Jump to content

Talk:Lauryn Hill/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 11:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Original review by Wasted Time R

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See specific comments below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    If there are two published book-form biographies of Hill, why are they used so rarely as references?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See specific comments below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    I think it is stable, but the Talk page archiving is broken and needs to be fixed.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Specific comments on content:

  • When was she on As the World Turns? If it was before 1993, it should probably be included in the Early life section.
  • When did she help form the Fugees? What year were each of their albums released?
  • What is the Refugee Camp? Either clarify or omit.
Where you mention Tranzlator Crew, it should not be in quotes (band and group names are not quoted). You can also add the Hill and Pras named it that because they wanted to rhyme in different languages (per page 358 of the RS Encyclopedia of R & R that I mentioned earlier). I think that's worth mentioning because it shows that they were intellectually ambitious. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs much more material on Hill with the Fugees. What did she contribute to the group? What instruments did she play? What singing and rapping styles did she use? What were the critical appraisals of her vocal on "Killing Me Softly"? I know there's a separate article on the Fugees, but her article has to has some coverage of that period too. See the FA and GA articles on the four Beatles, for example; each has substantial material on the Beatles period as well as before and after.
Still needs more :-) For example, page 359 of the RS Encyclopedia of R & R can be used as a source that Hill's vocal line on "Killing Me Softly" was evocative, and that the track was pervasive on pop, R & B, hip-hop, and adult contemporary radio formats. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I thought the Wikipedia page on this would illuminate its impact further, but it was quite dry. I'll include the stuff from the R&R book and have a look through some journals, as the internet doesn't seem to be helpful for it (perhaps reflective of "Killing Me Softly" pre-dating the Internet age and her being out of the public eye). —JennKR | ☎ 19:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know many Wikipedia articles on popular culture figures have "Personal life" sections, but they aren't optimal. People do not live neatly compartmentalized lives with professional over there and personal over here. This is especially true in the case of Hill, where her art and her personal life and attitudes have always been closely intertwined. You should move the material out of "Personal life" and merge it into the biographical narrative in the appropriate places. As it stands now, her relationships and children are sometimes mentioned in one place and sometimes in the other, it's very jumbled.
  • Regarding the "a caller on The Howard Stern Show ..." remark business, the article should not repeat a quote that Hill never said (as also confirmed by this Snopes page). That just risks perpetuating a false rumor. Instead, the article should say something like, "In 1996, in response to a false rumor that Hill had made a racist statement on MTV, MTV issued a statement saying no such statement had been made, and Hill herself ..."
  • A good thing to add regarding the critical assessment of Miseducation of Lauryn Hill is that it finished second in the Pazz & Jop poll for 1998 and that "That Thing" also finished second as a single. See here. Pazz & Jop was sort of the MetaCritic of its time and it is useful to include an aggregation result like this. It's not the only data point, of course, and I'm not trying to undermine the point that Miseducation was the most acclaimed album of that year.
  • What about Miseducation did everyone like so much? What innovations did it present? What artistic qualities did Hill show on it? What singing and rapping styles did she use? There needs to be more about her art here, not just the chart positions and awards it got.

Specific comments on style:

  • There are several places where you put links inside quotes. This is generally not a good idea, see WP:LINKSTYLE. In most cases, you don't need the link anyway because they are common English words, such as "segregation" and "demonic". In other cases, such as with a link to Prince, paraphrase the material rather than quote or rework it such that the link is outside the quote.
Some of these are still present - search for "segregation", "scat", "toilet paper". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article sometimes use "number 36" for chart positions and sometimes "no. 36". It should be consistent and "number" is better.
  • You have different forms for money amounts, including "$5 million", "US$ 25 million", and "$ 1.8m". The first of these is correct for an article like this and the others should be changed.
  • You are using emdashes for the year ranges in the section headers; those should be endashes.
It looks like you replaced these with the "-" character on the keyboard, which is also not right. You need the endash, which is the "–" character from the "Insert" list (depending upon what editing interface you are using). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later, but I wanted to get the review started. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on content:

  • Something describing the surroundings of her upbringing needs to be added to the Early life section. The article says she was born and raised in South Orange, but in the 2000 Academy of Achievement interview, which you are already using as a cite, she says she was born in East Orange, then moved to Newark and New York briefly, then moved to South Orange. Which is it? Also it should be made clear that she has a middle-class (see the Touré RS piece), suburban background.
  • Something describing her musical influences also needs to be added to that section. The 2001 third edition of The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, page 358, says she listened a lot to Curtis Mayfield, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, and Gladys Knight. The Academy of Achievement interview says instead of listening to radio acts like New Edition while growing up, she listened to past artists like Shep and the Limelites and Gladys Knight and the Pips. That's significant. Also, she points to hearing Songs in the Key of Life early on and to listening to What's Going On over and over until she fell sleep. (That last one is no surprise to me - Miseducation has a groove and overall feel that harkens back to What's Going On.)

