Talk:Courtney Love/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 13:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria..[reply]

It's been nominated over three months, and nobody has picked it up! OK. Let's review it a second time - and hope that this time it makes it! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Passed. Listing as a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. Article is mainly edited by Scottdoesntknow. Gee, a notable topic with over 3,000 daily readers and 360 Wiki-watchers, and so few people are helping out in the editing! Well done Scottdoesntknow for putting in so much work on this article over the past three years. Lets see if we can get it listed this time, eh? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. Article is not in itself too long, and no section is over long, and there is no undue focus on any one aspect. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've made some small adjustments in tone, and brought closer to cites. This is a commendably neutral article. It can be difficult at times to achieve a neutral and factual tone when writing about some musicians. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No original research. Some of the sources could be better chosen, and I'll come onto that a bit later, but I'm not seeing a significant deviation from sources, and almost all material is cited. There are minor issues here and there, but I'm dealing with them as I go along, and I don't see any issues that can't be cleared up. Areas of concern that I haven't yet dealt with I'm marking in the text, and if nobody else deals with it, I will before the review is finished. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is mostly clear and readable. The article could do with a copy-edit, and I will work on that as I go through, but I've not seeing anything significantly bad that would hold up a GA listing. Issues such as the short paragraphing style, particularly in the Solo career, Hole reformation section, are easily dealt with, and I can't see anything at the moment that would seriously hold up a listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Images. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE applies to GA: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text.... Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful." There are a number of similar images of Love which appear to add little to the article. Their relevance needs bringing out more. For example, there is an image of Love in a gold coloured dress at a microphone. The caption mentions the Prunes and Carnegie Hall, and gives a very precise date. A reader would assume that the image relates to something important, but that appearance is not mentioned in the text. Both the caption and the image are therefore misleading. She was influenced by the Prunes, and that is mentioned later, but the image does not appear in that section of the article, and nor do we actually get an image of her with the Prunes. It looks as though the image is there purely for appearance sake. Looking through all the images, it appears as though most are not significant. Of those that are there, I would suggest one lead image (the current one is poor, I'll swap that in a moment for something more appropriate from the same concert), one performing image (the Big Day Out one? it is from an earlier date than the lead image, and a time when Hole were at their peak); and the flyers - though I will comment on that image as well. The flyers image is there under "fair use", but there is no mention of the flyers or the shows in the text. I think it's a great encyclopedia image, but there needs to be some text explaining the flyers and/or the concerts. Aside from the "fair use" rule, a reader would be interested in the flyers and/or concerts and would reasonably expect some information on them to be in the text. My suggestion is to keep the flyers image, and to add content to comply with "fair use". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have some concerns regarding image use (the flyer image in unsupported by textual commentary, and there are four images of Love performing, which seems excessive) but providing the rest of the article meets or is close to criteria, I won't hold up a listing on that point, though would expect it to be addressed as part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://community.sparknotes.com/ a reliable source? The sentence about "oft noted by critics for her unique husky vocals" is cited to this. Can you get a more obviously reliable source for her husky voice? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major aspects. Kurt Cobain. This is up for discussion. For many people Love is strongly linked with Cobain. Indeed, a Google search just for Love's name will throw up Cobain in almost every link. Books about Love will prominently feature Cobain's name. Now, there's the argument that an article on someone should mainly focus on that person, and not the people they knew. However, their's was a famous and notable relationship. The Live Through This tour can only really be understood in relation to the impact Cobain's death had on her. Her subsequent fame can be attributed to her relationship with Cobain. And there have been studies of the working drafts of Nevermind, and Love's own writings, and there is a school of thought that Love was a significant influence on that album musically and lyrically (rather than Coban was an influence on Love as is commonly thought). I think that the article might benefit from a little more attention paid to the relationship between Cobain and Love, both romantic and cultural. And that the relationship should be mentioned in the lead paragraph as per [1], [2], [3], [4], AllMusic, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are now three consecutive paragraphs on Cobain. I think that is satisfactory. As part of ongoing development it can be considered if the relationship with Cobain should appear first in the Personal life section (before Buddhism, etc), or if it indeed should have a section to itself.... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation to reliable sources. There are minor issues here that I've picked up. A statement that needs a closer cite, or some sources that may need improving (why is this given as a source in the lead, for example); however, mostly, the article appears appropriately cited. I will dive deeper into the sourcing, and bring any significant concerns here, but with a bit of tweaking here and there - and I'll see what I can do as I go along, I hope that this criteria will be OK by the end of the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

