Talk:Gwen Stefani/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA nomination on Hold

  • Well-written: Passed. However, dead links do not look good and thus should be removed. Baby clothes, although arguably an article that needs to be created, isn't entirely relevant to this article. She has a clothing line that includes some baby clothes, but that's the extent of it.
  • Factually acurate: Failed. The article as a whole is well referenced, for the most part. There are some instances where an unreferenced statement is made (i.e. Stefani beginning a long distance relationship with Rossdale), but not referenced until it is mentioned again later in the article. Additionally, the lead section does not cite any sources until the last paragraph. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be carefully sourced.
  • Broad coverage: Passed.
  • Neutral point of view: Passed.
  • Stability: Passed.
  • Images: Passed. Although, personally, I think there are a couple too many, and the main image should be more of a head shot. Regardless, by GA criteria, it passes.

There really isn't that much to be done, so I think GA status should be achieved within the week. Therefore, the hold will be in place for no more than seven days unless progress is being made and there is a reasonable request for an extention. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 19:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Lead in an article is never referenced, because it is a summary of the whole article. Everything in the Lead should be mirrored in the article and references provided in the article.andreasegde 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
Articles to refer to for reference:
--LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 15:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue came up when Jihad (song) went for GA status. There was a consensus at its review that references in the lead are only necessary when they are not present in the main article. ShadowHalo 18:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
ShadowHalo is right - the lead section is meant to be a summary of the article, and therefore all information in the lead section should be in the body. As long as it's cited in the body of the article it's fine - citing the same information twice is redundant. Check Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 16 where in a Good Article review of "Jihad (song)" the consensus was the lead doesn't need citing. If this is the only basis for placing this GAC on hold, I'd recommend Shadowhalo go to Good Article Review as I did. LuciferMorgan 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not the only basis for placing it on hold, as noted above. It was one example. Thanks for your info, but I only need it from one person. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
ShadowHalo, considering your reference to Jihad (song), I now realize that the current format for citations is acceptable. Move forward with citing references for the few statements throughout the article that are currently missing them. Some further examples include:
  • "Rock Steady (2001) introduced dancehall and reggae production into its music, which generally received positive reviews." - This is in the lead and is unreferenced. In the article Rock Steady is mentioned but there are no details of the introduction of dancehall and raggae production. Considering how it's worded in the lead, it implies that the positive reviews were for those components and thus should be included in the main portion of the article. Additionally, there needs to be a reference.
  • Grammy Award nominations and wins. (Has an Awards section for nominations and wins been considered? Not a requirement for the GA, but something I think may improve the article.)
  • It's stated that her pregnancy was first announced in US Weekly; is there possibly an archive to that article, or is it known what issue it was in?
  • Details of Gavin Rossdale's appearance on Loveline and statements he made.
Another issue I noticed in reading back through it is the use of periods after quotations. Full Stop states that "In American English the full stop normally comes before the quotation mark. (This applies to commas and some other punctuation, also.)"
Otherwise, the article is very good. I look forward to approving the nomination. Good work. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the part about Rock Steady in the main article so that it mentions reggae/dancehall and added the part about New Wave (also covered by the reference) since New Wave later became an important influence on L.A.M.B. The reference covers the part about genres and it's from a list of "50 Essential Pop Albums", so that should be a good source that it was well-received by music critics. There was a section of Grammy history, but I removed it. The award/nominations were all for either "Let Me Blow Ya Mind" or L.A.M.B., so it doesn't seem enough to warrant an entire table when it's already described in the main article. If you think it would be a good idea, I can add it to the lead since it seems common to mention an artist's overall sales/award history there. I looked at US Weekly' online archives, but the only information about her pregnancy is after-the-fact. There are only reports (from Rolling Stone, MTV News, etc.) that mention that US Weekly was the first to report it. The detail about Rossdale's childhood seems out of place in an article about Stefani, so I condensed it to saying that they keep information about their relationship private and added a citation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks states that the period should be in the quotes only when it's part of a full quoted sentence, so I corrected one sentence on that. ShadowHalo 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'm still learning, obviously. Sorry to be slowing you down when I'm trying to save you time! I need sleep, so let me read over it once more and (hopefully) get this done! --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem. I'm supposed to be working on a comp. sci. assignment anyway. Maybe I should start that... ShadowHalo 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination Passed

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the article's improvement, particularly ShadowHalo. Improving articles to GA status improves Wikipedia. A job well done. Thank you for your hard work. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I think now this article serously deserves to be a featured article.Can anyone tell the process how this can be done.Thank You.It would be nice if others help in getting this article a FA Status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.44.215 (talk) May 8, 2007, 03:36 (UTC)

