odd. Try: "who suffers from a severe physical deformity", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of any word. What would you suggest? Lordelliott (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly. The 1970s subsection says that her style of living was "extravagant". I think it was because she went to parties and dated men half her age, despite being in her 40s and having two children. Should the "controversial lifestyle" bit be specified or deleted? Lordelliott (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My instinct would be to specify versus deleting, assuming its notable enough for inclusion (it seems to be). The choice has to do with your editorial discretion based on your knowledge of the sources. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I will do some research to specify what her "controversial lifestyle" was about. Lordelliott (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source that defines her controversial lifestyle in the 1980s: plastic surgeries, tattoos, exhibionist fashion sense, and "a thing for much younger men". Since all these points are already covered on the "Public image" subsection, is this clarification needed? Lordelliott (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we don't want to repeat info later explicated, but on the other hand, this shouldn't be a datum that is confusing until the reader gets to the "Public Image" subsection. I don't think much detail is needed in that regard, but perhaps a bit might improve the article's clarity. You could perhaps move a datum from "Public Image" to earlier in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of this? Now receiving as much attention from her Jack LaLanne Health Clubs commercials as from her still-controversial lifestyle, specifically her tattoos, her reported plastic surgeries, her exhibionist fashion sense, and her romances with younger men, ... Lordelliott (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a visitor from hell. I added the adjective "mysterious" according to the source. Lordelliott (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done (except where noted). Lordelliott (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both citations are from DMA magazine. I added it, but I think it's strange to have the same magazine cited in two following sentences. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, just because it throws me a bit does not mean its wrong per se. Sounds like a cross between a lounge singer and a comedian. Is there an appropriate Wikilink that could be used for explication?
  • When I say she makes jokes on her shows, I mean she jokes when she talks to her public, and I think other musicians talk to their public in their shows between the songs too. I don't mean she jokes as a part of the show, like Bette Midler. Hope I'm being clear. Lordelliott (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you, I'm just not sure its all that clear what is meant in the article. I would suggest trimming out the joking parts and just call her a singer, given her history of comedy I think its confusing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite confused. Which "joking parts" you mean? Lordelliott (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I want to move on to the 90s. I'm just confused about the "joking parts" you suggested to be removed. Lordelliott (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe its just me, but it sounds more like a song and joke routine, as with her previous TV shows, but according to you it was more like she was a singer who occasionally interacted with her audience (as most do), sometimes in a joking manner (as many do), which is quite different IMO. Leave it if you are uncertain, if it's a real issue others will also bring it up; but I say if she was a singer, then identify her as such and don't confuse the reader into thinking she was an "act" that included skits or jokes in anyway other than any given performer might. Just my opinion, seek others and don't rely to heavily on any one person's interpretation. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1990s
  •  Done Added: "according to biographer Connie Berman". Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Changed to "top five in most European countries". Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why cite #43 needs tidying? It is from a book. Yes, I would like you to explain me. Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time I wrote that comment, cite #43 was a bare url. It's now been fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I mean she recorded this album with the concept of putting a woman's point of view in songs originally written by men by covering them. Hope I'm being clear. Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conceit is not the right word. Try frustration or resentment or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how "frustation" or "resentment" fit the meaning of this sentence. Her goal was to cover songs written by men and to put her own point of view on them. Lordelliott (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to use whatever word you want, but I predict that others will also tell you that "conceit" is not the correct words to use in this case. I think you mean to say "contempt", but that still seems awkward to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets not get too hung up on this one point. I suggested "frustation" or "resentment" based on how I read the context. I don't think "concept" is any better, if anything, it's further from clarity then conceit. Perhaps you should ask for another opinion on this point, or just wait until others give more helpful suggestions in this regard. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because her previous albums were all pop rock-oriented, and because the last time she had cut a dance record was in 1979 with Prisoner. Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to VH1 (it is already mentioned in the beggining of the sentence). Lordelliott (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I will work on the suggestions now. I have a question: on the 1980s subsection, does "intense, unvarnished performance" (Silkwood) needs attribution? Lordelliott (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[her] intense, unvarnished performance" could be paraphrased as, "[her] engaging and nearly flawless performance", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Wikipedia's voice to say Cher's performance was nearly flawless doesn't seem neutral to me. Am I wrong? Lordelliott (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel it's better in the author's words then leave it, but then you must attribute the quote in-line. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2000s
2010s
Artistry
Music and voice
  • The songs. "were songs composed by independent songwriters and selected by Cher" - Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the songwriters were selected by Cher. I suggest you omit "and selected by Cher", unless this is especially notable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to paraphrase this sentence by eliminating "tremendous" and "passion". Lordelliott (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1980, alongside Italian record producer Giorgio Moroder, Cher wrote her last Casablanca disco recording, "Bad Love", for the film Foxes.
