Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandy Moore/archive2

Mandy Moore

The old nomination was lengthy and mostly correct/no longer applicable. I'm restarting this nomination. Raul654 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mad Jack 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to be well written. Tony 12:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's an interesting juxtaposition to see an academic-style article, with detailed footnotes, on such a subject. At any rate though, it's definitely FA standard. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Only quibble: is there any way to increase that font size in the infobox? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, not sure. I tried using the same formatting employed in Lindsay Lohan, but it did not work. This appears to be the standard font for music infoboxes, though, so I don't really know. Mad Jack 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I made the font size a bit bigger, changing it to the standard caption size. Perhaps it looks a little better. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)
• Support The article has come out of the crucible of review quite nicely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rebecca 04:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good, well referenced article. --RicDod 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support well-written Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, the selected television section in unnecessary for one show - cna't it just be added to the text?--Peta 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is in the text and it shouldn't be there. I guess no one noticed it. Thanks! I will remove Mad Jack 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as long as someone can make the refs two columns. Otherwise, it's a great article. -- Zanimum 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Two columns? (Lindsay Lohan has one) Mad Jack 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Mild support I think some expansion is in order though. There is NO requirement to have two-columns of refs. In fact, I've never seen that. Rlevse 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think a bettter lead picture is required. TheKillerAngel 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well-done, I'm impressed. Lordwow 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. While this is a good article, I find a few minor inconsistencies that take away from its overall quality.

1. While it is not fundamental, featured articles on musicians should have music samples (see other featured articles like Phil Collins, Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Jackson 5, The Beatles...).
2. After reading this article, I have no idea how Moore's music sound — the only info on her craft is critical comments and chart placings. The reader cannot get a picture of what the critics review: what are the themes covered? What instruments are used? What genres does she incorporate? We need an exploration of this (which, incidentally, would be complemented by samples). (The writers may use Celine Dion and Mariah Carey as standards for exploring "music".)
3. The caption in the lead pic lacks context and seems out of place.
4. Numbers should be written as words.i.e instead of #20, write "number twenty".

Fair attempt, but not there yet. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Working backwards:
    • 4. Not sure if that's true. FA Lindsay Lohan certainly has a lot of numbers in number form. I don't think there's a clear policy on that and I can't see us spelling out "one hundred and twenty three".
    • 3.What part of the caption? A lot of description is necessary for the image to justifiably be there (i.e. commenting on the video). Is "the video marked Moore's first public appearance as a brunette" the problem?
    • 2. Mariah Carey's article has unsourced phrases like "presented a more overtly sexual image of her than had been previously seen", which, for the record, should definitely not be there without several sources because that's clearly someone's opinion. I don't actually see that many more descriptive phrases in Carey's article then in Mandy Moore's. I added one bit and may add a few more, but unless quoted from a direct source these are POV
    • 1. Again, I am using FA Lindsay Lohan as a model (i.e. she is also an actress-singer) and that article doesn't have music samples either. The official site, which is linked to, immediately starts playing some of Moore's music, if that helps :)

Mad Jack 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that you won't address any of my suggestions. Then I will continue to oppose. Lindsay Lohan is a far superior article to this, so I don't understand why you are quoting it. There is no clear policy on numbers, but it is conventional to spell out numbers (especially those below ten), but preferably for those under 100 (I did not expect you to write out 175 — that would be foolish). As stated, the caption does not have context. The problem: the video marked Moore's first public appearance as a brunette. Well, was she a blonde before, or was she a redhead? Why is this important? If there is discussion of her image further in the article, observations like these should be there, not in the lead (it seems out of the blue).

Why are we critiquing Mariah Carey's article? I was not talking about sources and POV — don't dodge the issue. That Carey changed her image after her divorce is basically common knowledge (plus, the picture there proves it). What I am talking about is the exploration of Carey's music: what it sounds like, the themes covered, the style of each album. It is a must for featured articles under the "music category" — even Lindsay Lohan touches on it. I'm not asking for the article's length to be doubled, here. Im just asking for a paragraph or two about what Moore does.

"The official site, which is linked to, immediately starts playing some of Moore's music, if that helps". No it doesn't help. And point of information: articles have been 'defeatured' for lack of music samples. I'm just trying to help here. We can't tout a mediocre article as one of Wikipedia's best. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did address your suggestions - every one - it doesn't matter if Linday L is a far superior article - does that excuse the fact that the numbers aren't spelt out there? :) If it's not a clear policy, then, how is it A. conventional and B. why doesn't Lohan's article do it? As for the caption, I will remove that part - I was just trying to figure out what part of the caption was the problem. You can't really use the "That Carey changed her image after her divorce is basically common knowledge" argument or "the picture proves it" - you'd need sources that said it. Although I would assume that 1 + 1 = 2 IS common knowledge, I don't think that the fact that a singer changed her image after her marriage is "common knowledge". I don't believe, as I said, that Lindsay Lohan has a music sample - and as you previously noted it is not a must. That just leaves a little bit on Moore's music - and aside from the bit I added yesterday, I'll see what I can do. Mad Jack 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added in more bits here and there on Moore's music, from various reviews of her albums. I hope that helps, at least somewhat Mad Jack 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue to focus on Mariah Carey. And by the way, I checked the point about her "overtly sexual image." It is sourced — from a book. And since you want to get technical, according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style — the official policy— "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article.", and "Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million"." These are direct quotes.

