Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I've only just read the article, and rest assured the outcome will not be influenced in any way by this discussion (that isn't to say I won't be looking for any edit-warring). I've never heard of the subject until now, so what this article is able to teach me about her should play a helpful part in the full review, which I should have up by Wednesday. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of version from 23:07 (Central time), 29 June 2009: Article did not pass

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose/grammar/spelling:

   Read below.

   B. MoS compliance:

   See "focused?" in comments regarding "coverage" criteria.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some instances of info not supported by accompanying source (refs 29 and 57 lead to pages with no information pertaining to or substantiating info they are used to reference)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some material is in need of sources.

   A suitable replacement needs to be found for ref 29 (amazon link), as it treads into WP:SPAM territory (it can be seen as promoting the single). Ref 37 is pure spam.

   C. No original research:

   As stated, a few citations are probably needed. However, no glaring portions of personal editor observations.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Just my two cents: Of the five awards listed on the awards chart, four are for her videos. With the all the article's coverage on her music and fashion, and hardly none on these videos, I'm wondering if there are WP:WEIGHT issues here. There is emphasis on her influences in the lead, yet this is never elaborated upon in the article. She's mentioned as also being a go-go dancer and DJ in the infobox, but there is very little coverage of this in the article.

   B. Focused:

   The same bits of short info about her relationship with Akon, her "Haus of Gaga" team, the Pussycat Dolls, etc. are repeated sporadically throughout the article. Lots of random info about her album seems to be strewn about at random (article jumps from the descriptions of its style, to tour info, to critic reviews, back to tour info, to chart info, etc) After all, all of this strays from being considered "biographical" and is placed under a section called "Biography"...perhaps a few more sections are needed, so that it can be better organized?

   C. Fair representation without bias:

   Sometimes I felt like I was reading a magazine article intended to showcase (through quotes) her thoughts on her own career (read more below). A 71 Metascore, while an indication of "generally favorable" reviews, doesn't mean there were glowing reviews across the board; nothing is mentioned of the mixed/bad reviews.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Hmmmm...some recent vandalism, and a little edit-warring. However, I really wouldn't want to take this into consideration when deciding whether to pass or fail the article (moot anyway, since as I reached this point when using the WP:WIAGA checklist, my mind was already made up) since one user was involved in the reversions or the making of edits being reverted, rather than there being multiple instances of warring between separate parties. From here on out, just try to resolve these things through civil discussion :)

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   All good images ...but shouldn't the image in the sub-section about The Fame have a better caption that uses a wikilink to New Kids on the Block: Live instead?

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The issues of quotefarming, copy-and-pasting from sources, and spam could very well warrant banners, but could also be easily fixed. But, the article definitely needs to be tagged for copy-editing and general cleanup. A thorough listing of what would need to be done to get this to GA status in only seven days would be very, very extensive, so please read more below, and post any questions or thoughts so that I can provide whatever clarification/elaboration is needed. Also, I simply would have been repeating some of the good discussion elsewhere on this article's talk page, so I will advise other editors to refer to it as well.