More comments on style:

  • I don't think you need to include the publisher on cites for things like Allmusic and Billboard and Rolling Stone. I know a few editors do it, but Template:Cite_news#Publisher does not require it, and doing so adds more clutter than value for the reader. The reputation of these publications is based upon their editorial content and processes, not their corporate ownership. And that ownership frequently changes - a Billboard story from 1998 has a different corporate publisher than from 2010, and I think Allmusic has changed owners too. Same for Huffington Post - they weren't always owned by AOL. It's better just to omit this. The interested reader can always click through to find the corporate ownership of a source if it's something they care about.
  • You've got some inconsistent cite formatting. Many footnotes are to MTV, usually in italics - they should generally be changed to MTV News (which has a separate article) and since it's a broadcaster, it should not be italicized. Fn 29 doesn't link Los Angeles Times, when the other uses of it do. In Fn 76, BBC News is a broadcaster and should not be italicized. Fn 42 is a bare url. In Fn 5, Academy of Achievement should be linked and the url should be this one, which presents the whole interview on one page. Also look for authors who can be added and linked, such as Christopher John Farley in Fn 6 and Touré in Fn 3.

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I spotted at the end:

  • Instead of saying "Hill will report to prison on ..." say "Hill is scheduled to report to prison on ..." That way you're not predicting the future.
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow speed of this review, I have been reading through a lot of the sources and I will keep at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the stumbling blocks I'm having with this article revolves around quotations, both unattributed and otherwise. In many cases you should clarify attributions or even better just remove quotations and paraphrase instead. Some examples (with your text, followed by my comments in brackets):

  • In an interview with the Academy of Achievement, she recalls putting on the record player her grandmother gave her to fall asleep to Marvin Gaye's What's Going On. [This is jarring to the reader. Instead of thinking about Marvin Gaye, they are wondering what on earth the Academy of Achievement is. And where did the grandmother come from? How about just saying something like: Years later she recalled playing Marvin Gaye's What's Going On repeatedly until she fell asleep to it.]
 Done
  • Hill's cover of "Killing Me Softly" were considered by Rolling Stone as the song that "propelled its second album to multi-platinum status" [That "Killing Me Softly" was the breakout hit of The Score is a matter of fact, not opinion. You can just state it that way, and cite it accordingly.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patricia Romanowski found that Hill's vocal line on the track was "evocative" and pervasive pop, R&B, hip-hop, and adult contemporary radio formats. [Again, that "Killing Me Softly" was pervasive on four different radio formats is a matter of fact, not opinion, and can be stated as such and cited. As for "evocative", it's okay to attribute that, but it should be to the book title, as Romanowski was just the editor and did not necessarily write that entry.]
 Partly done Is it okay to attribute the 4 radio formats to the R&R Encyclopedia? —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Hill spoke of pressure from her label to do the Prince "thing", wherein all tracks would be credited as "written and produced by" the artist with little outside help. [None of these quotes are necessary. Can be rephrased as: However, Hill spoke of pressure from her label to emulate Prince, wherein all tracks would be credited as written and produced by the artist with little outside help.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hill began touring, although to mixed reviews; often arriving late to concerts (sometimes by over two hours) and reconfiguring her well-known hits into "unrecognizable scat chants" while "sporting frizzy orange hair and exaggerated makeup". [Who is saying these things? Unclear, so just paraphrase.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 2007, Sony Records said though Hill has "consistently recorded over the past decade" and has what amounts to "a library of unreleased material in the vault", she had recently re-entered the studio "with the goal of making a new LP." [The switch back and forth between text and quotation is jarring and leads to some tense problems. Why not just: In June 2007, Sony Records said Hill had been recording through the past decade, had accumulated considerable unreleased material, and had re-entered the studio with the goal of making a new album.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reports in mid-2008 claimed that Columbia Records then believed Hill to be "on hiatus" [Is the quote being said by Columbia Records or by the unnamed reporter? Just drop the quote marks and this is okay.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her concert was canceled "for personal reasons" [Who said this, the concert promoters or Hill?]
 Done (I've removed the line as the article doesn't exist and instead redirects to the tour's homepage). —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 4, 2013, Hill was "required" to release her first official single in over a decade titled "Neurotic Society (Compulsory Mix)" on iTunes. [Who required her? iTunes? This is really unclear.]
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding the acting material. In general, the chronology can be improved here by better intertwining acting performances with the various stages of her musical stardom, and each role should have a little more description.

