Talk:Deborah Anderson

Discussion of notability

I have worked on the article, expanding the content and additing citations, to address notability concerns. I consequently have now removed the notability warnings and the prod tag. Deborah Anderson was the featured vocalist on a single that charted in the UK (WP:MUSIC notability criterion #2), as well as on multiple projects released on major labels (which I think, in itself, represents some case under WP:MUSIC #5). Her other work has garnered her some press coverage, which represents a case under general WP:GNG criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work; it's definitely a significant improvement! However I still don't think notability is proven. Even as a named artist, having one apparently non-notable single reach #26 is not sufficient to show notability. I looked at the references provided, and none appears to have "significant coverage" of Deborah Anderson herself. Only one has more than a brief mention of her and her work, which is solely about her book Paperthin; if notability can be shown for that book, perhaps this bio could go under the book? Are theinsider.com and Boutique Design reliable sources? --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick initial response... WP:MUSIC criterion #2 requires a release that has made a national chart. A single reaching #26 satisfies that; that's how I've generally seen that criterion interpreted. The complication here would be that the single was "Alex Reece Featuring Deborah Anderson" rather than "Deborah Anderson". It seems odd to me to suggest having an article on Paperthin which then includes a bio section. Given her other activity, retaining the article on Deborah Anderson and covering Paperthin seems neater; and a Paperthin article can be created re-directing here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm "charted" is a little ambiguous but I think you're right, she definitely qualifies under criterion #2. It seems to me to be a crazy criterion, but here's not the place to argue about that. Sorry about the discussion, I find the music notability criteria difficult to apply. I will remove the tag. --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you that the WP:MUSIC criteria have their oddities! Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I think with the improved version of the page after my research project, we have satisfied any lingering notability concerns that may have existed 10 years ago, plus the notable work that Deborah Anderson has done in the last 10 years or so. DIFF. Thanks for your help, Right cite (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent expansion of lede

A lede should introduce the subject, highlighting notability. The recent expansion here follows the same pattern discussed at Talk:Alexis_Texas#Expansion_of_lede_(and_recent_expansion_in_general) and User_talk:Armadillopteryx#MOS:LEAD.

The name dropping should be replaced with short summaries that make it clear why the various works are important. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx, Dimadick, and Bondegezou: The lede was tagged by Dimadick (talk · contribs) as too short DIFF. I expanded it following input from Armadillopteryx about MOS:LEAD. Right cite (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the expansion is a definite improvement so far. I see a few things that could be improved still:

Details like her parents' names, other people featured in the photo book, and the cast list from her film are superfluous in the lead. Paring it down a bit and replacing this info with more notability-focused details would help. For example, keep the fact that she got her career start working with her father, but remove his name. You could state that "Feel the Sunshine" was her first song that charted, but avoid vague, WP:PEACOCKy language like "saw success". Concrete details like charting are always more encyclopedic and lead-worthy than complimentary language that isn't specific. I would also recommend keeping the mention of Room 23 and Aroused, but rather than list all the famous people who are in them, just describe the works: What are they about (very briefly)? How was the critical reception? Did they spawn any derivative works?

In short, the lead should focus on Anderson, what she has done, and the way her work has been received. Instead of using laudatory language, use facts to demonstrate success, popularity, appreciation, etc. Armadillopteryx 21:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you. I've incorporated your direct suggestions, DIFF. Let me know if that's an improvement, Right cite (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, we have more of the same, a slow and steady reduction of the lead for spurious "detracts from notability" which makes no sense as an argument, until we get the lede pared down to a two-sentence-long leade that violates MOS:LEAD, see DIFF. thoughts? Right cite (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'll wait for you to hear back before doing anything further with regards to this user's gradual reduction of the lede to yet another two-sentence-long-lead. see DIFF, again. whittling it down to eventually 2 sentences. thoughts? Right cite (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop with the assumptions of what might be done in the future, do not misrepresent others, and reread the advice already here on this talk page.

Re: She later worked as a vocalist for DJ Krush, DJ Shadow, and Zero 7. I'll simply quote my edit summary not sure how noteworthy that is - seems UNDUE and detracts from notability So how is it noteworthy? Is it part of her notability?

Re: Aroused was released in the U.S. in 2013, and internationally in 2014. I say we follow the advice above and focus on Anderson.

As far as her photography, I'm not sure how much emphasis it should be given. Perhaps just a sentence. Can someone identify high-quality references that demonstrate it is due in the lede?

As for the books, rather than list all the famous people who are in them, just describe the work. The name dropping should be replaced with short summaries that make it clear why the various works are important. --Hipal (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, most interested in your input re practice of reduction of lead to two-sentence-long-lead-intro-section, is that appropriate? Is it okay to use MOS:LEAD as guidance? Per MOS:LEAD, should the lede be able to function on its own as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents? Right cite (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I quoted Armadillopteryx's advice for you, which paralleled mine. What's the problem?

MOSLEAD is a guideline. Focus on policy first: BLP requires high-quality sources and strict adherence to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, what do you think, of course we should always follow site policies, but should we ignore MOS:LEAD? Should we trim article introductions down to two-sentence-long leads? Right cite (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming someone wants to ignore MOSLEAD. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, what do you think, is it acceptable for articles to be reduced to a two-sentence-long-lead? Right cite (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. --Hipal (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that a (non-stub) article should have a two-sentence lead—but I don't think Hipal does, either. Even after the editing back-and-forth that recently went on in the lead here, it's still two full, reasonably concise paragraphs, which is about right for an article of this length (per MOS:LEADLENGTH). I don't interpret Hipal's edits as trying to simply cut things out to shorten the lead; it seems they removed a couple small bits of information that they felt weren't WP:DUE. And WP:DUE, like most WP guidelines, is a little subjective. Personally, I may not have removed this whole sentence outright, but I would have probably rewritten it to focus more on the subject and less on one-time associates. For example, I might say something like, She has also contributed vocals to a number of collaborative works with other recording artists. Other editors might think that smaller works that don't define the subject's career should be left out entirely. I tend to take that approach if the person in question is very prolific or has had a long career; otherwise, I generally give a broad, single-sentence mention to collections of smaller works.

