Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Madonna (entertainer) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page
Result: No consensus. In an attempt to find consensus, a new discussion has been started by Giggy. It can be found at WP:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/2. Geometry guy 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im quite sure this article no longer deserves a GA states (at least i woundn't have passed it today as a GA reviewer myself, which is a shame being a fan). Maybe standards have improved since its last review. These are just some of the basic issues I have found with the article. I didnt delist it automatically as i dont want hate mail.

  • The lead has grown out of control, it needs significant improvement
  • The article as a whole is overly long, not too long just unnessarly long. I know full well its within the upperlimits of the guidelines, thats not an excuse to write everything and anything though. Its 105,000 bytes long, compare this to the Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson articles which are a healthy 92,000 and 65,000 respectively. The MJ article has been significantly improved and the JJ article is a recent GA article under the improved system.
    • DONE This is 95 kilobytes now Ultra! 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 88 kb today. Ultra! 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The length is a good improvement, although im sure more can be done, ill read through the article again let you know. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of dubious, unreliable sources, they would have been changed had i reviewed it today.
  • A large number of sources are not formatted.
  • There seems to be a lot of recentism, for example, there are at least 3 pictures of madonna from 2006 and a few even more recent.
    • DONE Nothing can be done about this. Old photos from commons are copyvios and the past editors just blanked them, edit warring without proving infringement for long. Ultra! 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2007-Present: New record deal and film direction - Almost entirely unsourced section
  • 1998-2002: Return to prominence - Lack of sources towards end of section
    • DONE Ultra! 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last two mini paragraphs still seem undersourced, maybe everythings covered in the sources provided? They arent formatted correctly though. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2005-2007: Confessions album and tour - Monster huge quote at the end
  • Influences - Hardly sourced
    • DONE Ultra! 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 10 sources for that section, there still seems to be information that is unsourced, again they arent correctly formatted either. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy - 5 lines, why?
  • David Banda adoption controversy - Three paragraphs, why, needs a serious trimming
  • Work at the Kabbalah Center - 4 sources for this section, not enough
  • Influence on taxonomy - Remove as trivia or put somewhere else in article.
  • Resolve all FACT tags adding reliable sources that are formatted correctly.

I havent read the article indepth in over a month, so ill do that and add to this list. However, regardless, the examples i have already provided indicate that its no longer worth of its states. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While I don't concur with all of Realist's points, it's obvious that the article is deficient. There are several citation request tags. Some sources are less than stellar. Several sections, such as "Legacy", are underdeveloped, while the "Influence on Taxonomy" section should be removed. And yes, the lead is a tad on the bulky side. Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE Ultra! 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a side comment, another user , who i have quite some respect for tried to sort the lead but was shouted down on the talk page. I dont see improvements being made by free will. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; there has been significant deterioration since I passed this four months ago. Notably, her new album has resulted in a lot of poorly controlled information being added. I don't think the lead is as bad as some make out (perhaps it's improved...) but yeah, the article isn't currently a GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE new album info controlled now Ultra! 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I rewrote the LEAD as it currently appears, I have to say it's vastly improved from where it was and although it is a bit long, lets remember just how extensive Madonna's career is- being a member of two music groups, a recording career and film career. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dont get me wrong the lead is far from the major problem with this article. I think its the build up of little things that has done it. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE 94 kilobytes now Ultra! 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: I've re-added the overview of her filmography, the article cannot be considered comprehensive without and overview of her film career. Also, although the lead has been shortened, the ave length of a Featured article is 60 kilos. The overall size of the article still needs to be trimmed down. I'd say at least to 70 kilos. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What needs to be trimmed down? There is nothing off-topic or overly detailed now. Ultra! 