At this point, it's getting there. There are instructions on how to nominate an article for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. However, I think there are some things that could still use work, and it would probably be best to have the article peer reviewed before nominating it. ShadowHalo 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Akon and Verizon

I've re-removed the Controversy section. The information about Akon dry humping a minor belongs at the Akon article, not here since it's not that relevant to Stefani. Information about sponsoring the tour belongs at The Sweet Escape Tour article and possibly the Akon article (note how the article didn't mention who sponsored the tour before). There's not really much of a reason to include the information here unless the tour is cancelled, just like the 2007 Timbaland plagiarism controversy article isn't included at Nelly Furtado since it's not relevant to her. ShadowHalo 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ALbums Sold

Stefani has sold above 9 million albums.WHy cant we simply add.Love.Angel.Music.Baby=7 million (which is sourced) The Sweet Escape=2.6(which is also sourced).Simply add.7+2.6=9.6....why do we need citing for addition also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.224.38.21 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

As of yet, no reliable source has been provided for The Sweet Escape's sales. ShadowHalo 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now can we say that Gwen Stefani has sold above 9 million albums.I think there can't be a better source for The Sweet Escape's sales than mediatraffic.So,Gwen has sold 7+2=9 million albums in her solo career and 27 milliom albums with No Doubt.But let's just talk about her solo career. User:Luxurious.gaurav

I would recommend against using MediaTraffic as a source. It's quite reliable for now, but it's completely useless once the album has left the chart. ShadowHalo 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Featued Article

Now when it has passed the good article scrutiny,lets try for featured article?What say? User:luxurious.gaurav

If you'd like to put it up at FAC, far be it from me to stop you. I'm waiting for Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) to be done at peer review though, and then I'm planning on taking it to FAC. Once that's done (whether or not it's listed), the peer review for this article should be done, and I'll have time then to list it at FAC then. ShadowHalo 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape

Hey!where did the part discussing her second solo album The Sweet Escape go?I dont find any reason for its deletion. User:luxurious.gaurav

Was it because of this? ShadowHalo 16:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Title song

If Wind it up could be mentioned in the introduction paragraph in the sweet escape (album) paragraph,then i think The Sweet Escape (song) should also be mentioned coz it was a bigger success. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Any answers to this???

New No Doubt Album

She mentioned at a recent North Carolina Concert (May 14th) that she was planning and working on a new No Doubt album. Clearly this belongs in the N*D* page, but should it not be mentioned here? Thanks -GVD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.120.175 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It's already in the article. "The other members of No Doubt have begun work on a new album[23] and plan to complete it after Stefani's tour is finished.[24]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowHalo (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Most Successful Single

Hollaback Girl was the most successful single of her in U.S. ,but worldwide,her most successful single is The Sweet Escape...i think this should be mentioned. User: Luxurious.gaurav


Danger Zone

This is wikipedia said Stefani's song "Danger Zone" was widely believed to be about the discovery and its aftermath;[67] however, the song was written prior to the incident.[9]v

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,831435,00.html

This is what the article reads:

....Danger Zone, could easily be interpreted as her tongue-lashing of hubby Gavin Rossdale after news broke that he had fathered a child pre-Gwen.)

this excerpt is from the article. I think it should be removed on the grounds that the article says that it is speculation, not fctual.(using the word "could") that doesn't seem encyclopedic, nor does the article say that anyone else interpreted it that way, or even that the person who wrote the article interpreted it that way RichieRich 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If that reference doesn't work well enough for you, then there's another one in the sentence, which links to this article. "Fans interpreted "Danger Zone," off her first album, as her stinging retort" (in a paragraph about the incident) seems to support the sentence pretty well. ShadowHalo 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NOT a Good article

3 factual errors so far, i would not call this article a GARichieRich 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing them out? Of the edits you made, I only see two, one of which you didn't actually correct. The part about Tragic Kingdom selling fifteen million was incorrect; it sold sixteen million worldwide, which is cited to this article in the main body. There's no sense in specifying one country in the lead since that gives the article an unnecessary U.S. bias. The part about Rossdale being Daisy Lowe's stepfather instead of godfather was indeed incorrect. The part about Elvira Hancock was correct, just cited to the wrong Entertainment Weekly article (see this one). If you don't think the article meets the criteria, however, feel free to seek a review and see if there's consensus to have it delisted. ShadowHalo 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure Rich Girl was inspired by Lady Saw's version of the song rather than the Louchie Lou and Michie One version. 70.21.179.51 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This source disagrees. ShadowHalo 04:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


No it isn't a good article, it's likely very good in some respects. I think it would pass FAC and I hope after ShadowHalo's song FAC passes, that he next takes this one to FAC. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Album Pictures

Don't you think we should put the picture of the albums in the sections discussing them.And i am not able to see the mistake or lacking things in this article.If any person can tell where the article is going wrong,then it can be worked on.I don't understand why it is failing FAC. User:luxurious.gaurav

No, using the album covers here would not meet the criteria for using unfree media. The article also isn't failing FAC. It's not even at FAC, it's at A-class review right now. ShadowHalo 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A Class/FAC?

