If you want to leave me a message, you are in the wrong place. All new messages should be directed to User talk:Wikipedian Penguin. For reviving old threads, the same should be done. Thank you.
Hi. You said that "Altogether, the article does not quite meet the standards of an FA biography" and I am a little bit worried about it. Do you think that, with the necessary changes being made, the article can meet those standards? Lordelliott (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lordelliot. To meat the FA criteria, the article must be comprehensive yet concise, have clear and smooth prose, and must be well sourced. Cher falls short in the first two aspects. Yes, Cher is moreover a mainstream artist, with strong chart success (more or less), some things such as the specific magazine reviews can be excessive. And if a song peaked only at number 11 and got mixed reviews, it is probably not worth noting. This is a good start, and with some good trimming, I think the article will flow much more nicely. About prose, the article will need a series of thorough copy edits from top to bottom, because it can be tighter and smoother. Indopug and WesleyDodds offered some helpful advice and models that can give you some inspiration as to how your FAC should look. But right now, I'm quite far from a support, sorry to disappoint. PS: This fails NFCC by the way, as the image itself does not add to the reader's understanding of the article. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the chart stats, I think it's done. I have worked on it since yesterday and now I think only her major singles are covered on the article. As for the magazine reviews, I am still working on it, but I think some reviews should stay, since a mere "She was praised by critics" is not suitable in some occasions. For example, this review of Tea with Mussolini ("It is only after she appears that you realize how sorely she's been missed from movie screens! For Cher is a star. That is, she manages the movie star trick of being at once a character and at the same time never allowing you to forget: that's Cher.") shows that, after a period in which her career was questioned by critics as dead because of all the infomercial struggles, she managed to do a "comeback". What do you think? I removed the image. Lordelliott (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the career section, keep reviews at a minimum. Reviews you can keep are those that give exceptional praise or criticsm (eg. greatest fails of all time, worst singles of the year). But reviews such as yours that describe her career are valuable too, so you can have some of them as well. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done the review trimming. Here are the five "specific critical opinions" I kept under the criteria:
All I Really Want to Do (1965): later described by Tim Sendra of Allmusic as "one of the stronger folk-pop records of the era"
Cher show (1975): with Los Angeles Times exclaiming, "Three cheers for Cher and her new CBS show ... Sonny without Cher was a disaster. Cher without Sonny, on the other hand, could be the best thing that's happened to weekly television this season."
Tea with Mussolini (1998): with one reviewer from Film Comment commenting "It is only after she appears that you realize how sorely she's been missed from movie screens! For Cher is a star. That is, she manages the movie star trick of being at once a character and at the same time never allowing you to forget: that's Cher."
Living Proof (2001): Slant Magazine proclaimed the album "the most life-affirming piece of pop art to emerge since 9/11".
Farewell Tour (2002): Yahoo! Movies called the show "a multi-media extravaganza covering the incomparable entertainer's career in show business".
This looks fine, but the LA Times quotation does not seem that significant to represent her whole career. Overall, it does not seem like a very powerful quotation. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]11:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it shows how her show was well received in contrast to Sonny's, since when they split the press thought he would be the successful one and she would become obsolete. Also, it contains an exceptional praise: "the best thing that's happened to weekly television this season." Lordelliott (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough. I'm starting to do a little bit of copy editing, but most likely my contributions will not be enough. I may be also paraphrasing some unnecessary factual quotations, so bear with me. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Do you think this information: "Her 1998's dance comeback inspired veteran recording artists such as Diana Ross, Lionel Richie, and Tina Turner, who have tried to emulate her new sound and replicate its success." is relevant enough to appear on the Legacy section? Lordelliott (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wikipedian Penguin. I sent Cher's article to a friend of mine who is a native-English speaker, and he did an overall copy-edit to it. I've also worked on all of the issues you pointed out. Could you review it again? Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed it. I've also resolved the comments made by CallMeNathan. Since the observations you've made about the lead were (in my opinion) minor issues and I could resolve all of them in a few seconds (with the exception of the Goldmine quotation, because I think it shows her influence in a very concise way, as on the David Bowie and Madonna articles), could you give the article a whole review? Also, could you please move your resolved comments to the FAC talk page? Thanks. Lordelliott (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was archived. But based on comments you have received, you can infer that we've only provided examples of issues in the article and that a good copy edit is required from top to bottom. At this point, my suggestion would be to open a peer review, where I hopefully believe that you will receive valuable input. I'll try to keep making edits in the meantime. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. On Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1, user Noleander suggested the musical infobox should be changed to person infobox. I agree with him, since music is not the only main area of her career and she's more recognized as an all-around entertainer than a singer. Should I change it? Lordelliott (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that even though she has done many things, music is her biggest area, followed by film. Therefore we should stick to the music artist infobox. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]09:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking time to review the article. I think it's better to keep your review at archive1; I find it easier for me. I'm pretty busy right now, but I will do my best to reply to your suggestions in fast mode since the article is long and I don't want this peer review to last forever. Your suggestions are really helpful. Lordelliott (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I watch all FAC/FLC/PR pages on which I comment. Unfortunately, I feel sleepy right now, so I'll revisit the page tomorrow morning with a fresh, alert mind. Lucky for you and me, there's only a hour-and-a-half difference in our time zones. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to do some copy editing, and will post comments, so is it okay, if I move that lengthy discussion at the FAC page to the resolved comments page? —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WP. Thanks for the lengthy explanation, that was very kind of you. I'd also like to thank you for all the time you've spent reviewing the article thus far (and all the little fixes you made; I noticed :D). I fixed everything, but regarding the en-dash and em-dash. Are you referring to inconsistencies in the references or in the general text? Also, how am I to pin-point which is which. Is there a tool I can use or something to facilitate the process? Also, I was wondering if we're getting closer to a support. I fear that if the article's page doesn't get some more opinions soon, they'll close the nomination anyway :/ Anyways, thanks for all the help my friend!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're welcome! I feel that I must spend whatever time I am motivated to spend here on Wikipedia by doing worthwhile things, like reviewing GA and FA nominations. It's the least I can do. Second, By dashes, I mean the article text. I think you my find this script useful. It formats all dashes correctly. Although when I tried to use it on the article, it did not give anything, so you'll have to do it manually unfortunately. It should be no trouble. I found most of the en dashes in the Reception section, if not all. Third, regarding my disposition with the article, I think we're close to a "support", but I do not disagree that a few more tweaks will benefit the article. As always, I'll track the progress being made to the article. I do agree that it has received rather minimal input outside of a few reviews, so perhaps hand out a few more invitations? The article also needs a spotcheck and an image review before it can be promoted, as all aspects of the FACR criteria need to be covered and ticked off. And once again, you're very welcome. I'll take a look soon, but I warn you that it's always the last few days before the holidays that I tend to get bombarded with tests, assignments, etc., and admittedly I'm a bit of a procrastinator. But as always, feel free to ask questions. It's been great working with you! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It may be helpful to leave a note to any editors/delegates viewing the FAC page that you've responded to/addressed any outstanding concerns. That way, they'll know that the nominator—you—are still interested and the page is not idle. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Okay, I'll take a look into the dashes and wait on whenever you're ready! Yes, it's an issue. I'm going to try and leave a few more invites. Of course, I want them to be thorough reviews, not just someone who'll slap a support. Hopefully Brandley can come and finish his review; that'll be a start! I'll leave that message, it sounds like a good idea. Talk to you soon buddy!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me23:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WP Penguin! Long time no talk. How have you been? I was wondering if you might possibly have time to have a peek at Highway 61 Revisited, which another editor and I nominated for FA. It has been languishing with hardly any FAC reviews. If you don't have time, no worries, I was just checking if you might. But if you did have time, we would be forever grateful. Have a great day! Moisejp (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moisejp, it has been a while. It's a good thing you asked me on Friday, because now I will be able to look at the nomination this weekend. I'm involved with some other things right now, both on Wikipedia and outside, but don't worry, I'll get to it! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to give you this delicious pie to you as I count you as a true Wiki friend who helped me through the good and bad times I had on Wikipedia. Bonne appettie mon amie :) ! — Tomíca(T2ME)23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trevj, we haven't spoken before, have we? Thanks for the compliment; it's a nice thing to say considering that all the recent username changes around here have been leaving me second guessing. But now I'm sure not to ever change my username! Yes, we need a relevant Wiki guideline associated somehow with penguins, and that shall be one of the shortcuts. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - we've not spoken before. And I can't remember which discussion I saw your sig in. I'll perhaps have a think about the guideline! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if you have any spare time to leave some comments on my FLC it would be appreciate. It hasn't had much input and has stalled a bit. AARON• TALK 18:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like last year, just counting down my favourite tracks of this year or late 2011...