Are you satisfied? Don't quote Lindsay at me. Just because that article lacks something, that does not mean that this one will get away with it (i.e two wrongs don't make a right). Expectations about featured articles evolve and change over time. That is why there is the FAC removal process.

I still see no mention of music. Other than for critique (as you have done for Mariah Carey), have you actually taken notice of the content of any of the model articles I showed you? Orane (talk • cont.) 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought up Carey because you pointed me to her article as an example and I brought Lohan up because, if we're comparing to other articles, we may as well compare it to that, since Lohan is a full-time actress and only part-time singer, which is what Moore has now become. Yes, I am well aware that numbers under or including 10 must be spelt out, and I believe that is done in the article. But, the rules say "you may" spell out numbers above 10. It certainly doesn't say we have to, or even should, only that we can. I'd think most people would rather just write those numbers in number form, but it looks like there is no clear direction there. Lohan's FA wasn't that long ago, and as you said, a music sample is not a requirement (just as a video of an actor during a film performance is not a requirement for a film actor FA). The critiques I added "are" of music. I'm sure I'll add some more shortly. Mad Jack 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So we're clear here: you are not including a sample. O.K, then I'm not supporting this nomination. I'm sure if Wikipedia had a featured article category for "celebrity", then this article would pass. However, the category is "music" — something that this article does not touch on, save for a few "the album peaked at #5", or "critics called her a pop princess". These are trivial observations that do little to distinguish this article as one of Wikipedia's best. Practically every featured article on a musician delves into musical style (complemented by samples). Yet, you use the odd one— Lindsay Lohan— as a justification for "Mandy Moore"'s shortcomings (even though, incidentally, Lohan's article contains mention of style and themes). If you feel the need to counteract every comment that I make, then fine. Go ahead. But you won't accomplish much by doing so, and you won't get another reply from me.

PS: Lohan was promoted over 1/2 a year ago. I'd hardly call that recent. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this necessarily a "Music" article, though? I thought it would be filed under "Media", ala Lohan, especially considering Moore hasn't really produced anything in terms of music in over three years, and is mostly now known as an actress. As for styles, "teen pop" is a style. As for "counteract every comment that I make", this, unlike other parts of Wikipedia, is a discussion forum, so if you make a comment I don't see why you wouldn't expect that someone may disagree with you and indeed, "counteract". Anyway, as I said, I will shortly add a tingle more critical analysis of her music. Mad Jack 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be blunt or unfriendly. I just want what's best for the article. Yes, I think it's a music article. The difference with Moore and lohan is that Lohan is primarily an actor who decided to venture into music once she had established herself. Moore, on the other hand, started out as a musician, and her music is a more prominent feature of her career.

I can see that you aren't doing exactly what I described, and maybe it's my fault for not being precise. I'm not after critical analysis of her albums/music. I want a description of it. Consider these examples from Celine Dion:

On the one hand, Dan Leroy wrote that Falling Into You was not very different from her previous work,[13] and Stephen Holden of The New York Times and Elysa Gardner of Los Angeles Times wrote that the album was formulaic, and the songs suffered from a lack of emotional connection.[14][15] However, other critics such as Chuck Eddy, Erlewine and Daniel Durchholz lavished the album as "compelling", "passionate", "stylish", "elegant", and "remarkably well-crafted".[16][12]

v.s

In an attempt to reach a wider audience, Falling Into You combined many elements: ornate orchestral frills and African chanting, and instruments like the violin, Spanish guitar, trombone, the cavaquinho, and saxophone created a new sound. The singles encompassed a variety of musical styles: the title track and "River Deep, Mountain High" (a Tina Turner cover) made prominent use of percussion instruments; "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" (a remake of Jim Steinman's song) and a remake of Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" kept their soft-rock atmosphere, but were combined with the classical sound of the piano...

The first one deals with critical appreciation (what you are doing). I need to see more of the second one. Understand? Of course, I'm not expecting much, as Moore has released only a few albums and her music has gone through minimal progression. However, just a mention of these things will do. Other examples from Lindsay Lohan: "Though primarily a pop-rock album, Speak was introduced with the single "Rumors", described by Rolling Stone as "a bass-heavy, angry club anthem", "a blend of old-fashioned, Britney-styled dance-pop and the anthemic, arena rock sound pioneered by fellow teen stars Hilary Duff and Ashlee Simpson."