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is because the people who used to look after the article have long stopped editing wikipedia. There doesnt seem to be any experienced editers who really work at it anymore. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: per poor quality overall. The size of the overall article needs to be trimmed considerably in addition to the numerous issues raised here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE This is 95 kilobytes now Ultra! 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as nominater: As the original nominater i obviously support delisting, im even more user of it now, looking at the article history, there hasnt been a rush to improve it. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some unnecessary informatios in the lead especially the fourt one. Its like a mere collection of her films. --Efe (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Ultra! 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Needs sourcing to a lot of sections. Paragraphs are stubby in some sections. References are inconsistenly formatted. A lot of unnecessary information in the discog section; only studio albums. MoS issues. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Ultra! 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, i probably should have delisted it and not hastled everyone like this, i was just scared of a backlash. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It should be better in here. This article is so huge so comments from fresh eyes would be better. --Efe (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK ;-) Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im taking away my "delist" decision. This article is worth GA, only that it needs to be referenced well and references should be formatted well, among others. Maybe you can use {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} to better achieve this. I am not leaning towards "support", however, until all concerns are addressed and not just by putting "done" where in fact, its not. --Efe (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be adding further tags later today when im not busy. ;-) --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Madonna's criticisms and personal life should not be given separate sections in the article. Any relevant information should be placed within the Biography section where it applies according to chronological events. Any other info should be deleted. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is possible and will help to condense the article. For instance:
  • move the David Banda adoption controversy to the "2003-2007: American Life and Confessions on a Dance Floor" section as this event took place in 2006.
  • why do we need to know about her personal relationships with Dan Gilroy and Stephen Bray when they can be mentioned in the early life section? This applies to all of her relationships- move them into the body of the article.
  • all of her political views in the article are from 2006-present and can be moved into the biography under "2003-2007: American Life and Confessions on a Dance Floor".
  • could you go through FA's of other people (not just musicians), especially those of multiple marriages, affairs and children? They have personal life separate as its flow is lost if you write all of it in career. But the politics bit - I'll try and merge. Ultra! 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a poor representation of WP:WEIGHT. Madonna's marriages are not a vital aspect of her overall biography, most of her personal life and criticisms are already mention within the body of the article (such as the scandal over kissing Britney and Christina). These events do not need to be mentioned twice. Other BLPs may be different, when marriages, affairs and children are what the person is best known for. However, with Madonna, this isn't the case. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the editor. Billboard should always be in italics. I want to edit this but it seems its prevalent in the article. It should be formatted this way: [[Billboard 200|''Billboard'' 200]] and [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]. --Efe (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive replied to my comments above, i feel hat some parts that have been marked as DONE are not sufficent. There are still insufficient sources, lack of source formatting. Lengh is still a concern but i think that will come along as this process reaches a conclusion. The articles still does not satisfy the requirements of GA. If there are no objections im going to remove any dead links and unreliable sources, replacing them with fact tags. I could also add fact tags to unsourced areas. I think this might make the job of the edit easier so that they can see what is exactly needed. Thoughts? Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing deadlinks, unreliable sources, and controversial material (likely to be challenged) which is unsourced or relies upon or is sourced by such unreliable sources. Geometry guy 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through removing dead links and unreliable sources. I will add more tags to areas that need citations later, for now im really tired after looking through 150 sources lol. I have now 100% tagged the article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My first instinct on seeing this article was that it could be saved, and was probably worth saving as a GA. If I had more time I would have made a small attempt myself by removing unsourced and digressive material so the article remained broad yet focused and verifiable, hence good enough to be a GA, if not perfect. (I didn't have time, but at least I removed the Camilla ref!)
