- 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
- No. Problems include (but are not limited to) how "descent, and worked as an accountant before becoming a housewife" is an incomplete sentence, "Hit" is too informal, and "The albums third single" is missing an apostrophe. It might help to integrate "Early life", "Career", and "personal life" into one "Life and career" section seeing to it that all her mentioned partners were in some way involved with her professional career.
- Done I don't agree with combining "Personal life" elsewhere, but I did integrate "Early life" and "Career" per your suggestion, and fixed the errors mentioned previously on August 30.
Carbrera (
talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
- I wouldn't say so. There's no discussion of the themes of her solo work, and the "Artistry" section lacks any detail on her most recent album This Is What the Truth Feels Like.
- @
SNUGGUMS: I added details regarding the third album, but where would you suggest adding themes during the "Career" section or the "Artistry" section? Just wondering, thanks.
Carbrera (
talk) 23:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Themes are best for artistry section
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Done Added themes and details about This Is What the Truth Feels Like; finished on August 15.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
- Not exactly.
Dead links need to be fixed, statements like" In 2010, they resumed writing their record, which was later recorded in 2011", and "The track debuted and peaked at #80 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart", and "Kuukuu Harajuku will be distributed worldwide by DHX Media" are missing citations, and there are subpar sources like "Breathe Heavy", "That Grape Juice", The Sun, and Us Weekly.
- Dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced on August 25.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Done Bad sources have been removed and replaced, statements missing citations have been fixed, and once again, dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced.
Carbrera (
talk) 20:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
- "Notably" in "notably appearing on the cover" is a subjective description. Same with "were more natural and better described where she was in her life".
- Done Removed on August 4th.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
-
- Done Thanks.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
- Almost. While the main
No Doubt article's lead should obviously have more detail than the one here, it would help to discuss some of her work with the band here given Gwen's success with them.
- Done Definitely fixed!
Carbrera (
talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
-
- Done Thanks.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
- Far from it. Lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated. Many are also malformatted (i.e. "Billboard Magazine" should read simply "Billboard" in italics, "E! Online" should just read "E!" without italics, and "MTV.com" should read "MTV" or "MTV News").
- @
SNUGGUMS:, could you further explain "lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated"? I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here.
Carbrera (
talk) 05:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It seems that another user
fixed much if it here. What I'm saying is that there are citations that include a work as well as the company that owns said work (i.e. Viacom owns MTV, Prometheus Global Media owns Billboard), and that we don't tend to include the companies that own them within citations these days.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 05:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Done
- 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
-
- Done Removed both images on August 4th.
Carbrera (
talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
- 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
- There isn't really any need to mention mere Grammy noms when there are already Grammy wins mentioned, and they certainly don't belong in "Artistry".
- Done Removed on August 5, 2016.
Carbrera (
talk) 03:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
|