Lady Gaga

[edit]
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I, IndianBio and SNUGGUMS have been working on it since about 2015 on this article to make it good enough for FAC. Lady Gaga is an American singer known for outlandish style and provocative work early in her career. She was arguably the biggest pop star in the world from 2009-2011. With 7.6k words, the size of the article is comparable to Taylor Swift which stands at 6.5k words. Gaga has a long pre-fame history, one more album, BTW foundation, two Superbowl and Oscars performances, American Horror History so it is bound to be longer than Swift's article. All your comments to improve the article are appreciated.

Thanks, FrB.TG (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely hope this gets a good amount of input this time; the last peer review hardly went anywhere. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

[edit]
  • I have replaced all the questionable sources except the two Twitter links from Guinness. They are valid as coming directly from the company's twitter. A better source could have been used but was not found for the statement it is referenced. Hence I will keep the Twitter sources for now. —IB [ Poke ] 05:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference archiving won't be done until and unless a PR is completed and all sources are stabilized. No point in doing multiple archiving. —IB [ Poke ] 05:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Sorry to be so slow, been busy recently ... will weigh in as opportunity presents.

  • Since we are being urged to keep clutter out of the first paragraph, I suggest moving the pronunciation to a footnote.
  • I don't like the second sentence of the lede. It isn't "big picture" enough. The lede paragraph should be the executive summary of the article, with the essence distilled in the first paragraph. I would cut it, let the existing third sentence be the second sentence, and add a sentence about her success and achievements.
Shifted the third sentence but rephrased the unconventionality bit as she was just as (in)famous for her weird style as her hit singles and albums.
  • "three Italian grandparents and one American grandparent" this reads a bit oddly. I'm not sure putting it this way (the "American" especially) conveys her ancestry to the reader. It would be more usual to say the "American" grandparent's ancestry.
  • "Gaga's sister Natali is a fashion student.[11]" the article is from 2011 so I doubt that's still the case.
I don't believe there's an update on that so simply removed the profession.

Done to 2005, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the third issue; the rest, I shall leave on @IndianBio and SNUGGUMS: to sort out as I am not entirely sure what to do there. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to more comments from you. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen should be linked on first use.
  • " He sent these songs to his friend, producer and record executive Vincent Herbert.[34] He was quick to sign her to his label Streamline Records, an imprint of Interscope Records, established in 2007.[35] " The "He" that beings consecutive sentences are different people. I might try to avoid that.
  • "The accompanying tour for Born This Way," I might say "The tour in support of Born This Way", which I think is the customary term.
  • "and by June 2014, she and new manager Bobby Campbell joined Artist Nation, the artist management division of Live Nation Entertainment.[114]" You might want to make clearer what Artist Nation does.
  • "A panned role of a shapeshifting hitman in Robert Rodriguez's Machete Kills (2013) earned Gaga a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress nomination." I might cut "panned". It's implied.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read under public image that views of her are polarized, but I don't read much criticism other than the PETA.
  • "In July 2012, Gaga also co-founded the website LittleMonsters.com, which became the first official social network devoted to fans of an artist." What is an official social network?
  • Is the lawsuit really worth mentioning, let alone the lawyer's name?
  • "she joined with Dalai Lama" should be a the before Dalai
  • " also issued order for State-controlled media to condemn this meeting" an before order
  • It may be worth mentioning that she was in the VIP area for the Hillary "victory" party, and somewhat upset. It seems as worth mentioning as anything else.
  • "In July 2012, the BTWF partnered with Office Depot, which donated 25% of the sales-a minimum of $1 million-of a series of limited edition back-to-school products that promote the foundation's message." dash issue.
  • "The foundation's initiatives have included, in March–April 2012, a poster competition that asked participants to submit images that answer the question "What does bravery mean to you?";[262] the "Born Brave Bus" that would follow her on tour as a youth drop-in center as an initiative against bullying;[263][264] and the "Born Brave" community and school groups.[265]". The multiple semicolon probably could be commas.
  • "their Senators " lower case
  • "having grossed more than $300 million in revenue from 3.2 million tickets for her first three worldwide concert tours." Are these figures correct? Nearly a hundred dollars a ticket?
It says so in the Billboard source.
  • "with them on social media after working with Gaga..[291]" dots
I think it could use a little more mention of reactions against Gaga, should there be such things in reliable sources. Otherwise it looks fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, thank you so much for the comments; they have been of tremendous help as always. I have addressed your points and added some criticism of Gaga wherever appropriate. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John

[edit]

Started looking at this. I don't think that either of these is quite right:

Hi, John. Thanks for dropping by to post comments. Re your first two concerns, what is it that is not making sense: the phrasing or are they not in the source? As for the last one, I don't believe those two words are POV because if a work is a successful, it won't be fanspeak to say that it is successful. What wouldn't, however, be neutral is for example if I say her certain work was "extremely successful", "awesome" etc. Cheers. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It isn't that they don't make sense; it's the overquoting and the "despite" in the first one and the overquoting and the "antics" in the second one. Tabloids write like this but we are not a tabloid. Six "successful"s are definitely too many, and "acclaimed" is a meaningless weasel word. If an album has received an award or a hit record, it is fine to record that, with a good source. Almost any song or album, will have been regarded as acclaimed by someone. It is better not to use language like this. --John (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that makes sense; all taken care of. Looking forward to more comments (and/or ce's). – FrB.TG (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: do you have any more comments on the prose and the quotes - I have tried to keep the latter as limited as possible but you never know.. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably do. Can you give me a day or two? --John (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, any updates on this? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was away on holiday and got back the day before yesterday. It's getting there; as always happens on an article about a pop star, the article has been written by fans so there is still a lot of fan-speak, huge over-referencing and too much detail in some areas. We cannot use The Daily Express on a BLP as it is a tabloid. If you're in a hurry to close this, please do so. If you can give me a few more days I will continue to chisel away at it. --John (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sense any hurry, so 3–5 days is fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bow out now. Things to look at if you plan to take this to FAC will be WP:OVERLINK, the overall writing quality, over-detailed presentation, enormous degrees of over-referencing, and the worrying fact that when I checked, several references did not support what they were supposed to. Good luck! --John (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all you could offer! It's gonna be one hell of a time at FAC either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. I will certainly look into these concerns more closely before a trip to FAC. As usual, your edits improved the flow and the neutrality of the prose, though there were a few things that I wasn't thrilled about. Cheers. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I think the article is better without gems like She commented that as a child, she somehow absorbed Cher's out-there fashion sense and made it her own. Gaga considers Donatella Versace her muse, and the late English fashion designer and close friend Alexander McQueen as an inspiration, admitting that "I miss Lee every time I get dressed" while channeling him in some of her work. although I realise that tastes differ. John (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor

[edit]
Hard to disagree with that. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide more tomorrow hopefully. ceranthor 02:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I’ve gone through a lot of mental and physical therapy and emotional therapy to heal over the years". That is all.
hopefully a little better now?
the citation for that, I believe, is FN 32
citation 10 - it is placed at the end of the subsection
  • See previous
Ref 132. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC) now 134[reply]

Less comments for these two sections, but I really think I need to go through the prose and address some of the more obvious things before I go through with a fine comb. ceranthor 00:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I think the prose is quite choppy, with lots of "she X." "Gaga X." "Then she X." While it's certainly comprehensive and reasonably well written, the lack of sentence structure variety makes it almost read more like a list of her achievements than an encyclopedia entry. It needs some copyediting to this effect. ceranthor 01:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ceranthor, for your comments as well as the few tweaks you made. I have addressed your more specific concerns and have left replies under some comments in green where necessary. Your point about the article reading somewhat "list-y" is completely understandable and reasonable, and we have tried to make the prose as interesting as we can. I will see what else I can do to make it seem less monotonous, although that is something that easily happens with articles of this sort. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help. I'll be out of commission for a day or two, but I'll keep helping this weekend. ceranthor 22:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
replaced FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more suggestions:

Rearranged. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So much better! ceranthor 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Ceranthor. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG I hope to read through this tonight, as I won't have much free time this weekend. ceranthor 21:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't able to do this tonight, I can wait until next week. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to provide some more comments by tomorrow night! Have to be up early tomorrow morning. ceranthor 02:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response! I will shoot to get to this again tonight. ceranthor 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is the plan to go to FAC after this? @FrB.TG: ceranthor 02:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even after this, it still could probably use polishing. I can't personally imagine it being submitted to FAC any sooner than October without failing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how the article shapes up. If it's improved enough, we'll take a trip to FAC. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments, Ceranthor? – FrB.TG (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll schedule some time to look through tonight. ceranthor 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Started going through and copyediting sections. It's definitely come a long way, but I still think it's a bit premature to go to FAC yet prose-wise. It might help to recruit another pair of fresh eyes to go over and help copyedit since it's such a large article. ceranthor 22:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working thru and copyediting. ceranthor 19:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all three of the above, Ceranthor. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now up to public image. ceranthor 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ArturSik

[edit]
in the '2015-present' section it says she received Jane Ortner education award and in the 'awards and achievements' section it is artist award, i think it should be clarified which one it was that she received. ArturSik (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]