I'm now delighted to see another editor doing that, and would like to keep this GAR open for another week to see if the initial concerns can be addressed. I would like to note, however, that absolute length is not a GA criterion. If there is encyclopedic information about Madonna which is worth presenting in this article, then please present it. Please consider summary style and spinout articles if this information grows out of hand. However, I would emphasise that any reasonable length (my own ballpark for this one would be 60K to 120K) is acceptable: just because Michael Jackson does the biz in 90K does not mean that this article must. It depends upon the nature of the topic and the way summary style spinoffs are structured. I would encourage all editors to write the best possible article (or family of articles) that they can for the encyclopedia, and not let artificial measurements hinder that process. The recent cutback has probably been beneficial, but please don't forget the true purpose of the encyclopedia. I will support listing this article according to whether it meets the GA criteria, not according to whether or not it falls under 100K in length. Geometry guy 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, length is now sufficent that its no longer a primary concern, it was however originally 106,000 bytes which was ..... So anyway, if everyone supports (i see you do ;-)) im prepared to citation tag it where needs be and we can see the full extent of the articles deteriation in the paste few months. I also support extending the period to give the editer more time to implament improvements and complete the list above. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please add tags according to the GA criteria. If adding citations and supporting information lengthens the article, I have no problem with that. The article must be judged against the GA criteria, not an ideal list, although the list presented by Realist2 is quite close to the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went through adding tags to unreliable sources and dead links, will add more tags to other unsourced areas later. Which I have now done, the article is 100% tagged. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not use {{done}} and {{not done}} templates here, it makes the GAR page load significantly longer. (Please remove the currently used and replace with a plain "done".) I've no objections to leaving this open a while longer. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes please use DONE as an indicater per my own edits on this page. Im in a rush so cant do it myself, later folks. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 10:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sum up requests edit

OK, this has got very long now so i want to make the list of nessary improvements needed crystal clear here. Other edits please add theirs. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Resolve citation tags and format all sources
  • Resolve POV issues - i see words like outrage, uproar etc on every other line
  • Please remove repetition, a lot of the criticism section is already repeated in other areas. Infact the only aspect of the criticism section that is new is the animal fur part. Almost ALL of it is already elsewhere in the article. Please consider adding the fur comments to their chronological place and then removing the criticism section.
    • DONE moved event specific criticisms up. The rest is long-term criticism (Throughout career) and has no place to merge. Ultra! 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: The PETA stuff should be moved within the biography. Once that is done, two paragraphs wont warrant a full section to criticism. Those two paragraphs can rightfully be merged into the "Legacy" section. Being a controversial artist, is in fact, a big aspect of Madonna's legacy as a recording artist. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, her work at the Kabbalah Center can be considered an aspect of her legacy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still have concerns about the LEAD. A large part of this article talks about various controversies and her personal life, none of which are mentioned. The LEAD does not provide a sufficient overview of the article or her life. It should also be neutral, when talking about her acting abilities dedicating 3 positive lines and half a negative line isnt neutral. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise Unless the criticism is a majority view and is a longterm aspect of her biography (not a single instance such as the Brit and Christina kiss for example) it should not be mentioned in the lead. I don't believe any aspect of her personal life is significant enough to warrant its own section in the article, let alone become mentioned in the lead. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch, lol, poor madonna ;-( . Maybe your right, im not totally familiar with her person life and its media coverage, im only aware of her career. Reading the lead you would think shes was a respected actress..... Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment edit

Billboard charts at Allmusic to clear up the rather absurd number of citation-needed tags. Note that for a sentence like ""Live to Tell" (U.S. #1),[citation needed] "Papa Don't Preach" (U.S. #1),[citation needed] "Open Your Heart" (U.S. #1),[citation needed] "True Blue" (U.S. #3)[citation needed] and "La Isla Bonita" (U.S. #4).[citation needed]" just one use of the ref at the end sentence is enough (since its the same one.) Alot of the cite needed are being used for self-referential stuff. For eg: "n 1985, Madonna entered mainstream films, beginning with a brief appearance as a club singer in the film Vision Quest.[citation needed"--there the reference is the movie itself. It doesn't need a specific third-party ref or anything. Same goes for "In 1991, Madonna starred in her first documentary film, Truth or Dare (In Bed with Madonna outside North America), which chronicled her Blond Ambition Tour, as well as her personal life." indopug (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if a single source can be found for every chart position then it can be added to the end of a sentance and all those tags can be removed. However if a single source cant be found then each one needs a source. As for other citation requests, the editer has removed some giving reasons why the tag isnt needed in the summary, i have monitered these actions and where the reasoning is good i have agreed and let it be. Infact i will link the editer to your point because its very valid. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further dubious links edit