  • On December 24, 1995, Cher starred in the ITV special Christmas with Cher. Lordelliott (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do. Glad to see you identifing some potential excess, as moving these and similar datums to notes will be a good first approach to trimming the article down to an acceptable "readable prose" size. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Gabe. User Wikipedian Penguin said he thinks the sentences are reasonably noteworthy and can stay in the prose: I think "Bad Love" and the Christmas special can say however because they're different: one is her last Casablanca disco song, and the other is a Christmas special, which she hasn't done before. Thinking again, I agree with him. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, its up to you of course, but I can tell you with near certainty that this article will not pass FAC at its current length of 75 kB and 12,8000 words of readable prose. Your goal should be around 50 kB and 9,000 words, meaning nearly 4,000 words of readable prose will either need to be trimmed from the article or moved to notes. This is about picking the most notable aspects of her career to fill the limited space and to me at least, these two datums seem less then crucial. Also, I'm really not interested in running a three person PR whereby I need to respond to the other PR's comments as well as yours. Perhaps you should pick one and finish it before starting another. I would be happy to continue this PR, but I do not have the time to workshop this article with a third-party. Let me know what you prefer to do; if you would rather abandon this PR and go with the WPPenguin PR I will not take it personally. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't want you to respond to the other PR's comments. In this case I just wanted to reach a consensus. Of course I want your PR to continue. I think we can work on trimming the text after we finish the prose. Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trimmed the quote to avoid the exclamation points and redundancy. Feel free to revert if you disagree with what I've done. If you want a full paraphrase you could try: "During this period, Cher stayed busy recording, touring, and working on the Sonny & Cher Show", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great. Could you do the same with this quote? Last year I started listening to everything I could get my hands on—Stevie Wonder, Elton John, James Taylor and Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, everybody. By listening and singing along I started developing things that I didn't have. I certainly got the instrument to work with. "Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves" and all those songs are million-selling songs. But they are ridiculous because artistically they aren't fulfilling. Money-wise, they're great, but I would like to spend four or five months on an album and do something really fantastic. Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again! Both changes looks fine. I was wondering if the "decade by decade" standard is the ideal division, since the subsections are very long. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no set standard that I am aware of, but decades are a common way to divide material. In terms of this article, I think the division works well, especially considering that the decades do seem to have defined themes, though I haven't really put much thought into alternatives. Do you have an alternate suggestion? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do agree that the decades have defined themes of her career. My point is that it makes the sections look too long, but if that's not a FAC problem, I think it can stay.