Have a look at Madonna article.It is veryy long and has a total of 79 sources.I think it is thrice the length of this article.While this article has 82 sources.It seems everything is sourced in this article.And Madonna article was once FAC too.This article is not clumsy too.It tells a lot about her life and the pictures are to the point too.If long article means good article....then i am sure there are many over-excited Gwen Stefani fans who can make it the longest article on Wikipedia.Quality should be seen and not quantity. User:luxurious.gaurav

Keep in mind that Madonna has released five times as many studio albums as Gwen Stefani, so her article is (and should be) significantly longer. Madonna (entertainer) and related articles have also had problems with fancruft and POV for awhile now. For example: "Madonna's seventh studio album, 1998's Ray of Light, blended personal and introspective lyrics with Eastern sounds, down-tempo, electronic instrumentation, strings by Craig Armstrong and a strong rave flavor." is not cited. "Despite her career achievements,[63] Madonna has been the target of criticism since the beginning of her career." has a citation that she has achieved things during her career (which doesn't need a citation, given the entire Biography section). All in all, Madonna (entertainer) would probably not be a good model on which to try to base this article. ShadowHalo 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was searching for articles of people who are into music and their articles were featured and the only i could find which was near to FAC was Madonna (entertainer).And i thought that i can compare a biography with a biography only.My point is that can anyone tell where the article is lacking that this article is not even A Class.At least we should come to know what we want to achieve,what are the things required.Her 4 songs are featured and Love.Angel.Music.Baby is a featured topic.Her song Wind it up is months younger,or maybe a year younger than this article,yet it is already GA. User:luxurious.gaurav

For an example of an A-class article about a musician, see Bert Jansch or Jeff Tweedy. The criteria for an A-class article are here. ShadowHalo 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the grading scheme and it seems the article lives upto all those criterias.It was peer reviewed too.This is what i feel about the article but someone who knows more,should say what more is needed.And i know this is done through peer review,which has been already done and the amount of objections show that nothing major is a flaw in this article,and the one which were hav been dealt by ShadowHalo.The bottom line is that:- i wanted to know what lacks in this article,which i came to know after reading the peer review of it,and the flaws were mended by ShadowHalo,so now what is left? User:luxurious.gaurav

Right now, it's hard to say. Nobody has said anything at the A-class review. The comments here at the talk page have all been addressed or were not problems at all. So, whether or not this article is listed as A-class will just depend on whether or not the people who say something at the A-class review find anything wrong with the article. ShadowHalo 18:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen all your requests for the A Class nomination for the article and there hav'nt been any major objections,even then no responses have been received from the Users responsible for the grading.I wonder why it is taking so long. User:luxurious.gaurav

A-class review isn't as busy as FAC; it usually takes a couple days to get a response. ShadowHalo 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it gets an A Class,then the next step will be FAC,even for that,what more changes can be made in this article.I think this article is saturated and has what is requires.User:luxurious.gaurav

This one will pass FAC in my opinion. LuciferMorgan 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems there aint many FAC passed Biographies.Does anyone know the reason.The one which i found,Madonna (entertainer)is also not one any longer.I am talking just about musicians.User:luxurious.gaurav

For a featured article about a pop singer, see Mandy Moore or Selena. ShadowHalo 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It passed the A-class review. Well done everybody! Errabee 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At Lassst!Now the next step which ShadowHalo has already taken...FAC! User:Luxurious.gaurav

Interesting to note, Wikipedia now has as many featured articles about Gwen Stefani as it does about The Beatles (and even more about Slayer). We have our priorities straight.  ;-) ShadowHalo 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That should be a part of the trivia on the main page...lollz User:Luxurious.gaurav

Isn't her real name Gwendalin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSNFFJTR (talk • contribs) 02:38, June 9, 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source has been found that states that. ShadowHalo 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Don't you think we should mention in the Intro paragraph about the sales of her album Love.Angel.Music.Baby i.e 7 million so that the reader gets and idea of the success of her solo career.User:Luxurious.gaurav

