Jump to content

Talk:Natalie Maines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleNatalie Maines was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Libbyann1620.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Fundamentalist

[edit]

"She is married to Muslim fundamentalist actor Adrian Pasdar; they have two children, Jackson Slade Pasdar (born March 15, 2001) and Beckett Finn Pasdar (born July 14, 2004). She has also referred to herself as "Natalie Pasdar". The family has homes in Los Angeles and Austin, TX."

Is from a vandal? I can't find any information suggesting that Adrian Pasdar is a fundamentalist musilum.

Vandalism. Adrian is Catholic. Dylan Slade 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdar's religion is, essentially, an irrelevant detail to this particular article, qualifying as info creep. The text has been removed for quite awhile now. ZueJay (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whistle range?

[edit]

what song does she a hit a whistle note in?

Whoever added her please give proof. Otherwise within time, this artictle will be deleted from the category. Myke 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO. I've been plunking away at a Martie Maguire page when I've the time for the last 2 months, watching untold videos of the Dixie Chicks, and (I'm a professional singer)--while Natalie is great and a powerhouse, she could never touch that range. There's only a handful of American singers who can- Lisa Fischer backing the Stones comes to mind. When Natalie can hit the notes you find on this video at 2:58-- let me KNOW! [1] --leahtwosaints (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to remove this bit

[edit]

I had to remove this bit from the article. While I appreciate the sentiment, and may believe it to be true at least in part, it asserts facts that have not or can not be verified.

It was later revealed that Clear Channel Communications, a Texas-based media corporation controlling over 1,200 stations in the U.S., had promoted the demonstration and much of the backlash. Clear Channel was closely tied to George Bush; one of its leaders had bought the Texas Rangers from then-Governor Bush, and others had used positions on the University of Texas Investment Management Company to invest heavily in Republican or Bush-involved enterprises.

The topic of the "controversy" is detailed in the main Dixie Chicks article. Many Bothans died to whittle the information down to the NPOV-acceptable version, and I'd hate to repeat that sacrifice here. --Robertb-dc 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Actually Clear Channel and its role is not even mentioned in the Dixie Chicks article. This was reported in the New York Times by Dr. Paul Krugman and has not been refuted -- at least not anywhere that I have seen. This strikes me as a significant part of the story, and not to air it seems like censorship. Lots of other issues appear in Wiki articles that have not been "proven." (This paragraph was added: 21:12, 30 June 2006 by 24.207.162.191)

Actually, there is record of discussion of Clear Channel's role in boycotting the Dixie Chicks if you go to: Multimedia Record of the DXC click video, and scroll down till you find the Howard Stern interview with the Chicks. (There may be an easier way to access the interview. Probably it's broken down into sections on You Tube).. but not only do they discuss Clear Channel explicitly with Stern, but He begins to tell them of a lawsuit of his own and how gratifying the results should be. That should help nail down Clear Channel, I hope. In addition, anybody working on ANY page about the Dixie Chicks should take a look at the IMMENSE first-hand treasure trove of possibly every TV appearance, interview, concert, etc that they've ever done since the band formed. --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, an interview of the Dixie Chicks in which they discuss their opinions on the causes of the radio boycott just doesn't seem like a source that could be used in that context. It's a source for "The Dixie Chicks believe that Clear Channel orchestrated a radio boycott", but not for "Clear Channel orchestrated a radio boycott". Incidentally, I was in Amarillo last month and heard "Wide Open Spaces" in a crowded arena full of horsemen. Here is a video (just uploaded, may not be processed yet) showing the utter chaos that completely failed to ensue. :) --Robertb-dc (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Channel actually gave them more airtime than others;"Directly contrary to Krugman's (2003) accusation and hypothesis 1, Clear Channel is actually the chain that most maintained the Chicks' airplay". [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galentravels (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Link after line beginning "On May 21, 2006" has an outdated link and was removed. Please add updated link. Zchris87v 07:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-fixed 64.229.92.112 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBGT Activist?

