Talk:Cher/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in the lead (Billboard), Bob Dylan (second link in the sixth subsection; third paragraph). Georgia Holt (eleventh subsection; last paragraph), power ballad, disco, and hip hop (artistry), Jennifer Lopez and Janis Joplin (public image), Chaz Bono (philanthropy), Madonna (legacy and influence), Audrey Hepburn (achievements and recognition)
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she only won an Academy Award once, why bring it up twice?
- The Academy Award is cited during the third paragraph (... Moonstruck (1987), for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress) because it was a high point in her career, and again in the fourth paragraph, during the "honors" sentence, for obvious reasons. In this specific case, I think the double mention is needed - it would feel awkward not to have her Academy Award listed in a sentence about honors she has received, as it would feel awkward not to mention her Oscar win when talking about her film career breakthrough during the 1980s. I know my English is not that good, but I hope I'm being clear. :-P Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually talking about in the lead. – jona ✉ 00:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! The lead is structured by one paragraph introducing who Cher is, two paragraphs listing the highlights in her career, and a final paragraph listing her accomplishments. The Oscar is mentioned twice in the lead, firstly as a high point in her career, and then as one of the honors/awards she has won. That's why I think the double mention is fine in this case. Sorry for not being able to address all the points you've made yet. I'm a little busy these days, but of course I'll do my best to reply to your comments and make the changes in the article as soon as I can! Lordelliott (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article at hand, if you repeat an honor or accomplishment then it fails to be a summary and would read as fan cruft or point of view of the subject that the writer wants the reader to know. – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I take your point! Which occurrence do you think should be removed: the one on the third or the one on the fourth paragraph? Lordelliott (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If her winning an Academy Award was a highlight of her career (even though all honors are) then the first mentioned is fine, the second mention (the list) doesn't fit and adds to its more list-like than prose approach. At this moment, you seem to know more about Cher than I do; so what would best fit the lead to help an uninformed reader?

Done Removed the second mention. Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment in the first paragraph in the early life subsection is redundant, you already mentioned how Cher's mother had another daughter with a different man, pointless to add that Georganne Southall is Cher's half-sibling.
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to tell readers that Georganne Southall is Cher's half-sibling again (fourth paragraph of the first subsection)
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"being the first young woman in her social circle to do so." - irrelevant undue weight, the fact that you specified her choice of clothing at a young age and her behavior during lunch breaks is fine.
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already mentioned who is Connie Berman and Mark Bego, why continue telling readers of their occupation and first names? (second subsection; first paragraph, fourth subsection; first paragraph, fifth subsection; second paragraph and third paragraph, sixth subsection; third paragraph, seventh subsection; last paragraph, ninth subsection; first paragraph, legacy and influence)
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the redundant "so he" in the second subsection; second paragraph
- Done "so he" -> "he" Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should specify that the album All I Really Want to Do was Cher's debut album, seeing as she had recorded and released the song which is a cover version of Bob Dylan.
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either link RIAA certification or explain what a gold record (and platinum) is, since countless countries have the same certification with different measures of units.
- Do you think the RIAA certification link or the explanation should be included in every mention of a gold/platinum record or only in the first occurrence? Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to link nor explain each occurrence, because many countries have different measurements of units of what a gold and platinum record is, it would be best to either explained (when first read) or link to the article for further understanding. – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lordelliott (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional is an MOS:OPED word and should be removed (tenth subsection; first paragraph) as well as the WP:PEACOCK word famous (public image; also if the image was famous, elaborate on it, you only said it was famous which sounds fan-ish since you didn't specify what made it so.)
- Done The word "emotional" was removed. As for the word "famous", I found a source which details how the photo caused an uproar on media (Cher: Strong Enough, by Josiah Howard - pp. 125-126). But after reading that, I think the right word would be "controversial", not "famous". The sentence already states that the gown is "nude", which pretty much explains how it was controversial, but we can add details from the book if you think it is necessary. Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Closer to the Truth is her highest peak to date, then remove the mention that Living Proof was her highest.
- Done Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is well-written and I applaud your work on this very important person. Once these issues have been fixed, I'll re-read the article once more before passing. Great job – jona ✉ 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! That means a lot to me considering that I'm not a native English speaker (as you can see) and that the only place I practice is Wikipedia. Thank you for the compliment. Look forward for you comments! :-) Lordelliott (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was amazed at the writing so kudos to you. Also, you seem to be engaging in an edit war with other users, I won't be able to pass (once my comments have been addressed) if the article continues to be changed often. Either have a discussion on the talk page with said users or file a complaint over at WP:AN/3. Best – jona ✉ 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been solved already. I'm certain it won't be a problem anymore. Thank you again! Lordelliott (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am now passing this article after my comments were addressed. Congrats on your great work, hope to see more from you in the future. – jona ✉ 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]