Note:Amazon.com is not a reliable source and can't be used for anything. Their aim to shift as many CDs so it can be argued that they'll refer to every new record in more-or-less positive terms. indopug (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, will take out, if you see anymore please let us know, cheers. ;-) --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this, TMZ, reliable link. Ive always thought they were a little tacky for an encyclopedia? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is linking people to random pictures reliable? Italians do it better shirt (JPG file) Madonna - Ciao from Italy (JPG file). Thoughts. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006 a new water bear species (Latin:Tardigrada), Echiniscus madonnae [1] Scanning Electron Microscope photomicrograph of Echiniscus madonnae Michalczyk & Kaczmarek, 2006 was named after Madonna. The paper with the description of E. madonnae was published in the international journal of animal taxonomy Zootaxa in March 2006 (Vol. 1154, pages: 1-36). The authors' justification for the name of the new species was: "We take great pleasure in dedicating this species to one of the most significant artists of our times, Madonna Louise Veronica Ritchie." The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) number of the species is 711164.[2] ITIS - Echiniscus madonnae

  • OK, are these sources strong enough to make these claims, im struggling to see how they prov they were named after madonna, it could just be pure coincidence. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the above-mentioned quote ("We take great pleasure in dedicating this species to...") come from the above-mentioned article (Zootaxa, Vol. 1154, pages: 1-36)? If so, then I'd say that there is a strong case to be made that the species is named after the artist known as Madonna. Majoreditor (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea sorry. How can we find out other than buying the article somehow? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to delist? edit

Is it appropriate to delist this article yet, the review was opened on May 16, the article is still way off GA standard and hasnt seen much in the way of improvement in recent days. Thoughts welcome. Cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Ultra! 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont mean to be rude but I wish you would stop leaving sharp, abrupt replies, it can appear in civil. Youve done it a few times on my talkpage too, its really not helpful when we are trying to build consensus. Cheers. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to see you've continued. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's not close this one yet. I am going to take a second look at the article tomorrow. Majoreditor (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to avoid it too, ive put a lot of time into checking through the article and sources, but at some point..... --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Too many missing citations. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of them have been dealt with. Ultra! 09:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Too many passages needing citation. The editor has not yet addressed those comments above. Too many work to do so its better to extinguish the pressure this GAR is giving to the article and to the editor as well. Let's give him the time. --Efe (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on. I am continuing. Ultra! 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would recommend you use "number" instead of "#". It reduces mess. --Efe (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find myself in favour of a delist. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Until all is sourced and correctly formatted. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • stop. Ultra! 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, sorry, if the the article isnt worry of its states thats not our problem. Please, if you can communicate in English do so. Im doing my best so its the least you can do too. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • done Ultra! 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still not formatted, also you need to add more stuff about the success of her new album, it only mentions the title, the album has been out long enough now that you can write something on it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please format website sources using this template. <ref name="">{{cite web |first= |last= |url= |title= |publisher= |date=[[2007-02-19]]|accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref> . Cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Cite web is not a requirement, it is merely recommended. giggy (:O) 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "First" and "last" is for the writter of the source, eg Ben Shepard. "URL" is the link. "Title" is the name of the story. "Publisher" eg BBC, Fox news, Reuters. "Date" is when the source was made. "Accessdate" is todays date, the date you read the link. This is just to clarify if you have any confusions. You must fill each block if the info is available, if the info isnt available for a particular source delete the empty blocks as they take up unnessary space. Any confusion just ask. Cheers. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much longer is this review gonna last> I see a lot of stuff that can be cut down, to reduce amount of text and enhance readability. For eg: "It produced five successful singles: "Live to Tell" (U.S. #1), "Papa Don't Preach" (U.S. #1), "Open Your Heart" (U.S. #1), "True Blue" (U.S. #3) and "La Isla Bonita" (U.S. #4)" can be cut down to just "It produced five singles that broke into the Top 5 of the Hot 100." There is no need to list the chart position or even name every single she's released (becaause she has so many), that's what a discography does; only mention it if it is famous for other reasons. Eg: "Papa Don't Preach" and single teenage mother controversy.
