Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady Gaga/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I personally believe that the Lady Gaga should be a featured article for its information, pictures, and overall appeal. What I want from a peer review is comments stating that it follows or not follow the Featured Article criteria and suggesting to help it become a featured article.
Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment – I would argue that the article be passed through GA once, before even thinking about Featured article nomination. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
While on the face of it, I do agree with Legolas that the article would have to pass GAN (Good Article Nomination) before being considered for FAC (Featured Article Candidate), and that a GAN is a first peer review for most articles, that doesn't mean that we can't review it here. FAC is all about being consistent with formats and using primary sources. Newspapers and gossip columns will not cut it as primary sources, which I believe came up in GAN. Magazines are better, but only if they are not fan magazines. This means (for starters) that references 13, 58, 85, and 92 cannot be used and the information they support needs to use a more primary reference, or the information has to go. Blogs are frowned upon for GA, and essentially outlawed for FAC (reference 78 needs to be replaced). Magazines such as Time would work out fine until book sources are available. Ultimately, book sources will be needed, but Lady Gaga's career has been way too short to expect any book references. I'd keep an eye out for peer reviewed literature concerning the rise of Lady Gaga, which could occur within psychology or psychiatry at any time.
As for consistency, the date format within the references needs to be consistent. For example, references 2, 61, 62, and 78 do not share the same date format as the rest of the article. This needs to be fixed. Reference 79 has a title in all caps. That needs to be fixed. The format of reference 75 is completely at odd with the other references. That needs to be fixed. Where is all the required info in reference 80? All the references should consistently have author information, title of work, publisher information, date of publishing, date it was found (if a web reference). Once books and peer-reviewed literature is available, cite journal and cite book formats should be adhered to, which would include page numbers, volume numbers, issue numbers, dates of publication, ISBN number, ISSN number, and DOI number, whichever is relevant. This kind of problem will keep the article from passing GAN, let along FAC.
The wording needs to be like an encyclopedia, meaning no opinions to maintain neutral point of view. Due to the shortness of her career so far, I'd avoid phrases such as "early in her career". What if her album launched this year is a total flop and she goes off in the direction of fashion instead, as a response? Does early in her career then mean 2008? If her career endures, she could still be early in her career. Verbal flourishes should be avoided, and so far appear to have been avoided. I am pleased to see no one trying to use phrases like "new queen of pop" in this article. Some of us who are older remember the media being fascinated by artists and groups such as A-ha, Terrance Trent Darby, or Milli Vanilli who were going to be enduring pop acts, and before you knew it, they were gone. I understand that could be hard to recognize if the contributors to the articles are fans, but vigilance is needed, or future GAN and future FAC attempts will be destined for failure. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)