11. "No Church in the Wild" by Kanye West, Jay-Z and Frank Ocean – arguably one of the best rap duos right now, as we'd seen with "Otis". The beat is heavy but supports the rap. My main criticism is the lack of actual substance. Kanye West's verse is underwhelmingly short, so Jay-Z is really the only one who truly delivers. The hook is one of the highlights, however. So overall, a bit lackluster for a good hip hop song, but what we do have is well done.
10. "Call Me Maybe" by Carly Rae Jepsen – I found this song quite annoying initially, but the addictive tune grew over me.
9. "My Life" by 50 Cent, Eminem and Adam Levine – I only heard this one recently. It has a really overused typical hip hop beat, but lyrics are what rap is about. Levine's touch really gives the feeling of classic midwest hip hop, but with a Top-40 appeal.
8. "All I Want for Christmas Is You (Superfestive)" by Mariah Carey and Justin Bieber – Too much nostalgia! This is the first time I've enoyed a song with Bieber, but honestly it isn't too bad. But I won't lie: Carey's voice is almost unrivaled in today's industry.
7. "Payphone" by Maroon 5 – This was stuck in my head for quite some time. For a cliche theme, it's presented quite well.
6. "Rumour Has It" by Adele – The overall instrumentation and tune are very well rounded on this track. This surely gives 21 variety.
4. "Gangnam Style" by Psy – In a similar vein to "Call Me Maybe", I normally dislike these kinds of songs, because they tend to be overdone, but when a middle aged man sings about these kinds of things, it does really jump out on you. When you think about it, this song and especially its video were cleverly crafted to achieve popularity among western audiences.
3. "Princess of China" by Coldplay and Rihanna – The music here is especially nice and if it weren't for a bit less production, the song would have been perfection.
2. "Diamonds" by Rihanna – Definitely among the best songs she's done lately; critics can shut up. She really shows off her vocal prowess and the subtle beat just defines the calming beauty of "diamonds in the sky". Her way of singing the lyric "Shine bright like a diamond" is a bit repetitive and annoying, but that's fine. The video clip is simplistic yet stunning; gotta love the horses galloping.
1. "We Are Young" by FUN and Janelle Monae – This song was released well over a year ago, but I only started listening to it sometime in February. It's unique and breaks the mold of pop music, exploring different tempos and instrumentation, and a common but valuable theme of just being you. This deserves nothing less than a top spot on my list.
OMG. I was eagerly waiting for this. Your list is perfect. I enjoyed it. Hmmm, just a little question... You don't listen to Taylor Swift, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jivesh – I got tired of her once I realized that all her songs are about heartbreak and her holding a grudge against some guy. Has she done anything different lately? Just wondering, and I hope so!
@Tomica – I was a bit reluctant to have those two songs here, but this is as honest as I can be. But neither would be here if this was just based on lyrics alone. Yah, if I could, I would have put the original Carey song, but it's 2012.
Overall, I must say, not much has happened this year apart from a few lesser known artists getting extreme mainstream exposure (Jepsen, fun and Psy, for example). No Gaga, or Beyoncé. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my list you guys, and enjoy your holidays! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right about TS but I still like her. :P I did not really enjoy this year musically but I cannot deny that there were indeed some good songs coming from South America. For example. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lights" (Ellie Goulding) – Not really a song released in 2012 but it hit the top 2 in 2012. Great production.
"Wide Awake" (Katy Perry) – Perry's not my favorite vocalist but this song is good. Kelly Clarkson's rendition made me love it even more!
"Call Me Maybe" (Carly Rae Jepsen) – Come on guys, it's catchy! It's everywhere, on TV, radio, newspapers!