[edit]

Hi, I'm just wondering on what basis she's listed as an LGBT Activist? I don't see any reference to this anywhere. 24.82.90.239 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three Dixie Chicks, especially Natalie, have been very vocal in their support of the gay community. In 2004 "I Believe in Love" was included on "Love Rocks", a benefit CD for the Human Rights Campaign. Track Listing. They have also been interviewed in the LGBT press, such as in this article and this piece in the popular LGBT magazine The Advocate. Maybe I should add all 3 of them to the category? Is this enough to qualify?

Lady6String 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know what criteria is used for the list, but the addition seems reasonable to me. Maybe we should add Martie and Emily to the list as well, since it is the whole band that has taken part. 24.82.90.239 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Lady6String 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info added to article; however, might be more appropriate to add to Dixie Chicks instead because the cited materials have Maines talking as part of the band.
Have removed Category:LGBT rights activists as the nature of 'activist' versus 'supporter' is being discussed at cat. ZueJay (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info removed from this article -- more appropriate in Dixie Chicks article. Text and sources are residing in my personal sandbox until move can be made. ZueJay (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source here where Maines chats on her own - reconsidering. If anyone wants to jump in and help sort this out, feel free! ZueJay (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Excellent pick on the picture. Natalie Maines is gorgeous!! Ericster08 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture has since been removed, probably for licensing reasons. ZueJay (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

Looks like you have the basis of a good article here, but before a reviewer visits I suggest you pad out the lead of the article - see WP:LEAD. One sentence is not an adequate summation of an article as lengthy as this. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Is that any better? I find POV-less phrases sometimes dificult to achieve. ZueJay (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit better, yes. Probably enough for GA, not enough for FA. --kingboyk 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA is what I'm looking for for now on this article. There are things missing that seem to be "common knowledge" but which I have not been able to track to reputable sources such as whether or not she graduated HS early, and when she first began to sing and what song(s)... ZueJay (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the paragraphs are too short - making it look a magazine trivia article. Bring them together in paragraphs that link. andreasegde 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 26, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • "Dixie Chicks Officiial Website." (typo in ref 8)
  • "Although her hometown may not want to acknowledge it, Maines gives credit to '...Lubbock for who I became.' - Quotation at end makes this hard to read. It would be better as an indirect quotation. Also, the first phrase is Maines' POV and should be acknowledged as such.
  • Lead section needs to be expanded to properly summarize all topics in the article. See WP:LEAD
  • Layout needs tweaking. There should really be a separate section for accolades and awards rather than it being included in the last section.
  • The "Public statements and controversy" section should have a named subsection for the marijuana debate, and be introduced by a short summary.
  • Use of "words to avoid" See WP:WTA. Consider replacements in brackets
    • "...and claims that the doctored photo..." (argues that)
    • "...he noted she usually needed to vent a little steam..." (said that)
    • "However, many people, including awards host..." ("Other people, including...")
    • "However, Keith continues to refuse..." ("As of April 2007, Keith...")
    • "However, the Dixie Chicks began..." ("The Dixie...")
    • "Although her hometown may not want to acknowledge it..." (actually, I think this whole phrase is best removed because of style problems)
    • "scary" - Do these quotation marks mean that it is a direct quotation? If so, it needs to be more clear ("A threat Maines described as 'particularly scary'). If they are just for emphasis, they should be removed.
2. Factually accurate?: OK
3. Broad in coverage?:
  • Could use more information about accolades/awards, preferably in a separate section (see previous note)
  • Should contain a discography
  • Needs Persondata
  • "Additionally, Maines took a summer course, "Introductory Wildlife," at Texas Tech in 1995." - I don't think this is particularly relevant. If she has dedicated a lot of effort to wildlife study/conservation since then, some explanation should be added to the section about her personal life.
4. Neutral point of view?: OK
5. Article stability? OK
6. Images?: OK