• "At Interscope Records, she worked as a songwriter penning music for established artists, such as Akon." > "such as" just seems it's there as an excuse to provide an easy segue into introducing Akon, because it comes at the expense of not mentioning more notable artists for who the article says she wrote. Maybe rearrange so that it reads along the lines of (hastily put together by myself) "She began performing in clubs throughout New York City, while also working at Interscope Records penning music for several established pop artists, including Akon. After Akon..." More discussion on this here
• "She honed her writing skills by composing essays and analytical papers focusing on topics such as art, religion and socio-political order.[7]" > This kind of confused me; it seems to imply that her music-writing skills were improved by her experience in writing about things not related to music. Whether or not this is the sentence's intention, it needs to be clarified.
• "However, she withdrew from New York University.[8]" > The introductory element of "however" bugs me ...did she have an obligation to remain there and graduate? Please re-phrase.
• "open mic" should be wikilinked.
• Opening paragraph of "Career beginnings" section could be re-written to flow a little better. Also, each sentence contains a footnote for the same ref. One footnote at the end of the paragraph would probably suffice.
• (my notes on the following paragraph in bold) She was spotted ("spotted"? doing what? where? please clarify) a couple of years later by the music executive Vincent Herbert and signed to Interscope in January 2008 ("a couple of years later" and "in January of 2008" in the same sentence is a little redundant ...or are they referring to when she was "spotted" and when she was signed, respectively? Was she signed as a writer or singer? Or both? lead says Akon was to first to sign her as a vocalist....or does it? very confusing!). Impressed by her ear for melody and knack for spotting a great hook (jargon; needs to be re-worded and sourced to better explain that her abilities left an impression), various acts have hired her as a songwriter, including Akon's Konvict label (a label is an "act"?), as well as Fergie, Pussycat Dolls, Britney Spears and New Kids on the Block.[5] Gaga also sparked the interest of Interscope's Chairman Jimmy Iovine in early 2007. ("sparked the interest" is more borderline jargon-y wording, what interested him? also, why are we jumping from early 2008 back to early 2007?) [10] He offered her a label deal via Streamline/Interscope and partnered her with singer-songwriter Akon.[10] (now she's been offered her own label under Interscope in 2007 before she was signed to Interscope in 2008?)
• The next paragraph mentions several things without providing any frame of reference to the reader: 1) No specific or relative dates are given when describing events. 2) We suddenly get a quote about her dad's reaction to her drug use and performance outfits, without any prior description of either. 3) Who are "Sandy and Danny"? (I had to look it up, please provide Grease context somehow)
• "named Luke" > provides no essential info...is it needed?
• "where they shocked audiences with their wild performance" > cliché, not very informative, and worst of all...copyvio! (it plagiarizes the source) please fix and clarify
• All the mentions of Akon first hearing her sing need to be re-worded to reflect that Akon personally thought she was a good singer; saying "Akon recognized that Gaga also had vocal talent" presents her as having a factual, unquestionable vocal talent, which Akon just so happened to realize...this is pretty much saying "Akon noticed Lady Gaga was a good singer", which would be POV.
• There are too many quotes. Several sentences with quotes are rather non-encyclopedic in how they're written in the same fashion as an article for a periodical.
• "The album's lead single, "Just Dance," was released on April 8, 2008, and has reached number one in seven countries.[23]" > Which charts? The number one single overall? Stating which countries would also provide the reader with a demographic context (is she most popular in Germany and Poland? or just in the the Far East? or in the U.S. and Spanish-speaking countries? or a wide variety of places?)
• "On December 5, 2008, Gaga was added to the BBC Sound of 2009 longlist, which features the best rising music stars.[33]" > needs to be re-worded (or put in quotes) to reflect that this is the opinion of those polled; as is, the end of this sentence is POV.
• "On February 20, 2009, Huliq News reported that Gaga donated tickets and a meet and greet, for any show on her Fame Ball tour, in the US or Canada, to raise money for Odyssey Charter School and elementary schools in Los Angeles affected by budget cuts" > um, from what I can tell, this is poorly written (unless I'm reading it wrong); I can't tell what she did to help the charity. did she give them the tickets to sell? did she promise to give them profits from pre-sales? did she hold meet and greets to raise money? also...no source
• "The auction, managed by Giving Engine Auction Management, closed February 26, 2009.[37]" > Direct link to group's eBay page. Spam!
• The above two notes also refer to a paragraph which treads into trivia territory; just lots of dates of when which legs of her tour started and mentions of who she performed on stage with, without any assertion of the notability of these collaborations
• "Gaga's first North American tour, The Fame Ball Tour, started on March 12, 2009, and was critically appreciated.[38][39]" > One source verfies the start date, the other talks about the "bubble" outfit she wore; neither indicates that it was "critically appreciated"
• Beforehand, Gaga promised her fans that they can expect plenty of high drama from her upcoming performances. She said, 'I consider what I do to be more of an Andy Warhol concept: pop performance art, multimedia, fashion, technology, video, film. And it's all coming together, and it's going to be traveling museum show.'[40] > not very encyclopedia, more excessive quoting; Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for hyping a show
• "Gaga's associated act for the Pussycat Dolls in Australia in May was critically appreciated with reviewers claiming that she upstaged the Pussycat Dolls with her performance.[41][42]" > "with reviewers", yet it's sourced with only one reviewer stating this
• "Gaga appeared semi-nude on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine for their May 2009 issue for the annual Hot List wearing plastic bubbles only.[32][44]" > subject-predicate issue here ...the annual Hot List is wearing the bubbles? change to something along the lines of "In May 2009, Gaga appeared wearing only plastic bubbles on the cover of the annual 'Hot List' issue of Rolling Stone magazine."
• "On June 26, she performed at the Glastonbury festival. There was speculation that she may have been drunk during her performance as she did not perform at the next day's Take That performance. It was later confimed that she missed the gig due to 'feeling unwell'.[47] However she later confirmed returning to the final segment of their Circus Live tour.[48]" > First off, this is poorly written (partly because some of it is direct C&P of source material, while not providing the same context, it just made me ask questions in my head). Second, if she missed a show because she was sick, it's hardly noteworthy. There is an admittance of speculation right there in the article, without any info on consequences or notable info that came of it...none of this belongs here.
• The introduction of the "Influences and style" section is vague, and doesn't elaborate much on what is presented in the lead.

- SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for taking your time to review the article. Hopefully it will come into terms with the criteria sometime in the near future. As in response to Cloverfield's nomination, I am now laughing harder than I ever have before. The only "pass" this article was worthy of was that all images are copyright tagged, and non-free images that have fair use rationales. That is pathetic. Nothing else passed and you are telling me that the article is well and truly ready. Cloverfield, if you wish to nominate the article again, make sure the article complys with the above. • вяαdcяochat 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. But please, try to use this as help in improving the article, and not as a reason to exult at the expense of another editor :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]