Talk:Natina Reed/Archive 1

Writing

This article is written very poorly. There are numerous grammatical errors and the writer often doesn't write in complete sentences.

The U.S. Debate

Since User:XLR8TION has taken issue with me communicating with him/her on their talk page, I'll address the issue here as it is evidently wildly inappropriate to be collegial and follow WP:BRD on someone's (horrors!) personal talk page. How very silly of me. XLR8TION, your reasoning for linking U.S. is spurious at best. An editor is operating under Anti American sentiment because they're not silly enough to link U.S.? Really? I was just trying to give you heads up and link you to the guideline to further explain why you're being reverted. Considering I've never had dealings with you before (and I will not again, believe that), your combative response has taught me a lesson. I will never try to stop a lame edit war between what I thought were two long-time constructive editors again. Oh, and edit warring takes two. If Tinton5 is blocked, you should also be blocked as you have reverted non-vandalism edits five times thus far. You should also look up what vandalism actually is. Talk page posts from people pointing out your flawed logic = not vandalism. Edits you don't agree with = not vandalism. They're anti-American, that you can be sure of but they're not vandalism. Comprende? (That is not an American word by the way. That is anti-American of you. Perhaps I will file an American grievance about that). Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're anti Hispanic saying Spanish is not a recognized language of the U.S. LOL. Have you ever read the 1952 treaty of free association between Puerto Rico and the U.S.? Apparently you haven't showing that ignorance is bliss.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal troubles section

I just removed this section based on WP:BLPCRIME. Whether BLP still applies a couple of months after her death is arguable. BLP does apply to people who have "recently" died (see WP:BDP). What "recently" means is subject to interpretation. In any event, the section had other problems as it didn't track the sources carefully enough and was confusing as to how many times she was actually arrested and for what. Also, there's no reason why sources could not be found that indicate the disposition of the charges. Finally, it's not clear what the material adds to the article at this point. The material should not be re-added unless there's a consensus for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Natina Reed/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It seems odd that Lisa Lopez is the Godmother of a child that was born after she had passed away. I think this info needs to be researched further.

Last edited at 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 00:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for help/review

@Ssilvers:@FrB.TG:@SNUGGUMS:@IndianBio: Hello! Since all of you have all worked on biography articles, I was wondering if any of you could provide some suggestions on how to improve this article. It would be cool to bring this through the FAC process in the future, but I am not sure if that is a realistic option. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would look at entertainer bios that are already FA. Usually they have a "Reputation" section, where there is a discussion of what key critics said about the person's work throughout their career. Also, just one obvious thing: The Death section is *way* too long. 3 or 4 sentences would be more than enough. These excessive details are fancruft. Try to read over the article with the mindset of a general reader, rather than as a fan. You should open a WP:Peer Review discussion to get more (and more specific) feedback. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Thank you for the comment, and that is a very good point. I will look through the section and cut it down in the future. I am actually not necessarily a fan of this artist. I knew nothing about her during her career, and only worked on this as I found her connection with Lisa Lopes to be interesting. I had looked to the Aaliyah and Selena articles for guidance/inspiration when writing this. I am not disagreeing with your comment by saying this, but I just wanted to let you know my perspective for this. I would also argue that since a majority of the coverage on Reed is about her death, I do not believe that reducing it down to 3 to 4 sentences would be an appropriate answer, but I am open for further discussion on this point. I am hesitant about a peer review as I have not had much success with them in the past (most of the times, I do not receive any responses). Hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no downside to doing a peer review. If people do not give feedback, at least you tried. BTW, Information about what projects a person never finished are also not very important, unless someone else finished them with great success. For example, a recording that was never released should get much less ink than a recording that was released. BTW, Selena and Aaliyah are not good models. Selena is not an FA, and Aaliyah has become greatly bloated since it was promoted to FA. It would no longer be promoted. I recommend David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Gwen Stefani, and Jo Stafford -- and look at them on the dates when they were promoted. Also, try to emphasize things that are reported on my the most reliable sources, rather than coverage in gossip press. The YouKnowIGotSoul website is not a source that should be used so much. Footnote 9 is not a citation to anything. Nor are 14 or 18.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely consider the peer review process. I would think it is important to include all of the information about someone's career, including unreleased projects, in their biography though. Aoba47 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unreleased album never charts. It is trivial; no one is ever inspired by it or dances to it. What if you write a screenplay and it is never made into a movie. Trivial. What if you rehearse a play that is never performed. Trivial. Plan a camping trip that you never go on. Announce your upcoming stadium tour that is cancelled. Trivial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this front. I included information on those parts of Reed's career since it was covered in sources. It is not trivial if sources talk about it. The "no one is ever inspired by it or dances to it" is irrelevant to the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not believe there is enough critical commentary to create a "Reputation" section, but I will definitely keep that in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not enough critical commentary, then the subject is probably not worthy of an FA, IMO. BTW, as you work through the article, try to answer the 5 W's: Who, what, where, when, whow. I looked over the first section, and there are many places where it is not clear *when* something happened: give more dates, especially about milestones in her career. When was she discovered, when did she join each band that she worked with, etc. Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "not worthy of an FA". I would imagine that any article that passes notability standards/policy would be eligible to become an FA if it passes the criteria for the prose, sourcing, etc, but I am probably mistaken. I will try to locate more dates, but I highly doubt that this information is available. I have tried to find as much information about this person as possible, and there are just some gaps that are left unaccounted. Aoba47 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ever ping me again. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure not to do it again in the future then. Aoba47 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba. I’ll provide a comprehensive review at the PR as soon as I do an FL review I’ve been planning to do for a few days. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"on April 10, 2000, the album was certified platinum and has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide" - wrong usage of perfect tense.

Thank you for the note. I need to work on being better with tenses. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The first two tracks charted at number eight and five on the Billboard Hot 100" - maybe add a respectively at the end?

Added. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Reed plays cheerleader Jenelope in the 2000 teen comedy film Bring It On" - played is better considering that she is deceased. I know the film still exists, but you have used past tense elsewhere. Why not here!

Makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments for now, Aoba47. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and your edits! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Missy Elliott 2006.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]