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Alex valavanis 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will work on it, crossing things off as we go. ZueJay (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]
  • Maines is the daughter of country musician and producer Lloyd Maines. She graduated in 1992 from Lubbock High School in Lubbock, Texas - woaaaa what happened to the 18 years before that? why does it not mention where and when she was born?
  • She spent two semesters at West Texas A&M, then a year and a half at South Plains College - Do you know what course she took?
  • background vocals - wikilink
  • ncluding the number one hit - where was it number one? saying it is a 'hit' when it is number one is redundant
  • popular "Sin Wagon." Popular according to whom?
  • Maines eventually became - redundant eventually, later on you mention the 2006 album
  • Maines has continued to sing for and with other artists including Pat Green, Sheryl Crow, Charlie Robison, Yellowcard, Stevie Nicks, Patty Griffin and Pete Yorn. One sentence paragraph, merge it. Also what does sing for refer to? Se sings songs for the other bands? What about collaborated with artists such as..
  • bassist Michael Tarabay. Is he the Dixie Chicks bassist or in his own band?
  • 'Personal life' needs re-writing it doesn't flow at all - Maines met Bob. They married. They have two kids. They have homes in LA - it needs better flow from sentence to sentence
  • In 2002, -> In 2002, don't link years by themselves
  • the President of the United States is from Texas. Perhaps after president add (George Bush) in brackets, as he won't be president forever and Wikipedia will be around for a long time.
  • Feud with Toby Keith - one sentence paragraphs
  • presuming the acronym stood for Fuck You Toby Keith. Reference doesnt say anything about standing for Fuck you Toby and seems like Original research
  • A review of the concert by The Guardian - name of the reviewer?
  • sweeping all five Grammys for which they were nominated. 'sweeping' seems a bit out of place
  • External links come after references

Looks good, will pass after these things are fixed, if you disagree with anything feel free to comment. M3tal H3ad 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe -
  • Those 18 years 'ran away' ahh! - Working on it
  • That's all I've got on the colleges - other editors?
  • Did the wikilink; tried to fix-up the "number one" thing; rmv popular "Sin Wagon", I have no source to cover that; tried to rmv redundancy in 2006 album sentence; rmv stand-alone year
  • Played with the "also worked with" para a lot - good word, collaborate, much better
  • Worked a bit on 'Personal life' - not sure how to make it 'flow' better, do not have a lot of info available on it and have a penchant for not wanting to include too much info on these anyway
  • Think I was able to incorp who was the Pres in a reasonable manner - I prefer to keep the quotes for this particular item "clean" (i.e. free of insertions, dotted lines, etc.) as that appears to have been part of the impetus for the controversy; got Guardian reviewer's name but I think it might be a wiki non-notable, although this was interesting; changed 'sweeping' to 'receiving' but I'm not convinced that was needed as a lot of the press seemed to say 'sweep'
  • You know, I haven't seen anything in the WP:MOS regarding the placement of the refs and ELs relative to each other - I'll change it as that is how most wikiarticles have it, but grudginly
  • Working on Toby Keith section - pllttt!

Hey, and thanks for doing the hold instead of outright saying 'nope'. I appreciate having the opportunity to fix it first ZueJay (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot about this, everything major seems to be of taken care off, when you get the time fix the other things and consider a WP:biography peer-review. M3tal H3ad 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Memphis Three

[edit]

A recent edit added information regarding Maines work to spread word about the West Memphis 3 through a blog post. I question the current WP:Notability of the inclusion of this information...Has Maines been more proactive than simply a blog post on this issue? Has there been a concert in which she participated? Has she talked to the news media about the issue? Until a bit of notability is established for her activism on this issue, I'm hesitant to include it in the article (and have reverted it for now). Thoughts? ZueJay (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd axe it, Zuejay, if it's still there, b/c it just popped up on the Dixie Chicks site, a letter of concern, because Maines was convinced the guy wasn't the culprit. But they've done the same thing with their Pro-environmental sentiments: found a nice organization, posted it asking people to pitch in [fair enough], but actively working towards it?-- aside from a nice tax write-off, I don't see the kind of philanthropy and concern that, say, John Mayer or whatever. --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maines's remarks, etcaetara