Source it please

"Stefani is not set to appear in any forthcoming films in the near future" Can anyone source this? User:Luxurious.gaurav

There's no need to source a negative. ShadowHalo 07:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

I felt the shortage of statistics.So i have added some and i have sourced them too.User:Luxurious.gaurav

Featured

Congrats everbody.Great Job,especially ShadowHalo. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Correction needed

She was born in Fullerton and raised in Anaheim.

racism?

the section about racism is ridiculous. the first sentence is unreferenced. the last sentence in that paragraph about a "rumour" of a contract to not speak english: what is this, a gossip column? the blurb from margaret cho may at least be somewhat relevant, though there should be some statement made that margaret cho herself uses asian stereotypes. *roll eyes* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.96.4 (talk) 19:23, July 27, 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence doesn't need a reference. There are two sourced examples of where Stefani was accused of racism; adding one for that sentence would be completely redundant. References are supposed to make sure that information is backed up by a decent source, not insult the readers' intelligence to be able to read the next sentence. If there are notable rumors about this information, it should be included and be properly sourced (and this one is). Cho's comment is certainly relevant, considering it's been brought up in at least one other reliable publication. If she uses Asian stereotypes and it's notable to her career, then it should be added (and properly sourced) to her article, but it has nothing to do with Stefani. 17Drew 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed that stuff. One reference is to what somebody said on a blog. The Village Voice story is based on what the Voice writer openly admitted was a rumor. If they'd like to check their sources and reissue the story as fact rather than gossip, we might perhaps begin to consider them to be a reliable source on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Full Name?

I have heard from many people on a site about names that Gwen Stefani's full name is actually "Gwendolyn Renee Stefani". I doubted that the first sentence on this article is wrong, but sometimes there are exceptions. I'm just curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhavril39 (talk • contribs) 07:48:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

All reliable sources so far have stated that her first name is Gwen. If you can find a reliable source that lists her as Gwendolyn, please feel free to change it and cite that source. 17Drew 11:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The name "Gwen" is short for Gwendolyn, as is "Wendy". I'm sure if someone ever got around to asking her about it in an interview, for instance, then she would say that her full first name actually is "Gwendolyn". Wilhelmina Will 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think Gwen should be changed to Gwendolyn in the article, please provide a reliable source stating that all people who use the name Gwen are legally named Gwendolyn or that her first name is Gwendolyn. Alternatively, you or someone else can interview her and try to have it published in a reliable source, though that's unlikely to work. 17Drew 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The sentence "before completion, however, the company opted not to use No Doubt band-members' voices" in the section Non-musical projects is unclear. Where other No Doubt members asked before to do voices for the video game? Was Gwen Stefani's voice not used for the released version of the game? I think this should be rephrased. – Ilse@ 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before completion means before the completion of the making of the video game Malice. I think her voice was not used. Luxurious.gaurav 06:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

language and editing

the language in this article is terrible, for example 'gwen had a crush on tony', isnt wikipedia standard english. and the article has been changed, its more like an advertisement or a bio on the inside of an album cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.73.254 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Are Eve and Pharrell considerable as associated acts? I mean, I believe the Each of them they've worked with Gwen more then a couple of times on various projects. Just a thought... -- Harish - 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. I think a more general question to ask would be: "Can any solo artist/artist group be an associated act of any solo artist"? Could Gwen Stefani be an associated act of Pharrell Williams? I don't think so, because, the term "associated act" used in Wikipedia generally means one was a member of this act. Can a solo artists be a member of another solo artist (it just doesn't sound logical)? However...as think about it more...I suppose they could. Many solo artists have musicians to back them up, so they can be associated to solo artist/act in that way. Also, it is true artists collaborate with each other, but is this an act association? Please; more commentary. (Note: I undid the Pharrell Williams "associated act" because it's safer to say she isn't than is, at this time in discussion.) --Narcolepticpathos (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

how is their no mention

Of Sublime in the discussion of Gwen's early years and local music career in Cali?--Ioscius (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Block whoever is erasing the articles, admins.

I hate it when people erase articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.132.131 (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

singles collection

there has been no official or reliable source stating that she will release a singles collection. it looks as though its a fan made album that theyve spread through the internet and not an official album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.65.4 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was not sure if it was real or not when i added the infomation. So that is why I did not make an official article for it. But thanks for saying. BatterBean (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Picture

Is it possible that a better picture be used at the top of this article?