A whole paragraph to her movie career gives undue weight to it, besides its mostly just a list names. How about "In addition to her music career, Madonna has also acted in a number of films. Although her performances have mostly been critically panned, her titular role in Evita (1996) won her a Golden Globe award." If you agree to my suggestion of cutting down details (chief culprits are often lists of names), I'd be glad to help. A list of her studio albums (discography) is pretty much mandatory BTW. indopug (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the numbers. Ultra! 09:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph about her film career is not undue weight. The woman has been in 22 films. Trim if you must but the article and the lead cannot due without an overview of her films. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed down. Nothing except Golden Globe is significant enough for lead. About the singles listing: I know there are many but it's rare that one album produces five or six hits. So those lines are mentioned. Ultra! 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It must be concisely mentioned to avoid many {{Citation needed}} tags. Its annoying right? --Efe (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ultra! 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree upon the uniform usage of the Billboard charts at Allmusic ref, Allmusic is not a user-contributed site and is one of the most reliable websites on the internet (if you see the page, they say the chart info is courtesy of Billboard). Since all the chart positions are in that one Almusic page, its so much simpler, neater and more compact to just use that on ref. indopug (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree, just make sure what written in the sources maches the claims in the article before adding it as a source. Also remember madonna new album, needs more detail. Its underperforming against her confessions album but is still a hit. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you all read allmusic's privacy policy? It gathers info from logged in users. Ultra! 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use this billboard link more, youve already used it at least twice in the article, it seems to be a definitive list of her singles positions. Its already formatted correctly in the article so you only have to use the <"ref name"> See link here. Will this link help? — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is set up to use the link, if you what to use that billboard link you only need to use <ref name = billboardcharts/> as your source. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated assessments edit

  • Updated assessments are needed by reviewers on this article which has been much improved. Without prejudice about continuing the above discussion, I propose adding such (re)reassessments here. Geometry guy 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As in reassess it from where it is now? Like pretend the above reassessment never occured sort of? --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. All that matters to GAR is whether the article currently meets the criteria, not how it got there. Geometry guy 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, i wasnt questioning you at all, i was just unsure how you wanted to approach it. I was the one who got it reassessed and ive expressed that im near satisfied with the articles quality now. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article now meets many of the concerns raised. From my point of view, the main remaining issues are minor. One is the formatting of the references. It was pointed out above that the use of cite templates is not a GA requirement. That is true. However, citations should be formatted consistently, and a plain external link is not enough: cite templates are one way to achieve such consistency. Another issue is that the article may need a copyedit. It is easy for the prose to become bloated and tortuous when multiple editors revise content. I've trimmed the legacy section, but I'm not ready to support listing until a couple of reviewers with copyediting experience have given the article a once-over. I could be one of them. Geometry guy 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im still concerned about formatting, either needs to be a basic level of neatness weither it be through templates or some other method. The article needs a copy edit and the new album details need updating. We still need to actually read the sources and ensure the source backs up the claim, its been time consuming enough just checking all the sources manually and reading the article. The sources might be of good quailty now but I have deep suspicitions that not all of them support the claims. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I examined six citations picked at random, and they all checked out fine. However, I agree that it's best to audit as many as possible. Equally as important is to make sure that the citations are from reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all sources now come from reliable places, ive checked that much ;-), however now me have to make sure that whats written in the article accurately reflects these sources. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked about nine of them at random so far, and the sources all support the assertions. However, several of the citations aren't properly formatted. Some of them are just hyperlinks. This will need to be addressed before the article is up to standard. Majoreditor (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be some confusion over what degree of formatting is minimally required for GA. Giggy pointed out that formatting isnt compulsary for GA but they look really messy, something has to be done. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article still needs copyediting. I'm finding numerous issues from punctuation to half-baked prose. I fixed a couple of problems, but there's plenty more. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Billboard/Allmusic thing again: having worked on two featured list discographies and regularly reviewed at FLCs, I can tell you for a fact that, oddly enough, the Allmusic charted singles list for an artist is almost always complete, while Billboard often don't list some of the older entries. Why? I guess because they reserve some stuff for their pay-only part of the site. For example, none of Madonna's 1983 singles (maybe others too) have been listed at Billboard's site. I think 200+ FAs and FLs will vouch for Allmusic's reliability by the way. In any case, the Allmusic page acknowledges that "Chart information courtesy of Billboard.com © 2006 VNU eMedia, Inc. All rights reserved.", so there's no doubt. indopug (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis article requires an inordinate amount of citation and much of that has been done. I think a few citations might be necessary here and there, but for an article requiring a gross amount:) of citations just to retain good article status the editors have done a good job. Furthermore, any article getting 20,000 hits a day, has the additional vandalism concern and contrary editor problems. This article is now very worthy of good status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of hits is irrelevant to GA status, and vandalism is not part of the criteria. It should not influence an article's GA-worthiness. giggy (:O) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Giggy, infact ive had this article on my watchlist for 3 weeks now, monitering EVERY edit. There hasnt been a single instance of vandalism.... unless you count fan gush and cruft as vandalism? Popularity should have nothing to do with it. Fundamentally the article needs a copyedit, sources need a minimal degree of formatting, more info on the new album is needed, pov issue need resolving & favourably obsessed fans should be banned from the article until they learn what a reliable source is. Ive seen how the editers on the article behave and im quite sure we will be back here in another four months. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I am not saying that I vote keep because the article is getting a lot of its. I am saying that in spite of the number of active viewer/editors. Based on this tool May was the third highest month in total of edits for this article since it was crated in 2002. I am just saying that the editors have done a fine job of keeping the page encyclopedic. I have not followed the page closely and none of the last 500 edits are marked rv, but the page is and has been protected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Im not so sure they have kept it encyclopedic, like I said I monitered the article. I put about 80 fact tags in the article, a slim majority of the content was simply deleted to avoid having to source. A lot of which seemed like legitimately worthwhile material for the article. To save the article before it was deleted tons of unsourced material was just deleted, I DONT thing thats in the best interest of the article. The information needed sourcing not removing. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too long edit

(<-)This discussion is now so long and twisted it reminds me of FAC :) Are we near to closing or should we try a procedural restart? Majoreditor (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well only one, maybe two, people have said "keep", the vast majority have said "delist". Work on the article has slowed to about 4 edits a day and only picks up again when editers are worried we are about to close the reassessment, then we keep it open and the level of work slows down. This is not a game, I, like a number of other edits have invested a lot of time monitering the process, this has now gone on for more than 3 weeks with a consensus to delist. This cannot roll into a 4th week, it should be closed as delist and editers should spend time doing this properly rather than widely deleting unsourced material. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, no way this is a good article, beginning with the opening paragraph, where someone has described her as a "multi-instrumentalist". That's like describing George Bush as an athlete.

  • Apologies. The length of this discussion is partly my fault for thinking this article could easily be saved. That has proved not to be the case. I read through the article again today and it has multiple problems. The lead is weak, too short, fails to summarize the article, and wastes its energy listing albums. The prose is poor in many places: for instance "During this time she also had a controversial appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman", "In mid-2006, Madonna signed on to become the worldwide face of H&M", "The New York Post claimed animal lovers were "horrified" by Madonna dyeing her sheep for a photograph, and "vilified" for organising pheasant-hunting parties at her estate", "Other promotion of the album will include the Sticky & Sweet Tour due to kick off in August 2008 in Cardiff, Wales", and "The lyrics were themed on the aspects of the American dream, fame, fortune and society".
