Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion/Archive2

Céline Dion

Self-nomination. This article has come a very long way. I mean, a VERY long way. I discovered it in the summer, and was appalled at its state, so I decided to improve it (even though school got in the way). Ive worked laboriously, seeking the help of User:Mel Etitis and User:Extraordinary Machine, both of whom have provided valuable feedback. It was also submitted for peer review, (though only two users replied--User:Jkelly and the aforementioned User:EM). Here is the article before the others and I got to it: Celine Dion in August, and here is the finished product: Céline Dion. This is the second time the article is being submitted. On the first try, many criticised the article for not highlighting Dions music. (By the way, I want to thank all those who voted both support and oppose. I have addressed their concerns, all images are fair use, and the FA criteria were all checked off. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Not all concerns have been addressed, the original nomination has merely been pushed to the background in an attempt to get a clean slate for a second bite at the apple. In particular, the critical perspective of her voice and music is still inadequate and nothing has been done about the excessive reliance on Allmusic reviews. Unsourced generalities like "Some critics believed..." remain and a single person's quote is described as "many felt that...". More substance and diversity is needed in terms of evaluations, and again I recommend the basic effort of doing some research in offline sources. --Michael Snow 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say that Im a bit offended that you just think that I want "a bite of the apple". The original nomination failed, so I addressed the concerns (or I thought I had) and resubmitted. Ive removed many of the A.M.G reviews, and seeked outside reviews (eg. Entertainment weekly) etc. I also used book sources. Its in the refernce section: Glatzer, Jenna (2005). Celine Dion for keeps, Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN-10: 0-7407-5559-5. As far as the critical reviews go, I thought that they were properly addressed. Additionally, as an encyclopedia, its a bit difficult to delve into too much detail, given the recommended size of the article. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have misunderstood your motives, since discussion was still happening and being solicited on the previous page I didn't realize the nomination had already been removed by Raul654. The immediate renomination does rather convey an impression that the focus is more on pushing the nomination through than on making this as good an article as possible. My apologies for overlooking the existence of one offline source in the References section; I was focusing primarily on the quotes being used for critical perspective, which are in the Notes section and entirely based on online sources. Hence my suggestion, because I had the impression of a lack of imagination about where to do the research, as if people felt their options had already been exhausted. --Michael Snow 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive read many of the featured articles re pop singers, and they are not much different from this one. I have to ask: has the standard changed or something? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the answer is, yes, the "standard" is constantly evolving, hopefully for the better. And I don't believe there is any FAC rule or understanding that previous FAs are used as a measure for current candidates. And I think the ever-changing standards situation is at least partly reflected in
  Featured article removal candidates, a process for removing FAs. I will check my previous objection, and if necessary, retrieve it. BTW, that's a fancy signature! --Tsavage 03:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Elsewhere, you've mentioned using Kylie Minogue as a model, so I'll refer to that one. In my opinion, the outline of that article may be roughly similar to this one but the content is considerably superior. On the criticism issue alone, it draws on reviews from professional critics in the general media (Melbourne Herald Sun, Washington Post) along with major specialty publications (Billboard, NME). --Michael Snow 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for my incomplete answer/interpretation, above. Logic and common sense would say that existing Featured Articles are a guide for FA Candidates (and I really think this should by and large be the case). However, given the rapid evolution and expansion of everything around here, the existence of the FA Removal Candidates process, the basic reality of the situation, referring to an FA in support of an FAC may be useful, or it just as well may be a reason to consider the FA for FARC (using the same objections as for the FAC in question). (Where would we be without acronyms...?) IMO. --Tsavage 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are only about four or five notes (out of the 20) from All music guide. What over-reliance is there? An editor suggested that, instead of directly quoting A.M.G, I was to combine many sources and synthesize them, making one general statement. Thats what Ive done. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider more than two or three from any source over-reliance unless that source has some kind of claim to being a definitive account, and Allmusic is a particularly mediocre source. As a site that tries to include as much as possible and relies on a few people to still pull something out of their heads to say about it, it's the kind of coverage that's a mile wide and an inch deep. I would favor replacing it entirely. --Michael Snow 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I objected during the previous FAC nomination, which apparently ended sometime in the last 24 hours. In any case, I reread it (at this point, I must admit, doing that was somewhat stressful, I didn't look at the History, but it must've gotten longer...). Anyhow, the first point below is copied from my last objection. Anything else is new for this nom:
  • Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. There is nothing about her actual singing: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music itself:
    Billie Holliday, The Edge
    . (originally posted: 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Numerous typos At least a dozen simply misspelled or otherwise mangled regular everyday words.
  • Far too long and relentless for the material it covers Yes, Dion is a Big singer/celebrity, cultural icon/curiosity, whatever, so it follows that there's a lot to say about her. What this article does in current form, however, is cover her career as a sort of Entertainment Weekly profile, with a relentless mix of media opinion, release titles, performance data, and news highlights from her offstage life. "Relentless" is FAC actionable when it means, the writing quality doesn't carry this mix of material. It is readable, but does not hang together, no context provided, simply a long, chronological series of details, pinned to a string of editorializing subheads ("Breakthrough:...", "New beginnings", "A return to basics", and so forth). Although there is apparently MORE than enough material here to furnish a lengthy profile (if a MUSIC section were to be added), it is not written in a way that puts it all together. As it is, this could be more efficiently consumed as a loooong point-form list, to the same effect. IMHO, of course. --Tsavage 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- Khalif 04:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sorry but you must provide a reason for supporting or objecting to an article otherwise your vote is not counted. —
    Wackymacs 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. I must say, I find the above objections rather unconvincing (IMHO). I've read the article; there seems to be perfectly adequate treatment of her music — motifs, motivating feelings, styles, etc. are all discussed. In addition, I find the article extremely well organized; it is chronological rather than topical (notwithstanding the last few sentences, which is wholly excusable) Non-chronological organization is a situation that blights many, many other biographies — even featured ones. I suppose it could use some more authoritative references (such as book-length biographical works, encyclopedia entries, published news articles, and the like. News articles (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) should be especially easy to find and insert on such a well-known celebrity. This should probably be done soon in order to stem a tide of further objections. Otherwise, a great article which appears comprehensive to me (a novice at popular music). I will leave it to our neighborhood popular music experts to critique my comments. Good luck. ← SARAVASK — 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• re: I find the above objections rather unconvincing My objections (above) I hoped would be largely self-evident by reading the article against them. To further clarify my opinion: On the "music" issue, if we accept that Dion is "one of the top contemporary singers in the world", curiosity is aroused. What singing abilities make her so good? Does she have any unusual or extraordinary vocal abilities? What is her singing range? How has her voice changed over the years? How was she trained? Does she play other instruments? How is she involved in music writing, and selecting her music? That sort of basic information about her craft. As it is, I can come away from the article with only a sketchy idea of what she is as a musician. As for typos, they're either there or they're not , a spellchecker can easily determine that. As for the writing quality/style issue, the article is certainly readable, the chronological order seems appropriate, a comprehensive collection of information seems to be there, but the slant of the coverage -- the way the factual content is organized and presented -- favors a news-style, media-referenced account. This is evidenced by the frequent use of music critics to support editorial conclusions, and to establish context; some examples:

- Jim Faber of Entertainment Weekly said that the album was a relief. Her vocals, being "tastefully unadorned"

- Another reviewer, Stephen Thomas Erlwine of All Music Guide declared it as "a fine, sophisticated American debut"

- Critics favored her clear vocals and the emotions that she lended to the lyrics of the song

- However, critics note that there were some minor distractions. Arion Berger of Entertainment Weekly believed that

- Some critics believed that the album contained some of Dion's best songs, and some of the best songs of the 1990s.

- Critics lavished upon Falling into You, such plaudit as "compelling", "passionate", "stylish", "elegant" and "remarkabely well-crafted".

and so on (there are many more examples). Music critics writng for pop media are, to a usually greater than lesser degree, in the hyperbole business, their opinions may be "valid", but in the end, the presentation is necessarily pushed to an extreme, to appeal to audiences wanting pointed, unequivocal comments in a few minutes of reading. Relying on music critics as a main historical source can only be confusing at best, after a while blurring the line between what "music authorities" might have said, with "what the media said". (This is entirely a different situation from a "Critical response" section, where a balanced and representative selection of reviews should be the criteria. Here, there could perhaps be a sub-article, "Music critics' view of Celine Dion".) And, although with the superficial appearance of a "balanced" presentation (some good, some bad reviews cited), this use of media in general ends up providing a favorable bias, reading more as "the worthy struggles of Celine Dion", than really, "the good, the bad". In short,not well-written (for the specifc reasons noted), nor neutral. I'm not "against" this article (or any FAC), just trying to do my bit in the QA process as I understand it... What should I do otherwise, go away? Offer an A for Effort and support it (there has obviously been much effort here... It can have my "A" there if it wants it ;) IMHO. --Tsavage 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Object per Tsavage, who raises important issues which must be fully addressed before this article can be featured. This article is still too pro-POV in focusing on Dion's successes (eg. the record sales) without looking at whether the recognised mainstream critics agreed with the quality or not. Really, this needs to be trimmed down to look less like Dion's biography as a 200-page book. And change those headings to something less vomit-inducing like "Early career" and "Career in the 1990s" for example.
  Harro5 09:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak object I agree with a lack of sources etc and in particular a lack of coverage of negative criticism. Everyone knows that Celine Dion is frequently the object of ridicule on sitcoms, stand up comedy shows etc. I don't know how you tactfully work that in, but it should be there. The part on her criticism of Bush's response to Katrina could be better sourced. Certain phrases are far from NPOV: "Apart from her success as a musician, Dion has also become a successful entrepreneur". By comparison, even Donald Trump doesn't refer to "success" but rather concrete achievements, and doesn't shy away from mocking his bad hairstyle. I would like to see more acknowledgement of failures. Also on NPOV "Dion has been an active supporter of many charity organisations worldwide" could become "Dion has supported the following charities". Stylistically, reviewers' comments should not be given as "Arion Berger of Entertainment Weekly believed" but rather "...wrote that" -- Stevage 13:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Based on what others have said, including Tsavage, I think this article is very close but not quite there yet. It is long for the subject. I am also concerned that the references all seem to be based on news articles, angelfire websites and newspaper/magazine articles - I personally don't consider these very reliable resources (as the media often change the facts) - Books would be a better source, if possible. The lead is choppy, it could be made neater into two paragraphs instead of lots of little sentences separated from each other. The section titles are also a problem, they don't follow their own convention, some include dates while some don't - for example, the section 'Titanic accomplishments' should also include the year 1997 in the title. Several fair use images are missing their fair use rationales as well. As also mentioned, there are several spelling mistakes. —
  Wackymacs 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok,I know where most of you are coming from, but I cant help but feel that many of the responses and comments given are matters of personal tastes (and as such, does not really disqualify the article's content as FA quality →"there's no such things as a perfect article"). For example:

1. On the previous request for FA status, some complained that I did not focus on Dion's music. For example, User:Jiy said, "What does her music sound like? How has it progressed between albums? What themes do her lyrics cover? What is the recording process for her albums like? What musicians does she work with on the recordings?". I addressed all of those, (including quoting lyrics etc) but now you guys tell me that the material is too long, and the info is superfluous.
2. While you are telling me that it is too long,
   WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines: Vocal Profile controversy), "Dion honed her music talents by performing with her siblings in her parents' piano-bar" that answers the question of her vocal training. How does she write her music, does she play other instruments ? She doesnt! The intro reads that Dion "is a pop vocalist". If she was a singer-songwriter, or an instrumentalist, it would have said so (throughout the article, Ive mentioned that she worked with legendary songwriter, Diane Warren
   ).
3. You have told me to use more authoritative sources: Snow tells me to use such sources as Washington Times, some tell me Billboard.com... but
   User:Wackymacs
   is "concerned that the references all seem to be based on news articles, angelfire websites and newspaper/magazine articles" which he doesnt prefer "as the media often change the facts - Books would be a better source". Ive been searching, and cant seem to find any books that give critical responses to her music (even after doing a book search by google). All of those are on computer/the net (computers are taking over. Even books are written on the net!)

In any case, school is getting a bit demanding, and I wont be able to address your concerns 'till the middle of next week. Thank you. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on me, I'm sorry, but it's true. It really is like putting headings on the George W. Bush article saying "God smiles on us" for the section on his re-election; not really that extreme, but wasn't it obvious the headings were pretty POV? I'd like to see this article featured when it's at the right level, and hope to see it there soon.

Harro5 05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I have struck out some of my previous objection because I have fixed some issues I mentioned myself (this includes fixing at least 20 awful spelling/grammar errors, no wonder people are voting Object!), I have also improved the section titles. But my Object still stands for the moment, because I think the quality of the writing isn't as good as it could be. One of the requirements for a featured article is a well written article. It uses the same words over and over, and doesn't engage the reader enough. There is still lots of room for improvement. —

Wackymacs 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your help. However, I noticed that many of your corrections were changing 'Z' to 'S' or vise versa. The thing is: Im Jamaican (now living in Canada) we use the British spelling :). Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 18:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am British and living in the UK, but on Wikipedia I use American spelling because there are more American English users on here than British English users. A lot of the errors I fixed were awful typos, not all were the minor language changes (future tip: always go through any article with a spell checker before submitting it as a FAC, as I did) —

Wackymacs 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]