There are other pictures in the article that show her face whereas the one in the infobox only shows the side of her face. Perhaps this could be swapped?Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The other pictures are quite old. The picture of her performing in that red dress in the end of the article is not of good quality. SO we are left with this pic. Indianescence (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Music genres

There's been quite a few edits of the genres, with the following being added and removed: R&B, Pop, dance-pop, ska punk, pop rock, pop rap, New Wave. I don't have much knowledge in this area, but I'm starting the discussion here to try and get an agreement among as many editors as possible. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion. Here are the points i am raising.
  • The genres are being changed on the basis of what this editor feels. THis can be clearly made out from the edit summaries.
  • The one or two sources mentioned by this editor are advertisements while the sources on which the original genres are based are from the CRITICS.

Indianescence (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the editor is advertising and is not focusing the references and critics responses in the articles. This is an reliable and sourced encyclopedia. Charmed36 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of the above summaries seem reasonable. Orderinchaos 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Editing under multiple accounts and IPs (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blah1993blah) is quite disruptive. But just as long as either side can give a reliable source for the genres, there should be no reason to revert. Spellcast (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Spellcast, the point here is that there are thousands of sources on the net which call the album/song of some or the other genre. Songs and albums are are classified as so many genres by so many sources. We can't list all the genres, right. So it was decided long back that we would put up the genre from only those sources which are used in the Critical Reception section as they are very professional. This editor did give some sources to support his edits, but i didn;t find them that professional and 95% of the genres added by this editor were the ones s/he FELT. Therefore his/her edits were reverted. Indianescence (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you can source a genre with a reliable source, it should be ok. I'll list the genres and maybe some people can add a ref next to each one if possible. And I thought rock/metal bands were the only Wikipedia articles that had genre disputes. Spellcast (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rock and pop

[1] At the very least, I'm sure everyone agrees on rock and pop. Spellcast (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course. No DOubt. hehe :) Indianescence (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but her solo career has nothing to do with No Doubt. Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Charmed36, it should be noted that this article is about Gwen Stefani, not solo Gwen Stefani. It about her full life. Indianescence (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspirde08, I agree you, cant take Rock away from Gwen and she still has a few Rockish(New Wave) influences in some of her solo songs anyway

Indianescence and Gwenspride08 agree on rock. Charmed, do you still deeply object to rock being added? Spellcast (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance

Same, could not think of a better source. clealr calls her music "dance - oriented" [2] Indianescence (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to see everyone agrees on dance. Spellcast (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dance except I'm gonna be awkward, isn't dance too broad a term--should we not narrow it down to dance pop--Seán Travers (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Ska punk and new wave

[3] I couldn't imagine of a better source. Stefani si the lead singer of the band. Therefore, Ska punk should not be missed out at any cost. Indianescence (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable and uncontroversial. Spellcast (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
New wave, yes. Ska punk, no. She is her own act, but if it fits, it stays. Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The same thing repeating, this article is about Gwen Stefani. Not solo Gwen Stefani. It includes things of her band days also as it is the most important part of her life. Thus, ska has to be there. Indianescence (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspirde08

I agree..you cant take ska-punk away from her..its what she is

Everyone agrees on new wave. Ska punk is still a bit disputed by Charmed. But considering No Doubt is an integral part of her career, it can probably be added. Spellcast (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Wave??? Well, she is obviously influenced by New Wave, but to call her a New Wave artist??? 89.164.5.154 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indie pop

"Early Winter" is the only indie-oriented song. I don't think so. Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone can give a source, it shouldn't be added. Spellcast (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspirde08

Early Winter is Indie-pop and so is Wonederful Life, I think Indie should be added SHOULD be added.

R&B and hip hop

Clearly mentions "R&B rhythms, frenetic hip-hop beats" [4] I think its enough. I didn't get for the other two and don't support them as well. Indianescence (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
While CD Universe is reliable for guest appearances on track lists, I'm not sure it's a reliable source for genres. Can it be classified as a "professional" review? Any thoughts on this? Spellcast (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"Hollaback Girl", "Luxurious", "Crash" and 50% of The Sweet Escape are urban influenced. Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok sounds reasonable considering it had prominent hip hop/R&B producers like Dr. Dre, André 3000, The Neptunes, Dallas Austin, and Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. Spellcast (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources calling her song "Old-school rapper" style [5] and here are sources which call her music R&B [6][7]Indianescence (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspirde08

Luxurious, Orange County girl and Breaking up are the only R&B songs shes ever really done and NO Id say about *20%* of The Sweet Escape is *Urban'ish* Influenced..the rest is pop, dance and indie-pop but I think R&B SHOULD be added..NOT Hip-hop, Gwen hasnt done anything Hip-hop..unless you want to say Hollaback girl is hip-hop but its loping more towards Pop to me..not real Hip-hop