  • Thus, the appearance in Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit should come before the Fugees material. It needs a little more description of what her role is - it's not just singing. Also, did she really rise to national prominence as the result of it? That needs more sourcing than just Roger Ebert praising her. And another review of her performance would be useful, especially since it's her best-known role.
 Done (Difficult to find a second review, although I'll keep looking). —JennKR | ☎ 21:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • King of the Hill can also go before the Fugees material, and you should add that she has a small but recurring role as a gum-popping elevator operator. This book on Steven Soderbergh can be used as a source for the effectiveness of her performance.
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hav Plenty is a cameo appearance done after her Fugees stardom, so it should go after the Fugees material.
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 21:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Restaurant, should go after Fugees material. (It looks like it was filmed before Miseducation and toured film festivals, then saw general release later.) This NYT piece says her role is small but important and this EW review has a positive treatment of her performance.
 Done —JennKR | ☎ 22:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we come to her turning down roles in Charlie's Angels, The Bourne Identity, The Mexican, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. But all of these were after her Miseducation fame, not after her Fugees period. Thus these should be relocated to later in the article. Also, it would be nice to have some understanding of why she turned them down, and why in general she decided to abandon acting.
 Partly done Moved; I'm looking for an article to see if she commented on why. —JennKR | ☎ 22:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in a few places, the existing material needs to be reorganized to be more chronological. That way it's easier to understand her motivations at any given time. In particular:

  • The formation of Tranzlator Crew should be moved into the Early life section, since she was (13 or a freshman or a sophomore, sources all say something slightly different) when that took place.
  • In addition to the acting roles being moved as above, I believe Club XII also took place during high school.
  • The years of birth of her children should be given, and mention of them being born should be spread out in the article in the appropriate places in the chronology. (The lead already says how many children she has, so readers won't lose the big picture).
  • The New Ark suit should be moved to after all the material about Miseducation being a huge hit (nobody ever sues over credit for failures).
  • We should mention when her tax legal case began, not just when it concluded, since that must have had an effect on whatever else she might be doing at the time.

More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I went ahead and made the last set of changes myself. And by now I've made a lot of other substantial additions and revisions to the article, going back over some key sources that had not been used, or fully used, up to this point. And while GA reviewers are encouraged to address issues directly themselves, at this point I've done so many that I would be in the position of reviewing my own work for several sections of the article. Therefore, I've requested at the GAN page that a second reviewer come in and take over and complete the review. Either of us can respond to whatever points that reviewer brings up. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! —JennKR | ☎ 01:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion by WikiRedactor

[edit]

It's unfortunate that you've had to wait so long to complete this review. I'm happy to provide input and help continue the process. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*A couple shady external links to correct.

I've corrected all of these, such that now the checklinks run is completely clean. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm seeing lots of informal language throughout the prose, some of which I've gone back to fix. I'll leave most of it for the nominator to correct, because I don't want to run the issue of needing another second opinion.

I'm okay with your edits, although most of them look like word order improvements rather than increases in formality. Don't worry, these kind of edits won't put us in danger of needing another reviewer, they are the kind that reviewers are expected to make. The one edit I disagree with is collapsing the first two paragraphs of the lead. I know many articles jump right into the biographical story in the first paragraph, but I think per MOS:BEGIN – "The first paragraph should define the topic ... but without being overly specific." – the first paragraph should be kept short, and give the really impatient reader a quick take-away of the subject. FA/GA articles that are structured this way include The Beatles, John Lennon, Max Weinberg, Ali Hewson, Mitt Romney, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
That's fine, I went ahead and made a few more edits, that should do it!

*I'm a fan of flatlists, and I suggest that you apply them for the fields in the infobox.