Here, I would probably also say that giving a whole sentence to release years is undue, but I wouldn't scrap the info altogether: I'd rewrite the previous sentence to read something like: In 2013, Anderson made her directorial debut with Aroused, a documentary film following the lives of 16 adult film actresses. The names of the actresses aren't important enough to mention in the lead about the director's life, but a brief description of the film, its release year, and why it was important to her career is. The info about its subsequent release on a different continent is less important than the initial release, so that part can be left in the body.

The TL;DR is that no two people would write the lead exactly the same way, so it can really help to calmly discuss the inclusion or exclusion of specific pieces of information on the talk page. Armadillopteryx 02:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Anderson's work on Aroused received a generally positive reception from the Chicago Tribune, Screen Daily, and BroadwayWorld, and more critical reviews from the Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Washington Post. Again, this is name-dropping, just of a different sort. --Hipal (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, you said, above, "How was the critical reception?", so I put some critical reception into the lede, per your suggestion. Right cite (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that a summary of the content of the critical reception is due here. I don't think that the names of the publications that post reviews matter much for the lead, though. I would include those names only if the publication were very prestigious and giving an award, such as the Time 100 list. I would keep the info about critical reception but phrase it like: Aroused was generally well received by critics, who note the film for [pick like one or two of the main comments it got]. Focus should be on the subject and her work, not on affiliated artists/publications/etc. Armadillopteryx 02:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I completely agree with you, and I thank you for the helpful feedback. I agree that a summary of the content of the critical reception is due. I agree that the solution is not simply to remove altogether, but to helpfully make specific suggestions on how to swap or tweak, so the lede is left as a summary of the article. Good behavior that you are modeling for us all. Right cite (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Example

I don't know if this would be helpful, but when I wrote Club Cumming, I had to consider many of the same things we're talking about here when I formulated the lead. The article is about a club. It is frequented by many celebrities, a bunch of whom are mentioned by name in the body. But in the lead, I just say: Celebrities, especially Broadway actors, often make pop-up appearances there. I cite half a dozen publications in the Reception section, but in lead, I say: Club Cumming has generally been well received by critics, who cite the venue's eclectic entertainment repertoire, its inclusivity and the spontaneity of its atmosphere. Can you see how these sentences keep the focus on the article subject without omitting any major points from the body? Armadillopteryx 02:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, thank you very very much. The difference is you are making positive suggestions for changes, instead of just removing things altogether with zero suggestions for improvements. Therefore, I have directly implemented all of your helpful suggestions that are specific [1] [2] [3]. I hope you can understand it is frustrating to have the intro section simply be wholesale removed to one or two sentences with no suggestions on how to then expand it again to satisfy MOS:LEAD. Does it look better, now, after I directly implemented your helpful suggestions? Right cite (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

instead of just removing things altogether with zero suggestions for improvements You need to stop it with these clearly false accusations, or get far away from articles where these behavioral violations are covered by Arbitration Enforcement. --Hipal (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArmadillopteryxRather than wholesale removal of all names from the lead DIFF, can we keep a select few as examples? Perhaps three or four for each example? Right cite (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Anything that is clearly part of her notability should be in the lede.

Anything that is clearly a noteworthy part of her life should probably be in the lede.

The solution is to find references that meet WP:BIO or other relevant notability criteria, as well as other high-quality references that cover her with depth and in historical or similar context. Those references should provide the structure for the entire article, which should be summarized in the lede.

We want to convey why she is noteworthy, and build upon that. --Hipal (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx The lead as it stands right now, again, is woefully too short. I love all of your specific and direct suggestions so far for modifications and additions. I have implemented all of your suggestions, perhaps you could suggest another recommendation, for how we can expand the lede, with the most appropriate info? Right cite (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Though the discussion on this talk page has been a little heated, it seems to have produced a lead that is starting to look really good. The length as of the current revision looks about right to me. The article only contains 957 words of prose (I used the DYKcheck tool to count). And the lead is 162 words, which is about 162/957≈17% of the total article length. I think this is appropriate, since the lead is supposed to be a concise summary, not a detailed reiteration of the body. It also conforms to MOS:LEADLENGTH, which says that an article of this size (6029 characters, also from DYKcheck) should have a one- to two-paragraph lead. The lead before you started editing it had only one sentence; it has been expanded a lot, even if a few details from its longest form have been removed. Armadillopteryx 11:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "in various magazines", I'd go with "in Cosmopolitan, Vogue and other magazines". That gives a flavour of what sort of magazines she's worked for. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Like. Armadillopteryx 11:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou and Armadillopteryx:thank you for the specific suggestions on how to improve the article. Done. DIFF. I agree with your input. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

External links

Because of the serious problem on Wikipedia of editors adding external links for promotional purposes, the burden for inclusion of external links in an article rests on those seeking inclusion.

One official link is usually sufficient for an external links section per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." Right cite (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the paragraph prior to what you quoted.

Are you going to attempt to make a case for inclusion of something? --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nah, the ones there are fine. Right cite (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

See Also section

See MOS:SEEALSO. A See Also section should include only links not already in the article. I think this applies to links in templates as well, though I don't recall seeing discussion on this.

It appears the See Also section was created to create a full list of works, redundant with {{Jon Anderson}}. --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, with DIFF. Right cite (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)