  • I think the following quotation is overlong and would look better worked into the prose: When "I Found Someone" came out, radio just refused to play us. I [then] did as much TV as I possibly could to let people know that the record was out there. I finally had to put the video that we made for it into a commercial for Bally Fitness, and that's how we got it into people's minds. Finally, it just got so much attention, and people started asking for it that radio had to play it. Before that, radio was just not interested. Sometimes, it's amazing to me that I have a recording career at all![3] Could you paraphrase it? Sorry for my successive paraphrasing requests! I'm really bad with that. Lordelliott (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just trim this out altogether as excess detail specific to the song (which has its own sub-article). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it shows the boycott she received by the radio stations due to her age and explains the considerable failure of her previous musical efforts. I think it also adds to the "sense of female autonomy" presented on the lead. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me its excess detail about the song and Cher's own opinion. It should be trimmed out, IMO. "Her first top-ten hit in more than eight years.[3]" tells us that her musical career had been waning. I don't see how this helps explicate the "sense of female autonomy". If you disagree then by all means leave it in, but I don't really think that should be paraphrased. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. Do you think this quotation could be worked into the prose? "We just chose songs that felt right on an individual basis. It wasn't until we started to assess the entire album and play with sequencing that we realized that this had subconsciously become an album filled with love and warmth. It was a pleasant surprise, and it's certainly an appropriate time to put some positive energy out into the world." —Cher, on the making of Living Proof Lordelliott (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, IMO, the article is already a bit quote heavy and some will need to be trimmed out/paraphrased later. Also, this is detail that would seem to be more appropriate at the topical article dedicated to the album. Remember, we cannot cover every aspect of Cher's long and illustrious career at this overview summary style article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this could be paraphrased too: Garrett commented, "I said from the lyrics it's a smash for Cher and for nobody else. And I didn't even have Cher at the time. To me, nobody else could do that song but Cher—that was Cher's story. So I held the song and then it worked out that we got Cher back, but the song sat in my desk for about three, four months." Again, sorry for the successive requests. Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same here. This adds little and is actually a bit redundant. I would trim it out entirely, or move it to notes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you in this case. I just added this because on the FAC they told me it would be good to have some subjective details of her musical career rather than sales and chart positions. Lordelliott (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it depends of the screen's size. In my screen there's no sandwiched text. Is there a "standard" screen size for Wikipedia? Lordelliott (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, a smaller screen will sandwich text between images more than a larger one, but my screen is 20 inches, which I think is pretty standard. At any rate, I think you could spare to lose an image or two, particularly any with dubious FURs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made this change to avoid sandwiching text on the 60s and 70s subsections. I've also reestructered the chronology of the 70s subsection. Let me know if the changes are okay. Lordelliott (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Movies, music videos and live performances
  • It means that Cher was not under her own control in her early career. She was a vehicle to showcase male creativity: she would wear Bob Mackie-designed gowns, sing Sonny Bono-penned songs, and do Sonny-scripted routines on TV. However, she managed to control her career as she's got older. I think this is a pretty interesting point of Cher's career, but I do agree that it is nebulous the way it is written now. Maybe a paraphrase would work better? Lordelliott (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. Maybe "her status as 'an emancipated ... body'"? I think "emancipated body" could be paraphrased too. Could you help me with this? Lordelliott (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a paraphrase would work better. Maybe "made use of her sexually dominant image"? Lordelliott (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is according to the source, which says: "Cher starred in one of the very first music videos ever" referring to "Hell on Wheels". I think "almost as many intricate techniques as a feature film" could be paraphrased; help me? Lordelliott (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Filmography
  • Why exactly? All the other actors' biographies have tables on the "Filmography" section. Also, should I name all the films or exclude the ones she appeared as cameo? Lordelliott (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) "All the other actors' biographies have tables" is WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, 2) how many of these are FA and when did they pass FAC? To me, it's all either redundant with the topical article dedicated to her filmography, or not notable enough for inclusion in this article. If the material is also included as running prose in the Cher article, then it's redundant in the table. I would trim out anything she didn't have at least a significant supporting role in, including cameos. If there are significant notable acting achievments detailed in the table that are not currently in the article text, then those datums should be worked into the prose before they are removed from the table. Of course, that's just my opinion, feel free to get a second or third if you disagree. I may well be wrong and it won't come up at FAC, but I think it will. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To do list


In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Berman 2001, p. 17.
  2. ^ Bego 2004, p. 11.
  3. ^ Cheever, Susan (May 17, 1993). "In a Broken Land". People. Time Warner. Retrieved October 28, 2012.
More