Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cher/archive3

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2017 [1].

Cher

Nominator(s): Lordelliott (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets all requirements to become a featured article. Several years and hard research and dedication have gone into this article and I would like to get this through the "final" phase. Thank you. Lordelliott (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti says

It seems to justify the "Goddess of Pop" appellation by going out and looking for sources which call her that and adding as many as possible. Not sure that's appropriate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we trim some of the sources? Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this might be arguing the case from primary sources, when I'm fairly sure you should be looking for neutral and authoritative secondary source(s) which say she is "known as" such. Compare a google news search for "known as the king of pop" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was unable to find an authoritative secondary source stating exactly that she is "known as the Goddess of Pop". However, there are numerous reliable sources such as CNN, Time, Forbes, Money, The New York Times and Billboard calling her "the Goddess of Pop", which could easily support that she is "commonly/often referred to by the media as the Goddess of Pop" instead of "known as", which is a much stronger claim. Do you think we should remove that sentence anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think probably it's better to remove it, yes. Ideally there should actually be some kind of guideline on this. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I found this source stating that she is "[s]ometimes called the 'Goddess of Pop'"; is The Independent an authoritative secondary source? Lordelliott (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's exactly the kind of thing I meant, well done and thank you for finding it :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. You're welcome! Lordelliott (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If her Armenian-ness was enough to justify a place in the lede sentence it would be mentioned somewhere else in the lede, but it isn't. Put the Armenian in (early) Life and Career. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is: "Her father, John Sarkisian, was an Armenian-American truck driver with drug and gambling problems". Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I wasn't clear, by "Armenian" I mean "Armenian: Սարգիսեան [sɑɾkʰəsˈjɑn]". Looks like you can link to en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Սարգսյան and I would also like a little superscript question mark ^?link to Armenian_alphabet so I can try to figure out what letter does what.
    - Done. Thanks for the suggestions! Lordelliott (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does Wikipedia has WP:requests for pronunciation? Red link so I guess not, anyway maybe look for someone to pronounce that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia (don't let it delay promotion but drop a note and hopefully it will get added eventually). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added a request for audio pronunciation on the project's talk page. Lordelliott (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~What is the exact source for "known for her political views"?~~ Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't. In fact, although her political views have attracted much media attention, she's not exactly known for it. Corrected to: "Over the years, Cher's political views have attracted media attention, and she has been an outspoken critic of the conservative movement." Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Information in this quote: "By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide and had become, according to Time magazine's Ginia Bellafante, rock's "it" couple.[36]" could provide good context and notability in the lead. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (just a suggestion)[reply]
- I'm thinking of putting that exact same sentence in the lead. Is it OK? Lordelliott (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes please Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Lordelliott (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Autotune "as a deliberate creative effect" needs a citation please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this one from CNN: "The singer's 1998 comeback track marked the first prominent use of a technology called 'Auto-Tune', a pitch correcting software that has since changed the music industry. Auto-Tune alters the pitch of a singing voice to make everyone sound perfectly in tune. When used properly, it's subtle enough that it can't be detected. But Cher's producers played with the idea of cranking it up to 11, creating the now-familiar effect that is part human synthesizer, part robotic voice." I think "as a deliberate creative effect" pretty sums up what the article says: that the use of Auto-Tune on "Believe" was intentionally exaggerated ("deliberate") to create the robotic sound on her voice ("creative effect"), rather than correcting it. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another vocal sample that isn't autotuned as well, please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but I absolutely have no idea what to put in the title and description of the second sample (without Auto-Tune). Could you help me with this? Lordelliott (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now it says "for comparison this bit has no auto-tune" or something like that, which I'm happy with. Actually I didn't mean a sample of the same words, but in fact that was a great idea. Do we know how many samples we can squeeze in according to fair use? I'd like one for maybe Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves or I Got You Babe, something early and big, demonstrating the contralto described. It would hardly do her sales any harm (Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work.27s_value) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You got it. I have bundled the "Music" and "Voice" sections for page layout purposes (the "Gypsys" sample would make the audio box too long and it would not fit in the section) and because we already talk about her voice during the "Music" section. Do you think it's fine? Lordelliott (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assume I get most of what I ask for I endorse promotion although I might come back and nag some more. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No promotion with the weasel words "is described as" still there please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the sentence ("... embodying female autonomy in a male-dominated industry") was intended to summarize what is already being said on the Legacy section; however, if one would think that characterizes original research, there is an article from Billboard magazine backing up this very same argument: "Her active political commentary comes as no surprise -- as a pioneer of female autonomy during a male-driven era, Cher paved a way in a sexist industry with her music. Do you think that source would be useful? Lordelliott (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that is what appears to be a WP:closely worded paraphrase and definitely requires attribution - you may as well just quote them. Unless of course the Wikipedia article came first and Billboard are closely paraphrasing Wikipedia instead...my head hurts. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please put an inline link to the sample file next to "Cher effect". Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ip 122 says

Looks great, though I think there could be more coverage on her fashion influence, though perhaps not in this article. Something like the Lady Gaga's meat dress kind of articles, for the Black Mackie outfit worn by Cher at the 1986 Academy Awards should be feasible at least. (some sources on that outfit: Cosgrave, Bronwyn (2008). Made for each other fashion and the Academy Awards. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 9781408820605., http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/the-dying-art-of-ridiculous-red-carpet-fashion-bob-mackie https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19940318&id=31BWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4282,3976645 ) --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah mentioning that "the revealing dress attracted considerable discussion" should be feasible at least. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

A lot of good work has gone on here so congratulations. Just a few points:

There are currently some tags put on the lede. I did not put them there, but I would concur with their general sentiment. This is something that needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need to mention a little of Cher's early life in the lede. A short sentence about her place of birth and ethnically mixed background might suffice. See for instance the GA-rated Angela Lansbury article as an example of what I am talking about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We link to an article titled Cher as gay icon but do not actually use the words "gay icon" in either the lede or the main body of the article. That needs to be corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few websites cited but they are not archived. That would be a good step to take to prevent them from succumbing to link rot. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede seems to place a particular emphasis on what might be regarded as significant achievements ("By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide", "her first million-seller song", "watched by over 30 million viewers weekly", "earned $300,000 a week for her 1980–82 residency show", "reached a new commercial peak in 1998" etc). This results in it reading a little bit like an advert rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Grammar glitch in the lead: "becoming one of the best-selling music artists in the music history." Remove "the music" from the end of this sentence.
1946–1961: Early life: Minor, but according to the Manual of Style USA should be either U.S. or US instead.
1965–1967: There's double punctuation at the end of "behind the Beatles' Help!." In this case, just use the exclamation point in the album title as abbreviation; you shouldn't add anything else. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this review has been open almost six weeks since its belated transclusion on 10 May without approaching consensus to promote (I note the nominator hasn't been active for some time either), so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.