Gwenspirde08, you are again going the "I think" way. It should not matter much what we Think. SOurces should speak for you. Her songs, especially "Wind It Up", "Crash" and "Let Me Blow YOur Mind" have been called Hip Hop by Professinal critics. Some of the sources i have mentioned above as well. Indianescence (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The refs Indianescence gave only refer to specific songs being r&b/hip hop as opposed to it being an overall genre of Stefani. But even if you take Gwenspride's assertion that 20% of The Sweet Escape is urban-influenced, that's still quite a big number. Stefani's only released 2 solo albums and if at least 20% of a whole album is urban-influenced, it seems significant enough to be mentioned. Spellcast (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(talk)

well its like 3 songs of the Sweet Escape that are urban influenced..so ok then mabe I meant 5% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, everyone agrees on R&B. Hip hop seems to be a little disputed. Spellcast (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(talk)

Hip-hop is very disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.252.8 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Electro

Do you electro music as in old shool hip hop? Charmed36 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I just copied it from the infobox. Not sure if it's referring to that. Spellcast (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspirde08

By Electro I mean her "Electronic music/Dance Tracks and her Synth-pop music I think Electro should be added

Let some sources come here. Do not mentioned sources of just one or two songs. Those can be put it the songs article. It should not be like, Stefani's song Bubble Pop Electric was pure Electro so we should add it. This is Gwen Stefani's article, not her songs. Her two songs were indie - pop (which is unsourced now) doesnt mean it should be included. So her overall genre should be considered. I go for the following:- Rock, Pop, Dance - pop, R&B and Ska-punk. I don't wish for Hip-hop, but sources think otherwise. Indianescence (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) 17:19 Thats exactly what I mean..but music critics arent always correct and Gwen is definately not Hip-hop so I go for ( aswell) Rock, Pop, Dance, Ska-punk, New Wave, R&B AND Indie will Indie be allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indie would be allowed if:-
  • You provide a source for it and
  • The source should call Gwen Stefani an indie artist, not her song Early Winter or Wonderful Life Indie.
  • It is reliable and professional. Indianescence (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08)

Here Gwen Stefani is listed (under *S*) under *Indie*/rock 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/rockindie/albums/az/#s

Is this source ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mp3.com/artist/gwen-stefani/summary/ and this here says that Gwen Stefani is Indie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say we should include Indie Rock and not Indie because the BBC source says Indie/Rock, which ,means Indie or Rock. They have not mentioned where Love.Angel.Music.Baby falls, so we should consider both and make it Indie Rock. The other source does not seem professional compared to the first. Indianescence (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am putting forth my final decision. I vote for:-
  • Pop
  • Rock
  • Ska-punk
  • New Wave
  • R&B
  • Dance
  • Indie Rock and not Indie Pop
Is that okay with the other editors. Let us clear up the matter fast. Indianescence (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine wit me, but Hip hop is missing. Charmed36 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Gwenspride08) because hip-hop is not her genre(R&B only)


Gwenspride08 I agree 100% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Gwenspride08 should we add Indie Rock to the Sweet Escape album aswell? instead of pop-rap

so its Dance-pop R&B and Indie(-Rock)? just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise for now. Stefani's music obviously has elements of every genre mentioned here. The issue is just finding the overall, most common ones. If anyone can come up with a source later on for another overall genre, it can of course be added (although it's probably best to discuss it here first!). As for The Sweet Escape, it's probably best to discuss that at Talk:The Sweet Escape. Spellcast (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Charmed36 Note :-Hip - hop is not sourced yet, If you want it to be include, please provide a source.
Gwenspride08 note :- You have no right to delete others comments. Please do not do so. It is highly criticised. Indianescence (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Music genres (continued)

We all found a compromise on what genres to put in this article. But this genre edit war is still happening on every Gwen Stefani song. If this has to be discussed on every song's talk page, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Shirlthemanson (talk

This is really annoying me.

What you waiting for?| is clearly Dance/Pop/Rock

Righ Girl| ragga and pop

Hollaback girl| is Pop NOT hip-hop

Cool| is pop rockish

Luxurious| is pop-r&b

Crash| is Pop and nothing else

Wind it up| is pure POP

Sweet Escape| is Pop

4 in the morning| is Pop/Synth pop

Now that you got it| is POP and reggae

Early winter| is Pop rock and Indie rock

If we need sources for the "proof" then fine.

In my opinion I think the music genres for each song should go like this!

What You Waiting For should be:

  • Dance Pop because the song is commercialy friendly and has a dance rhythm.
  • New Wave because of its combination of rock dance, electro etc.