Now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm not seeing the need to quote the opening line of the track in the Miseducation section.

That's because it's so telling and prescient. She wrote it about Wyclef and the Fugees breakup, but of course it also applies to the New Ark lawsuit, which started the chain reaction that led to her own life going downhill. And of course if it weren't for the complications that money brings, she wouldn't be sitting in prison right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Good points, I guess it doesn't hurt to leave it.

*Speaking of Miseducation, this section seems unnecessarily lengthy. A lot of this is due to specific information regarding the album, which I would recommend relocating into its article.

I've taken out where the songs were written and how the classroom interludes were made and trimmed down the pregnancy ending writer's block material (all of these are already in the album article). But I think the rest is all relevant to her overall biographical narrative. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Instead of "Self-imposed exile", how about something like "Personal struggles"? I think it makes more sense given the information in the article.

The trouble with "Personal struggles" is that that phrase would apply to other sections as well. And everyone deals with personal struggles all the time, in one sense or another. "Self-imposed exile" is more descriptive and is directly supported by the text and sources in the second and third paragraphs of the section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I see where you're coming from, I suppose the heading works fine.
  • How about "Current endeavors" instead of "Further activities"?
"Current" is redundant from the "2010–present" part of the header. (Not to mention that her literally current endeavors are to do whatever the prison authorities tell her to do.) I agree that "Further activities" is kind of vague. This time period really just saw more sporadic touring and recording, but that title was already used in the previous section. I'm open to other suggestions ... Wasted Time R (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'll certainly let you know if anything comes to mind.

*I recommend listing her filmography in a wikitable.

 Done Thanks. —JennKR | ☎ 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*I've noticed that several of the references do not list publishers, I would like to see that added.

Not sure what you mean – I looked them all over and every one has a publisher (newspaper name, magazine name, website name, etc). Maybe if you point out a couple of examples I'll understand what you are looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
For example, some of the references provided were written by Billboard, while the magazine itself is published by Prometheus Global Media. Same with Allmusic and it being published by Rovi Corporation, The Village Voice by Voice Media Group, etc. I'd recommend you do a little research and find the publishers of other sources and add those into the citations.
I know some editors do this, but it is not required. WP:CITEHOW does not include parent company in its list of this to include for journal, newspaper, or webpage cites. Template:Cite_news#Publisher and Template:Cite_web#Publisher both say "Not normally included for periodicals." And I've never seen the usefulness of it. For starters, the owners you list aren't always the appropriate ones, in the sense that Prometheus Global Media only exists from 2009 on, Rovi only owns Allmusic from 2007 on, and The Village Voice has had at least three different owners in recent years. This article uses these sources going back to the mid-1990s, where there were previous owners. For each cite of these publications, we would have to go back in time and figure out who the corporate owner was at the time. And for Allmusic in particular this would be difficult, because we would have to estimate from context when the entry was written. But none of this really matters. The reputation of Billboard relies upon the quality and fact-checking and fairness exercised by that magazine's writers and editors, and not upon who the magazine's corporate owners are. The same goes for other newspapers, magazines, and websites. And readers can always click through on the wikilink for the newspaper/magazine/website to find out more about it including its corporate history. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also questioned the usefulness of providing publishers, it seems like overkill. But I've just went with it because it seems to be a common thing to include. But anyways, if they aren't required, then it shouldn't be an issue that they're not included here.

From the original review, I'm seeing that the referencing was strong, so I'll trust that the sourcing is alright. I'm liking the revised structure (headings, etc.) of the article, which I think gives a better flow than a separating material into a "Personal life" section. I'm not seeing any glaring issues that would prevent the article from being promoted, and after the comments I've noted above have been addressed, I think we should be in good shape. Of course, though, the final decision is to be left to the original reviewer.

Thanks very much for taking this on. And the wait is no problem – GA nominators learn to be patient ... But just to be clear, you are going to need to make the final decision. I continued to make major, content-based changes/additions to the article even after I posted the 'new reviewer needed' notice. By now, I should be considered a co-nominator, not a reviewer. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all the issues raised in both reviews have been corrected/addressed. It would be silly to hold up the review because we can't think of another heading to use instead of "Further activities", so with all the other improvements, I feel comfortable promoting the article to GA. Good work you guys! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauryn_Hill/GA1&oldid=568246705"