Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courtney Love/archive4

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 [1].

---

Courtney Love

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about musician/actress Courtney Love. Article previously received support but was unfortunately not promoted. It has been a project-in-work for years now, and has reached a level of comprehensiveness and attention to prose that I think warrants FA status. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've skimmed a bit and I'll start a close review soon. I want to make sure it's polished in as many respects as possible and there are no minor issues. That said, on its face this is likely among the very best rock biographies on Wikipedia and I'm sure it should and will pass. One quick point now that I make on any FA: you should preemptively archive all the links in the references with the |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl=no parameters, with links from archive.org (or archive.is if archive.org doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that archive.org won't). This will save time and possibly information if any links die in the future; basically all sources should be archived unless it's impossible due to robots.txt or being a pdf. ——BLZ · talk 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think editors should be wasting their limited time proactively adding archive links. That's an onerous and low value activity that should be performed by an automated script. It should not be tasked for FA candidates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often archive.org doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I have seen a bot that does that. No, I don't believe it has any business being part of the FAC review process. Doing this would make no difference in satisfying the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I've reviewed this article a couple of times now, and it still seems to be in good condition. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am concerned about the use of "Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity" by Andrew Breitbart and Mark C. Ebner. This seems like over citing to use a book from these authors to make a claim of fact and unnecessary as there are two additional reliable sources. Mostly I am concerned with the whole mention as written per WP:BLPCRIME. The subject in question is not well known and the article on him was deleted as not meeting Wikipedia standards for notability and this particular piece was center in that discussion as well I believe. If the content remains, I believe it needs a good edit to comply with our policies on Biographies of Living Persons. At the very least...there is no balance, no mention of her father's reaction to the claim made by Courtney's mother.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Which mention/citation are you referring to, as there are numerous citations from that book? Are you referring to the mention of her father's alleged providing of her with LSD? --Drown Soda (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The claim made by Courtney's mother against her father when she took custody.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I was able to address this with a source from the SF Gate in which it states that her father denied her mother's claims of this. I believe that addresses your concern of balance, but if you have additional concerns, do say so. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I still feel strongly that the Breitbart source is not reliable enough for inclusion and that it's use is over referencing the point.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I removed the Breitbart and Ebner source for the LSD accusation, but left the other two. However, I left the Breitbart & Ebner citations for other, less contentious portions of the biography.--Drown Soda (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not supporting as long as that unreliable source is used in the article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, you say?! I guess I've been doing this wrong all along then! You didn't exactly distinguish whether or not you took issue with the source as a whole or just as it pertained to the one accusation made by her mother, so maybe make yourself more clear. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• "which established her as a viable mainstream actress": suggest cutting "viable", which is redundant with "established".
• "Between 2014 and 2015, she debuted two solo singles": suggest "released"; "debuted" is a bit of an industry term.
• I wouldn't oppose for this, but I don't think you need to mention Fairbanks; it's a relationship by marriage two generations earlier that she was never aware of. This is a fairly long article, and it wouldn't hurt to cut a minor detail like this.
• "According to sources, Love's mother, who was studying to be a psychologist, had her in therapy by the age of two": I don't think "According to sources" is good enough here. If it's considered definitely true by a reliable source, and not contradicted anywhere, just cut the phrase; if it's dubious in some way, give a little more explanation, at a minimum via a footnote.
• "Love's mother then sent her back to the United States": can we give the year?
• "She supported herself by working illegally as a stripper, adopting the last name "Love" to conceal her identity, which she came to use thereafter": needs to be rephrased; she didn't come to use her identity thereafter.
• "The group recorded material with Love as a vocalist, but was subsequently kicked out of the band": presumably "but she was"?
• "so Bjelland would transpose Love's musical ideas on guitar for her": shouldn't this be "transcribe...for guitar"? "Transpose" usually refers to just changing key, doesn't it?
• "and consequently adopted a more polished public image": I'm not sure what "adopted" means here; I'm guessing the intended meaning is that her image was seen by others as becoming more polished, but "adopted" implies this was a deliberate choice on her part, which seems implausible.
• "she also had endeavors in fashion": a little clumsy; suggest just cutting this. Perhaps finish the paragraph with "...consequently acquired a more polished public image, including modeling work for Versace, and appearances in Vogue Italia".
• "but was forced by the label to re-record the entire album in the summer of 2003": can we say why?
• "started recording what was going to be her second solo album": suggest "what would become her second solo album".
• You don't need to identify Corgan as a member of Smashing Pumpkins the second time he's mentioned.
• Details of her rehab in 2006 aren't given in the music section; I understand why one might separate the two narratives, but it reads oddly, particularly since the music section comes first. We get "during her time in rehab in 2005" with no details till much later in the article.
• I'm not sure if "2012–present: Career expansion" is the best section title, per WP:DATED; perhaps "2016" instead of "present" would be wiser.
• "Love's contribution to the album was critically acclaimed": this seems a bit strong, given that you only cite two reviews, one of which you subsequently quote. I'd just cut this.
• "She also often played a guitar made by Mercury, an obscure company that manufactured custom guitars, which she purchased in 1992": I take it she didn't purchase the company, so this needs rewording.
• I haven't looked at source reliability, but I did notice that this source appears to be a blog. What makes it a reliable source for Wikipedia?
• "Love's Kinderwhore style of dress was inspire Chrissy Amphlett of the Divinyls": looks like this is missing a word, or a letter?
• "She has admittedly struggled with substance abuse problems throughout her life": I think you mean "admitted to struggling"; as written the admission is in Wikipedia's voice.
• "She became addicted to heroin in the early 1990s, and her addiction was placed in the media spotlight in 1992 when Vanity Fair published an article by journalist Lynn Hirschberg which stated that Love was addicted to heroin during her pregnancy; this resulted in the custody of Love and Cobain's newborn daughter, Frances, being temporarily withdrawn in a Los Angeles County court and placed with Love's sister." A couple of things here. First, this is a long sentence; it would probably benefit from being split after "pregnancy". Second, the second half needs rewording -- it was the child, not the custody, that was placed with Love's sister.