Rich Girl should be:

  • Dance Pop because of the dance rhythm and comercially friendly lyrics
  • Ragga because of Eve's rapping over a reggae/ska beat.

Hollaback Girl should be:

  • Alternative hip hop because it has a hip hop beat but does not follow the usual rules of hip hop
  • Pop rap because of the poppy sounding, commercialy friendly rapping.

Cool should be:

  • Pop rock because of the commercially friendly lyrics over a rocky beat.
  • Pop ballad because it is a slow moving pop song

Luxurious should be:

  • Pop because of the mid tempo pop sound.
  • R&B because of the slight urban sound in the background.
  • Electropop because parts of Stefani's voice are electronically enhanced.
  • Alternative hip hop because of the hip hop beats.
  • Pop rap because of the commercially friendly rapping because of Slim Thug's.
  • Arabic because of the Arabic music after Stefani sings the line mentioning "Egyptian cocktails".

Crash should be:

  • Pop because of its catchy lyrics
  • Electronica because of the electronic music

Wind It Up should be:

  • Dance Pop because of its catchy lyrics and dance rhythm
  • R&B because of its urban sound
  • Alternative hip hop because of its hip hop beat and Pharell Williams backing vocals

The Sweet Escape should be:

  • Dance Pop because of its catchy lyrics and dance rhythm
  • R&B because of its urban sound

4 In The Morning should be:

  • Pop ballad because its a slow tempo pop song
  • Synthpop because of the synthesizer playing in the background

Now That You Got It should be: Pop because of its catchy lyrics Reggae because of its reggae beats Pop rap because of Damian Marley's rapping

Early Winter should be: Pop rock because of the catchy lyrics and rocky beat Alternative rock because it is a rock song that does not follow rock music's usual formula.

I would appreciate it if you took this exhaustive list to heart and would put these genres into Gwen Stefani's infobox and mentioned songs. --Seán Travers (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers


As I have arduously tried to argue before, The Sweet Escape has no elements of Indie music...but actually Alternative Rock. Please see my detailed explanation as to why in the The Sweet Escape Discussion. --(Narcolepticpathos) 02:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that The Beacon Street Collection by No Doubt could be considered Indie because they had an independent label. But this doesn't count for Gwen's solo work. --(Narcolepticpathos) 02:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the ClueBot caught an error I made; I accidentally deleted stuff and it reverted my change. I'm not trying to vandalise Gwen Stefani. --(Narcolepticpathos) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE explain why Gwen Stefani recieves an Indie Rock status. Don't say "this sounds Indie"...explain specifically how she (or a certain songs) qualify for the Indie status. --(Narcolepticpathos) 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Gwen Stefani#Music genres. Indie rock was added based on this ref. I suppose you could demand a better source. Spellcast (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Spellcast (BBC is always a pretty good source). However, I'm still having trouble finding the Indie/Gwen link at that site. If it's from the "Rock and Indie" classification on top...I don't know about that. They're saying that that directory contains "Rock" and "Indie" albums. This doesn't mean every album is Rock and Indie, it means that they are Rock or Indie or Rock/Indie. Since there is a case of a non-Indie outcome and they do not specify which, it cannot be said 100% from that source that they classify Stefani: Love Angel Music Baby as an Indie album. Or maybe I'm not looking at the right page. What do you think? --(Narcolepticpathos) 10:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea it says "Indie/Rock" on the top, which means "indie" or "rock", but it's not clear which one they classify her album as. It was added because of User:Shirlthemanson's suggestion. You replaced indie rock with alternative rock on the The Sweet Escape without any opposition from that user, so it should be ok here (unless anyone else disagrees with its removal...). Spellcast (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, because of that and there really is no current reliable source for classifying Gwen as Indie Rock, I'm removing it from the genre list. Also, I didn't actually list a reference to use Alternative Rock...I suppose this should be debated. Alternative Rock just seems to apply to everything these days. --(Narcolepticpathos) 00:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
All Music Guide calls Sweet Escape "alternative".[8] Not sure if it means alternative rock though. Spellcast (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alternative being added but Indie should still be included aswell, sources have called her songs Indie inspired. Shirlthemanson (talk) 11:11, 23 February —Preceding comment was added at 11:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What sources!? You should not put Indie Rock back as a genre without revealing these sources! (The BBC Link is not a clear enough source, as I have explained above.) --Narcolepticpathos (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with a better ref for indie rock? That BBC link is kind of vague and it'd be better if there's a more explicit source identifying her music as indie. Spellcast (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there hasn't been much commotion about the disputed genre yet, so...I removed the indie rock genre (once again) from this article. I'd rather call an apple an apple and not a Flower of Kent without having a solid classification first. --Narcolepticpathos (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've just found these images (claimed to be published under CC) on Flickr:

http://flickr.com/photos/kensinger/330180746/
http://flickr.com/photos/kensinger/330180749/