"Go Round/Yeah-Oh" (Namie Amuro) – Two great songs by Japanese singer Namie Amuro.
"Your Body" (Christina Aguilera) – Intended to be her comeback single. Too bad it flopped, as it's a good song.
"Somebody That I Used to Know" (Gotye feat. Kimbra) – Another great song.
"Believe" (Che'Nelle) – Same old ballad, but Che'Nelle has a good voice.
"Gangnam Style" (PSY) – Not one of my favorite Korean songs, and PSY is not my favorite K-rapper either (there are much better K-pop singers/rappers out there). The overall production of the song is good, but the lyrics are weird.
The truth is, I haven't listened to much songs of 2012 because I'm tired of the auto-tune/Melodyne craze. The artists' voice sound so unnatural and unpleasant. Wish I could go back to 1980s/1990s. Sigh. Anyways, how are you guys doing? Jivesh, I haven't seen you in ages! You too Tom. 五代 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't forgotten you at all! I really like your list (I totally forgot about "Stronger"; that could have been number 7 or 8 on mine). I agree that this year wasn't as great as other ones, considering a lot of the songs felt like gimmicks ("Beez In the Trap", anyone?), but there were a few gems. But anyway, consider "Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" somewhere between "Rumour Has It" and "Gangnam Style" on my list. It was a great surprise seeing you here after so long, and I'm so sorry I couldn't fully get to you email request after. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feels great to talk to you again! I forgot to mention that I've been listening to more J-pop songs nowadays. Did you listen to Tamar Braxton's "Love and War"? I think she has an amazing voice and she can belt higher than her sister too. Kelly Clarkson has always been one of my favorites and "Stronger" was really good. I wouldn't say it's her best though (IMO, her Breakaway songs are the best). Don't worry about the wikia thing, I'm planning to close the wiki anyway. I got admin rights on another wiki and I don't think I can manage 5 wikis at once :D Merry Christmas and a very happy new year to all of you :) Take care guys, 五代 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mags, and take care. "Love and War" really reminds of older soul music. It's very soothing and vocally strong. Happy holidays. Just reading the title of the song, I can tell "We Are Never Ever Getting Back" is thematically the same as her other songs. She seriously needs to evolve and forget about whoever guy she is dedicating these songs to. "Girl On Fire" is a good song, though. Nicki Minaj's verse isn't as great, but Alicia Keys' melody and voice are excellent. I think your list is great and is very much "you". Happy holidays Jivesh. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— ΛΧΣ21 is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
AARON• TALK is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
五代 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
May this lovely Christmas season bring you delights in all possible forms. May you receive love in abundance and joy that lasts throughout this season. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year wishes to you and your loved ones! — Tomíca(T2ME)11:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer I think the article is to FAC, the further it really is. I've been disillusioned by the article's quality and the FAC reviews. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am kind of neutral about this. I see you have everything about the credits and personnel in prose at the beginning of the article. But keep in mind that no one will (or shall I say should logically) oppose the the presence of such a section, or else they might also consider the removal of the infobox as the latter also consists of information already present in the article. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I strongly oppose removing the credits and personnel. There are people who never read the prose, but just want to know for example who was the 'mixing assistant'. Btw, Jivesh made good point, no one will be opposing the FAC for having the credits there. ;) — Tomíca(T2ME)16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*3 :S But WP, let's talk about our preferences (I hope they are similar. Lol). Would you prefer A + B to C if you wanted to know who did what on the track? So tell me. I will be tempted to choose the summary style (C) but I know what we prefer is not always right. Nevertheless, I think both can stay if there is no rule here that asks for the elimination of that section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're mandatory for albums as per the manual of style, so I don't think the rules would apply that much differently for song articles, not to mention many FAs have them. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to you and your family. Thanks for being so good in your work and I wish a great year ahead. You are among the Best editors on Wikipedia and I hope you will continue to contribute to the Wikipedia. Lots of FAs and FLs. Regards Pks1142 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Till is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm afraid I'm doing another peer review right now, so I likely will not be able to get to this one. Sorry, but I hope you get some good feedback from other users. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedian Penguin, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed1718:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