PS: Amazon.com isn’t considered an authoritative music review source. Consider print/news articles, Billboard.com, AMG, Slant Magazine, Entertainment Wkly etc. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand a little better now, and I'll try to bring some of that in tonight, so I guess - check back tomorrow (I think we're on the same Ontario time). For the record, though, it seems weird that there are a few sections on the Dion page which seem completely unsourced - but maybe I have focused a little too much on sourcing on the Moore page, anyway. Mad Jack 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as for Moore's music career - personally - I think it's obviously not a heavy part of her future - she has something along the line of 7 upcoming movies, but has been struggling for a while now to get an album done and distributed. Speaking of the Amazon thing - it wasn't actually a review by a random user - it was the posted description - I.e. I guess a review by the Amazon staff - though I suppose that may also not muster up to the standard. Mad Jack 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you are too focussed on sources. I find that many of the contemporary featured articles are grossly overreferenced (Katie Holmes is a perfect example). The thing is, not every point of information has to be sourced with an inline citation. This is why we have the "reference" section, which should include a list of the works used for the more general info (which is the case for "Celine Dion").

PS: It doesn't matter if the review is by an Amazon staff. This site's concern is with selling products, not with providing a professional and comprehensive review. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of info of the type you requested last night. Are those sufficient or do we need more? Mad Jack 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm satisfied. All I'm waiting for is the music sample (even one), which, as I pointed out, has become increasingly important to featured articles. Orane (talk • cont.) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak object; referencing could be improved. Yahoo! movies, All Music Guide, RottenTomatoes, TheNumbers.com—these are all shaky references. Print reviews from large city newspapers and well-known magazines would be great. Question—were the reviews by Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone that appear in this article also printed in the corresponding magazines? Could that bibliographic information be given as well? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • RottenTomatoes is just a general overview of reviews to get an idea of whether they were positive, negative, etc. Would you prefer MetaCritic? (i.e. we already have various print reviews cited for specific quotes and opinions on a film, Rotten is just for generalities). As for The Numbers, I can replace those with Box Office Mojo, which is more reliable. Is there a requirement for the bibliographical information on RS and EW? The reviews cited are linked to the RS and EW websites, which are reputable sources. Anyway, I'll change the box office citations to the MoJo cite, and wait for your reply on the other stuff. Mad Jack 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked over Rottentomatoes.com. Citation 53 ("most painless of former pop princesses") should not link to rottentomatoes; or at least, it should include the original bibliographical information (if the review is not available online elsewhere). The reason bibliographical information is needed for all print sources that also appear online is because the internet is subject to change. While it may be true that currently all of the sources you use are available online, that may not be the case a year from now. Including the issue and article information ensures that a reader will always know how to obtain access to the original source. Is it required, per se? No, but hopefully you agree that it's beneficial for the article, and for me, it's the basis of my objection.

Using rottentomatoes or metacritic isn't in my opinion "best practice" for determining overall sentiment toward the movie, but it's not the end of the world and is certainly alot easier than adding 3-4 print references per statement. Generally I think it's just better to shy away from such general statements like "it received positive reviews" and to instead cite dollars (for popularity) and then quote a few choice reviews that in your opinion capture the overall mood. But again, this part is not a big deal. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've cited the specific quotes for the movie reviews to the specific review where they were said (well, there weren't that many), though Tomatoes is still used for the general "positive"/"negative" thing. I've also formatted the EW citations into Cite journal - i.e. the specific issues. Mad Jack 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have that info for the newspapers and rolling stone as well? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I have just added all the info I could find on all the other newspapers and magazines (there was only one Rolling Stone - the other was an online only report). Hope that does the trick. Mad Jack 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks better; thanks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Although a better lead picture should be used, this article gets my vote. Sarz 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Violates fair use criterion #3. Five "fair use" images in only 38k of text is three or four too many. Some are being used in a way that's inconsistent with their "fair use" tag (the top image is tagged as a music video screenshot, and can only be used in a discussion of the video, not merely to show what the person looks like; the Cosmopolitan magazine cover isn't being used to discuss the issue, but merely her presence on the cover, etc.) User:Angr 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to suggest I should stalk Mandy Moore so I can get a free picture? Anyway, FA Lindsay Lohan has six images, and it's 41k, which isn't much more. LL is a fine FA article, and I'm not sure why standards that are so much harsher need be applied here. Mad Jack 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And in fact, Diane Keaton, FA'd fairly recently, starts off with a screenshot (i.e. same as Moore's header) and then has something like 6 fair use images (39 ks). Why did I get stuck with this month and a half long nomination where it seems the harshest possible standards that were not applied to other recent actor FA's have been applied? As for Cosmopolitan, that is silly, the article explicitly discusses the cover, which is all that is required for the cover to be here. Mad Jack 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I found an free image for Mandy Moore, not the best of images but it replaces an fair use and I'm currently looking for more in flicker. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)