  Looks like you didn't fix this one, so I went ahead and did it myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The ordeal resulted in custody of daughter Frances Bean being withdrawn from Love": this is awkward phrasing. How about "...of a controlled substance, and subsequently lost custody of her daughter."? I don't think you need to repeat Frances's name.
• Was she ever charged in connection with microphone stand incident?
• "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers, particularly the Riot grrrl movement, with Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside": a bit of an awkward construction. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like you're singling out Pretty on the Inside as having particularly influenced the Riot grrrl movement. If so, how about "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers; in particular, Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside, influenced the Riot grrrl movement.
• "Time deemed Hole's Live Through This to be supplemented by "primal guitar riffs and high-IQ lyrics": I'm not keen on "deemed", and saying that it was "supplemented by" the riffs and lyrics seems odd, but more to the point, what's this sentence doing in the cultural impact section?
• Suggest explaining what "kinderwhore" is on first occurrence; no need to link it the second time.
• The sentence in the "Cultural impact" section about "kinderwhore" make it appear that the name "kinderwhore" was specifically applied to her image, but the article on kinderwhore is less definite. Did the name exist before she adopted the style?

I haven't reviewed the sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Drown Soda, are you there? Given this review has been open a long time, I will have to archive if the above points can't be addressed promptly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked these over and addressed most all of them, I believe. Some of the comments were about things that I hadn't written or inserted into the article (such as the repeat kinderwhore details, or the Time quote about Live Through This in the "Cultural impact" section), but I did remove the misplaced and repeated material. I did make edits for sentence flow and addressed the concerns that Mike Christie listed here. Apologies for having taken awhile to get back to this. Let me know if there is more, Ian Rose. Thank you! —Drown Soda (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. I made a few more copyedits; please review and make sure I didn't mess anything up. I have not reviewed the sources for reliability or done any spot checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I just looked over it again and didn't see anything that stood out as incorrect or anything of that nature; looks good to me. I can run the page through Checklinks to check for dead URLs and try to weed those out. —Drown Soda (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

This is looking good but I have a few points that may be worthy of consideration:

• There are a lot of links here, but they aren't archived. I know that that isn't a necessity at FAC but I think that it is something worth seriously considering lest those articles succumb to linkrot, at which the article will have to be stripped of any FA status that it has gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If it would be preferable, I can begin to go through these and attempt to provide archives to avoid that for the future.Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• There are a couple of instances where an entire book is cited but the particular page number is not. This definitely needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I contend this; the reason that is is that some of the book citations are lifted from digital copies of the books (such as Google books or the like), some of which do not (for some odd reason) include page numbers. For those instances, I've linked the book in the bibliography section to the specific page it's on in Google books, though I'm unsure if that is sufficient.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Could you maybe access these books from a local library? Google Books can be a useful place to start research but I am cautious about relying on the select pages it provides for Wikipedia referencing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Midnightblueowl, I just went through the article and was able to address this without going to check out the physical books by replacing the citations with others; in some situations, the unpaginated citations were additional and not the sole source (there were two sources doubled together), so in those cases, I removed the book citation as it was just supplementary. I think I got them all— I scanned through and didn't see any instances of unpaginated book citations left. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• "and as a disc jockey. During this time, she enrolled at Portland State University, studying English and philosophy.[36][37][38][39] " - is the information about her being a disk jockey found in those latter citations? If so, perhaps the appropriate citations could be duplicated after the words "disk jockey" to make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• " particularly influential to young female instrumentalists" - maybe better as "a particular influence on"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• When mentioning Time Square it would be best to have a link to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• I think that we could do something with the images. For instance, in the "1981–87: Early projects; music and film" section we have both the image and the prose box scrunched at the right hand side. I would strongly recommend aligning the quote box to the left. That would make the whole thing look a lot neater. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Do you know how to reorient an image so that it faces left rather than right? (I don't, but there must be Wikipedia editors who do). If so I would recommend reorienting some of the images so that the figure of Ms Love faces into the text rather than away from it. This is particularly the case with File:Courtney Love SXSW Stubb's Spin Party 2010.jpg and File:Courtney Love 1995 by Andrzej Liguz.jpg. Its a small thing but I would make a significant difference to the general aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this as well, but the problem with that (at least for many of the images) is that Love is playing/holding a guitar in them, and flipping the image would make it appear as though she is left-handed (or at least plays guitar left-handed), which isn't the case.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That seems fair enough. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• When discussing Love's relationship with Cobain, I'd have imagined that there are a lot of good book-length studies of Cobain's life which discuss Love. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• "Cobain, was found dead of a self-inflicted shotgun wound " - I'd reword this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• ""I strap on that motherfucking guitar and you cannot fuck with me. That's my feeling," she said." Do we have a citation for this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that you haven't made much heavier use of Poppy Brite's biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have tried to integrate it throughout but have mostly found it especially useful for her earlier life; it doesn't apply as much to more recent events as it was written in 1997. It does provide substantial information about her early life and some of her life as a musician (to a point).--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• This article does not cite any academic sources. Have you had a look in Google Scholar? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • My mistake, I can see that a few academic sources have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• A lot of good work has gone on here. I would lean toward soft oppose at present but I'd certainly be happy to change my opinion if the above changes are made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I've addressed some of these issues and provided some explanations/concerns on others that I'm unsure how to approach—thank you for your feedback. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Drown Soda. I've crossed out my initial opposition, although would ideally like to see the web citations archived. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Midnightblueowl, I started archiving sources but for some reason archive.org suddenly seemed to quit working (I couldn't get it to process any URLs—it would just take me to a blank white page. I will try and finish over the weekend. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comment

The current ref #289 reads "Miller 2004, p. 195" causing a cite ref error - I suspect it should be Millard? Current ref #290 is missing page numbers - these look to be 195 & 196? "Cope, Julian (2000). Head-On/Repossessed" is listed in the bibliography but doesn't seem to be used as a ref? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you Sagaciousphil, it indeed was supposed to be Millard . --Drown Soda (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • In this edit, {{Sfn|Love|2006|p=116}} (currently ref #85) was added but the year listed in the Bibliography is given as 2007? The ISBN link on Google seems to be a 2006 edition? Re the quote attributed to Millard (currently ref #290): as indicated above, the quote seems to start on page 195 but also flows on to page 196, at least on the pages I'm being shown using the Google link? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Note to Co-ordinators: These really are simply very minor drive-by comments; I haven't looked at any refs/sources in any depth.
      • Sagaciousphil: You're definitely correct about the year discrepancy on that citation—I'm not sure how there ended up a 2006 and 2007 in the SFNs, but I corrected them so they all uniformly are 2006, which is when that book was published. I also expanded the Millard citation #290 to include both pages (195–96). --Drown Soda (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost three months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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