MoS issues tend to be the ones, along with broad coverage and reliable sourcing, that hold up GA listing. The lead is tricky, In this case I don't think the lead accurately and appropriately sums up the article nor the subject. See WP:Lead for some ideas. Also, we have images that are neither all on side, nor alternating, and I'm wondering how helpful some of those small sub-sections are. These are minor WP:Layout issues. I think other MoS criteria are met. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Sorry for delay. Should be able to start the review this afternoon. Thanks for being patient. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA issue, but mention while doing the review: The external links section has a number of questionable links. By the time an article is GA there should be no point in directing people to MTV, IMDB or AllMusic articles which are not going to provide more information than is already in this article. If such links are still needed because they contain useful information, then this article by default would fail broad coverage. I think that the link to the Hole website is appropriate as Hole is Love's band, and perhaps an argument could be made for her Tumblr blog, and the transcript - though that would be better as a reference link to her discussion on piracy, which could be mentioned in the article. If her comments on piracy are not important enough for the article, then why are they linked at all? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rough Guide, there are several dates given for when Love met Cobain. The article states with certainty that it was 1988 at a Dharma Bums show in Portland. Can this be fixed? Either it was with certainty that date and concert, or there is some genuine discrepancy. Either we need to have all reliable sources giving the same date and concert, or we include the discrepancy. As some sources show a discrepancy, it might be best if we go with that... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

A decent article. Some minor issues to be tidied up - but I see no significant reason why this shouldn't be listed shortly. Queries regarding image use, some copy-editing, building (perhaps restructuring the lead), checking out sources, and perhaps a bit of tidying up on the layout. More specific comments are above. I think this can be dealt with over the next week, and I'm OK with helping out, or even doing all of it, as there's nothing major - except maybe for dealing a bit more with Kurt Cobain. Anyway - standard 7 day hold - but quite happy to extend that. I doubt the article will be failed at this point, and I see it being listed this month. Well done to Scottdoesntknow for the work he's done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is substantially fine now, though a little bit of final work needs doing: Some copyediting to tighten up the various short, choppy paragraphs throughout the article, and some attention paid to the recent material (do we need the surprise solo acoustic set at the Electric Room in New York City, for example), and to "announcements" rather than what is being announced, especially with the focus on the announcement date. In ten years time would readers really want to know the precise date a tour was first announced, or would they rather know about the tour itself? That is, of course, providing the tour itself is notable in ten years time! Worth reading Wikipedia:Recentism for some thoughts on the topic of recent events tending to get more attention in an article. I think also another look at the lead to ensure it is balanced and reflective of the article. Some of my editing today has been hasty and crude, so it's worth looking over it to see where it needs smoothing out. I'll have a final look tomorrow (or maybe even later today), and should then be able to list it. Given the complexity and size of the topic, this article has been well constructed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

There are some areas to pay attention to as part of ongoing development, such as the short paragraphs, but this essentially meets the GA criteria. I think it's a significant achievement to get an article to GA level on a significant and complex living person. Getting an article on a local church in a small town to GA level is quite easy - but an article on someone like Courtney Love takes some work. A fair amount of research, and then organisation of the material - deciding what to put in and what to leave out. And writing it all up in a neutral, factual tone. A solid achievement. Well done to Scottdoesntknow, and also to Mistertruffles, Foetusized, and Tarc who have been working on the article since 2006/2007. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]