Talk:Miley Cyrus/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this review. Given the huge scope of this article I will leave down some initial comments within 48 hours. I mainly focus on copy editing issues. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
It is well referenced.

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

Everything is good here, the lead definitely complies per the GA criteria and WP:LEAD.
There are citations in the lead but this can be accepted as it is referencing awards.

Life and career

"Billy Ray adopted Trace and Brandi, Tish's young son and daughter from a previous relationship" - I know the name 'Tish' is mentioned a lot in this whole section but does it have to be there and is it her mother's real name? I was just asking? Done - I replaced "Tish" with "Cyrus's mother". Didn't remove the parts of her in the section because it seems like she made important career decisions for Miley LADY LOTUS • TALK
"The song also had success in countries such as the UK and Ireland" - it would be best if these were linked appropriately as United Kingdom and Ireland Done
"The second and final single "Who Owns My Heart" was released in select European countries." - why was this? And what countries were they if the information is there?

Artistry

"In their review of the first Hannah Montana soundtrack, The Star Scoop described the songs" - this doesn't explain what The Star Scoop is to reader unfamiliar with this. Done Removed as it is not a notable company so doesn't make sense to have it in the article
"Cyrus is a contralto, and with a "Nashville twang" in both her speech and singing voice" - what does Nashville twang mean? Done - Comment I added a wiki link to 'twang' so users can see what 'twang' means, so maybe done? I can explain further if need be LADY LOTUS • TALK

Public image

"On November 10, 2013, while accepting the Best Video award at the 2013 MTV Europe Music Awards, Cyrus smoked what appeared to be a joint (cannabis cigarette) " - assuming that the reader already knows what a joint is, there would be no need to explain it in brackets ('joint' is already linked!) Done Removed the redundant "(cannabis cigarette)"

References

I just want to say that the references have definitely improved since the last GA review. I have checked all of them and there is not one dead link and all of the references are in the correct place. The citations in this article are appropriate and meets the GA criteria. Well done!

Comment Thanks, I worked hard to replace all the dead links, making sure all the references were up to par LADY LOTUS • TALK

But not all of the references are reliable. In what world is this a reliable source? A fansite? Seriously? This as well. I'm sure there are a lot more as well, but those are the ones I noticed immediately while skimming the references section. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is also missing formatting. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an inconsistency between publishers. "MTV News. Viacom." vs "MTV.com", "Forbes" vs "Forbes.com". — Status (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add on Status' comment on inconsistencies, there's also "latimes.com" and Los Angeles Times when it should be Los Angeles Times, "usatoday.com" and USA Today when it should just be USA Today. The Kimberly Dillon Summers biography ref should either have its ISBN value field verified or removed so it doesn't display the "check ISBN value" notice.

As for other references, there are numerous citations that need to be replaced/removed. For starters, WP:RSN has repeatedly declared Daily Mail (aka "Mail Online") unreliable and has also indicated that PopCrush has no evidence if credibility or viable credentials. Perez Hilton is a gossip blogger who is notoriously unreliable, and IMDb cannot be used. "Celebrity Cafe", "Hollywood Life", and New York Daily News are questionable at best. Blogs should not be used (there is a blog.musuc.aol ref), and there's a dead link to Washington Post that cannot be used. I also would strongly recommend replacing the references to Huffington Post and People as they often have poor support for claims (i.e. having quotes followed by things like "sources say" or "according to a source" without providing the names of these "sources"- the claims would have more credibility if they at least provide the names of those "sources") and/or are biased (i.e. when reporting that a celebrity couple has ended their relationship, will often write in favor of one celeb over the other). Huffington Post has also often been criticized for making fraudulent claims in things like politics, science, and medicine. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments XXSNUGGUMSXX. ~~I would recommend that the reviewer fail this article on the basis of the horrible references used.~~ — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and additions to this review. This GAR is still on hold, I think that if these referencing issues can be addressed within five days then this article would have a good chance of passing the review. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or he can just keep it on hold and the "horrible" references can be fixed. Let's not be hasty. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely :) Don't worry, this can stay on hold until those references can be fixed. Seven days is just the usual approximation for GA reviews, if you need more time just let me know. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they can be replaced in time, too. Feel free to ask about certain sources if you aren't sure about their credibility. As for other reference fixes, ref (#190) should be filled in, and the ref#139 ref (#139) should read Entertainment Weekly rather than "Watching-tv.ew.com". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I fixed the latimes.com vs The Los Angeles Times, and the mtv.com vs MTV News. I also replaced a lot of unreliable sources and replaced the dead Washington Post link. Any more changes please let me know :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: the title field in ref#139 shouldn't have the "Ken Tucker's TV | EW.com" bits. ref#150 should read International Business Times rather than "Ibtimes.com". Replace or remove all references to Huffington Post, People, Daily Mail (Mail Online), and New York Daily News with more reliable sources. Ref#190 shouldn't just be <ref>http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/marc-and-miley-7344293</ref> as that is simply a bare URL. Its text should look like one of these:

<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/marc-and-miley-7344293|accessdate=April 5, 2014|date=January 9, 2014|title=Marc Jacobs Taps Miley Cyrus for Spring Campaign|first=Marc|last=Karimzadeh|newspaper=Women's Wear Daily}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/marc-and-miley-7344293|accessdate=April 5, 2014|date=January 9, 2014|title=Marc Jacobs Taps Miley Cyrus for Spring Campaign|first=Marc|last=Karimzadeh|journal=Women's Wear Daily}}</ref>

Note: I've removed info on tattoos not only because those had poor sourcing but also because it was rather trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the bit about the tattoos mainly because Angelina Jolie has it on hers, since Cyrus and Jolie have many, and hers is a featured article.

Also, I wasn't aware that The Huffington Post and The New York Daily News weren't reliable sources? People and Daily Mail yes, but I see Huffington used everywhere. Is there a discussion about it somewhere saying it's not? Just curious.

But I will get on those references, thank you, and thank you for your willingness to help. It's very much appreciated :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. As for Huffington and NY Daily News, they are also respectively a blog and a tabloid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the Daily Mail has a reputation for often being bias and always intent on harming some celebrities' reputation. Maybe some articles on Mail Online would be appropriate to use as the newspaper itself is a broadsheet... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, I think you just contradicted yourself. Mail Online = Daily Mail, Daily Mail is a tabloid, tabloid = unreliable. As I previously stated, WP:RSN has repeatedly declared Daily Mail (which is the same thing as Mail Online) unreliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk)

I had no idea why I said broadsheet! Wow I must be going crazy as I knew it was a tabloid... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, People, Huffington Post and New York Daily News references are all removed or replaced. Also adjusted more ibtimes.com to International Business Times, ew.com to Entertainment Weekly. Any more that you guys can find? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six more that need replacement/removal- About.com (per WP:RSN) (ref#193, ref#194, and ref#207), NY Post (tabloid) (ref#247), Us Weekly (like People, is a gossip magazine that is often poorly supported and/or biased) (ref#117), and "Hollywood Life" (gossip site) (ref#236). As for reference naming, "eonline.com" should read E! Online, "itunes.apple" should read iTunes, "voices.yahoo" should read "Yahoo! Voices", ref#196 should read "Village Voice" rather than "blogs.villagevoice.com". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna go halfsies? Lol you take half and I take half? After that, would the references be good? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The use of "halfsies" is also amusing :P. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:P Well I try, figured you'd like that lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update NY Post, US Magazine and Hollywood Life are all replaced, along with eonline to E!, itunes.apple to iTunes. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took some work, but now all unreliable/questionable reviews are replaced/removed. I'd say this is now ready for GA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Snuggums, I really appreciate your help! LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is an excellent article gaining 412093 views within the last 30 days making it one of the 300 most viewed articles on Wikipedia. I took a lot of time to read through this article and have to say that the prose is excellent considering that a lot of this article comes from quotes alone. Every reference I checked has been attended to (which was the reason why it failed the previous GAN). The prose flows well into each other sentence making it easy to read and complying per the GA criteria. The only minor issues I found this article are some very minor copy editing issues, once they are addressed I will be happy to give this article its well deserved GA status. I'll put this on hold for seven days until those issues have been taken care of. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing all of those points. The copyediting side of this review is done, but I think once you can address those referencing issues from Status this will achieve GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

There has been a lot of work put into replacing and finding new references and I want to congratulate that as thanks to these recent efforts this article now meets the GA criteria. The prose is in good shape, the lead complies per WP:LEAD and the whole article has definitely improved since the last GAR. Since all of these issues have been addressed to I would say that this article is on the road to FA - I can imagine Miley Cyrus being a featured article. Well done on all the extra work!! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For some of the claims regarding some of the sources that were used in the Miley Cyrus article, see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]