The notes are still an inconsistently formatted mess. On the other hand, I do believe that the article has improved, and at the GA level, deletion of unsourced material not a bad thing: broadness, not comprehensiveness, is our goal here.
I will close this as delist in the next day or so unless someone beats me to it or there are dramatic developments. Geometry guy 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I did all the changes. Ultra! 07:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you fixed some things, but barely touched the notes. Your determination to fix issues raised is much appreciated. Here is a list notes which are not well formatted: 5,12,13,15,18,28,35,41,44,46,50,60,66,68,70,74,87,88,89,91,92,96,99, 103,108,110,117,121,122,132,137,140,144,155,157,163,168,169,175,185. The main issue is websources: the title of the webpage/article should be linked, with the publisher and/or website supplied afterwards; there should be no raw urls on display. Geometry guy 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE No raw url+title left now. Any more things to fix? Ultra! 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to correctly format 5,83,85,148,160,161,170. On 107 the date has a mistake. None of the sources you formatted give the details of who wrote the piece (and please dont write names out all in capitals!). You need more details on the new album. We need the US peak position, first week US sales, first week worldwide sales. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE sales, format, peak, names Ultra! 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of the references has been improved, but there are still many inconsistencies: I refer to this version in the following. First, print sources should provide a year: 22, 27, 41, 142 and 149 don't. Second, published books should provide only a year, not a full date: a full date should only be provided for newspaper articles and other periodicals (and websites if possible). This may be an issue for 26, 33, 45, 50, 54, 56, 103, 140, 144, 166 and/or 171. There is also some inconsistency about where the date is placed for newspaper articles and other periodicals: this should be consistent. In addition, I noticed general inconsistencies still with 34, 40, 43, 68, 102, 116, 118 and 135. I hope that the next time this is "DONE" and I go through it again, I will only find two or three remaining issues, not over 20. Please self-review for consistency as well. Geometry guy 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixe inconsistencies. About placement of date - it depends on the cite templates. Their origdate, date, archivedate, accessdate are all at different locations. Ultra! 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still see plenty of problems: I encourage you to read through the references yourself. I understand about the various dates. Part of the problem is that cite news and cite web format differently (which is stupid, but nevermind) so if you want to use cite news at all, you have to use it consistently for all news sources. Since most of these are weblinks, it might be easier to use cite web throughout. 27, 33 and 55 have no author. 67 has no date. And I think a better way to format the album notes (44 and 102) would be helpful. Geometry guy 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added authors wherever they exist, put date, and album notes need not be cited as video template is already in use. Ultra! 11:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistancy needed i see both US and U.S. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have some major concerns after going through the article today. I found multiple instances where the sources didnt support the claims made in the article or inflated what the source was saying in a sneaky manner. For example one sentance said ".... went to #1 in the charts". However it wasnt the billboard chart but some obscure radio chart. Pros are poor to the extent that certain sections dont make sense. The article isnt neutral but ive improved that today. I even see a source retrieved date that says 1984. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Realist. Can you please tell us which particular citation numbers don't support claims? Majoreditor (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I found I changed myself but I only looked through the career section (where I found 15-20 errors) because thats where I expected to find most of the fan craft. I havent checked the other half of the article though/yet. That would be the lead, early life (pre 1982), legacy, influences and all the personal life sections. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am back to keep on this one. The editor is doing everything possible here. At worst it is a restart. It is certainly not a delist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nit-picking is at a WP:FAC level on many issues. In terms of whether this article is of equal quality to that which we call WP:GA, the answer is yes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nit-picking? If the article doesnt match what the sources say thats a VERY serious issue, its not nit picking. That on top of the other complaints.... — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Madonna/1&oldid=1041056219"