[edit]

Now, I see what I did not see before (15:28, 27 July 2008 Zuejay - ("Maines' vs. Maines's is a matter of pronunciation and preference"). Being well lit, there is no surprise that you are defending the loose usage of the possessive, because this article is a kind of "your baby". All right, then keep it your way, "As You Like It". However, this is not the first time when Wikipedia's editors pretend to have used one "relaxed" use of a grammatical issue because it is covered by some weak (and insignificant) samples. Wars (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I, personally and educationally, don't consider the use of the possessive Maines' any sort of "loose". Is it lazy American? Or maybe it is the journalism education that likes to use as few excessive characters as possible (to save money, of course ;) ). I don't intend to imply ownership - I just try to keep an eye on this article, among others. Perhaps, hmm... Try saying Maines's out loud and see if your comfortable with the pronunciation? I find it awkward, hence the reason I choose Maines' instead. This might be a "no win" kind of situation. If other editors are interested, feel free to weigh in! ZueJay (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Natalie Maines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 26, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    One stray sentence in the West Memphis Three Lawsuit section should be incorporated into the preceding paragraph, which may need to be split.
    'Awards section: http://paradiselost3.com Discussion and Information Forum should be removed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The cite ref #10 [3] should be attributed using a template for consistency.
    Two dead links found and tagged using WP:CHECKLINKS
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just a couple of concerns which should be addressed, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the concerns below from editors with an interest in this area, I shall delist this now. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very generous assessment. I see a lot of additional things wrong with the article:

  • There are lots of uncited statements, more than would pass an initial GAN these days (this passed back in 2007).
  • Some of the uncited claims are dubious ... she really listens to every minute of every Howard Stern show?
  • There's no chronological flow to the article at all, it just jumps around and around.
  • More is needed on her early artistic and musical influences is needed. She was a huge James Taylor fan, for example, and it was one of things she had in common with her parents.
  • More on how she joined the band is needed. And the article doesn't make clear how she managed to be effective in country music, since it suggests she played other genres until then.
  • The article is badly overweighted towards her "controversies", which get over 20 paragraphs compared to only 3 for her musical career (!). A description of her voice, her vocal style, her artistic approach, etc. is all badly needed. The Dixie Chicks went from total obscurity to megasuccess when they added her as lead singer, so there must be something to write about here! This shouldn't duplicate the Dixie Chicks article's description of their career successes, but instead focus on what Maines brings to the table.
  • A description of her on-stage image, personal appearance style, etc. is also warranted.
  • The instruments she plays should be discussed; is it only onstage that she plays?
  • A lot of the Iraq War controversy section is duplicative of the account in the Dixie Chicks article. This section here should focus on Maines' reaction to it, how she dealt with the pressures, how it affected her relationship with the sisters, etc.
  • There shouldn't be a quote in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • Her current reluctance to record again (and the sisters creating the Court Yard Hounds as a result) should be covered.

Anyway, that's my take on it. To be honest, I don't think it's close to GA worthiness. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased/inaccurate info about controversy

[edit]

This sentence appeared as the last in the first paragraph under the heading Public statements and controversy

"While lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, Maines has encountered several situations of a controversial nature. In August 2002, Maines criticized fellow country musician Toby Keith's song "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue". In March 2003, Maines commented that the Dixie Chicks were " ... ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."[3] These comments led to alienating a large portion of the Dixie Chicks' fan base which ultimately lead to the band's implosion."

I removed this sentence. It was biased, inaccurate, and had no citation. Rudulph (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Natalie Maines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natalie Maines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Natalie Maines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalie_Maines&oldid=1206823323"