However I'm unsure of the truthfulness of the licensing, whether they are actually Creative Commons or if the uploader was mistake/lying. Can anybody confirm the license of these photos? They look like they would be in the album booklet of The Sweet Escape or something, but I'm not sure. They would be perfect for use in this article. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course these images are non free. Though they are on flickr, i suppose they are not usable on wikipedia. I would suggest you talk to someone more expereinced, like LuciferMorgan. Indianescence (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah they're likely copyvios because of the lack of metadata. Besides, the pics we already have are fine. See Gwen Stefani on Commons - that's a lot more free pics than your average musical act. 17Drew did a great job getting them released freely. Spellcast (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that there are no higher quality photos of her face; the photo in the infobox is really bugging me because it only shows the side view and the one down further in the article that shows her face is lower quality. :( Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 12:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, though, we have more to go with photo wise with her than almost anybody else. we have a highly devoted group of editors. EsocksLAMB (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have high quality of those two pics. I have a whole folder of Gwen Stefani photos. Oh and there not it the album booklet. I have the album at home. On and i was thinking instead of having a tour pic of Gwen Stefani. Why don't you a Promotional pic of her. --BatterWow (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Question.

Gwen Stefani's article is a featured article in Wikipedia. How is it, on the template for featured articles, that they've set the image so it appears on the same line at the page title? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying how FAs are put on the main page? It's transcluded from a different page by month; the current one being Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2008. Spellcast (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harajuku Girls critics

Am I the only one who feels that there should be a criticism section featuring the Harajuku girls? They're mentioned.. but I don't see any comments or links regarding the controversy they caused. Seems like there were a huge amount of people, including myself, who were angered at the fact that she was dragging 4 Asian girls around like props. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.183.22 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There WAS a criticism section about the Harajuku girls, involving a quote from Margaret Cho, but, due to the fact that it is not RELEVANT to the article, it was taken out. Maybe you should check the HARAJUKU GIRLS PAGE and look for a criticism section THERE, in its appropriate place.......

EsocksLAMB (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Singles

I was just thinking..should we include No doubt Singles aswell? I think that would be better. Like on the Blondie and Debbie Harry pages. :) So it will include No doubt singles, Gwens Guest appearance singles and Gwen solo singles. I dont see why not..as its all still Gwen Stefani. Jamalar —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tighten up article

Am I the only one who feels that this article could be tightened up a lot by removing redundant material? Some things, like her marriage, or stuff about No Doubt, is repeated in various forms throughout the article - needlessly bulking it up and making it difficult to read.

Also there is way too much No Doubt coverage in this article. Granted, No Doubt is what made her famous, but this article is about her, not the band.

The introduction is just overpoweringly long, and needs to be trimmed, with material moved to appropriate sections.

A GA is not one that has excruciating amount of detail, or that is a mile long, but one that is easy to ready, quickly and accurately brings out the flavour of the subject, and has enough references in it to let the reader explore further if so desired.

OK to start tightening it up? Achitnis (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Last call for objections before I reach for my chainsaw :) Achitnis (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. We the Stefani fans want this article to remain a feature in Wikipedia, after all. I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look

The article is a Good article in es:wikipedia & fr:wikipedia, but i don't know how to put this information here. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

This image was used back in February this year,but it was changed to this one in late February,with no discussion what-so-ever. So we need to discuss this because I hate revert wars. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "guardian" :
    • [http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1402498,00.html "'I'll cry just talking about it'"]. ''[[The Observer]]''. [[January 30]], [[2005]]. Retrieved from ''[[Guardian Unlimited]]'' [[April 16]], [[2007]].
    • Salmon, Chris. [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2024019,00.html "'I just want to make music and babies'"]. ''[[The Guardian]]''. [[March 2]], [[2007]]. Retrieved [[May 9]], [[2007]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ťhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwen_Stefani&action=edit&section=new# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.103.247 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE OBVIOUS P.OV.

Can someone PLEASE remove "WTF!?" from the part that announces the birth and name of Gwen's second child? However weird you think Zuma Nesta Rock Rossdale is an opinion that doesn't belong in an article. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, when you see obvious vandalism like that, you can remove it yourself without discussing it on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwen_Stefani/Archive_2&oldid=1136781180"