Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Cher/archive1

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

This peer review was moved from Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1 on 28 January 2013. It is still active.

Links

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Review by Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

I'm sorry that I took so long, but I'll be able to help you now. This is a long article, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to review, but time will tell.

Lead[edit]

  • Wording: "Cher came to prominence in 1965 as one-half of the folk rock husband-and-wife duo Sonny & Cher..." – "came to prominence" could be written as "became prominent".
  • Relative pronoun: "which popularized a particular smooth sound that successfully competed with the dominant British Invasion and Motown sounds of the era." – should be "who popularized...".
  • Improper ellipses: "... advance feminine rebellion in the rock world ... [and] the prototype of the female rock star, setting the standard for appearance and ... attitude". The ellipsis before "[and]" is redundant since the omitted text is replaced by what's bracketed. Regarding the second "and", it does not directly proceed "appearance" in the source. Consider "setting the standard for appearance [and] attitude".
  • Redundancy: Please avoid the word "also" and ask yourself do you really need it.
  • "songs that dealt with subjects rarely addressed in American popular music." – use simple past, since musical work is timeless.
  • Isn't "dealt" in simple past? Sorry, could you explain me better? Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I meant to say simple present, since this is music work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 issues: "After the duo's monogamous, drug-free lifestyle had lost its popular appeal among American youths in the wake of the rising drug culture of the 1960s, she returned to stardom in the 1970s as a television personality with her shows The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour and Cher, both of which attained immense popularity." – (1) how would drug culture downplay a monogamous lifestyle. I can see it influencing the appeal of a drug-free lifestyle but why monogamous? (2) "American youths" sounds too informal and journalistic. (3) "in the wake of the rising" could be condensed to "owing to"; it's too fluffy.
  • (1) I forgot to name the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but for the lead I believe the drug culture mention is enough. Removed "monogamous"; (2) What would you suggest here? (3)  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, drug culture seems enough. For (2), that's a tough one. Would "in the United States" in place of "among American youths" be good? It's general. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: What is the purpose and meaning of "throughout" here—"Throughout, she became a fashion trendsetter with her daring outfits."?
  • Throughout her early career (1960s and 1970s). Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, "throughout" is better removed. It's self-explanatory. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity and flow: "After Cher and Sonny divorced in 1975, she experimented with various musical styles, including disco and New Wave, before becoming a top-earning live act in Las Vegas." – clarify that "she" is "Cher".
  • "After Cher and Sonny divorced in 1975, Cher experimented..." - Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formality: I would write "successful singles" rather than "hit singles".
  • Tone: "In the 2000s, she embarked on the highly successful Living Proof: The Farewell Tour and signed a $60 million per-year deal to headline the Colosseum at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas for three years." – all we need to know is that it was successful, not how successful it was.
  • Punctuation: The colon is unneeded here: "Her other ventures have included: fashion designing, writing books and managing the film production company Isis."
  • NBSP: Between a number and a unit (eg. "100 million") should be an "[ampersand]nbsp;", which prevents the item from being broken due to starting a new line.
  • Infobox: There may be some inflation of the Occupations field. Only have her main ventures as a regular entertainer. Is she a regular author or is this a side-project? Likewise what about film producer, comedian, fashion designer and model. Are they all important or things in which she has involved herself a few times?
  • She wrote only two books. Is this relevant? She was involved in the production of all of her films sine 1996. She sometimes is referred as a "comedian", but aside from that I don't think this is relevant. As for fashion designer and model, I think these ventures are pretty relevant (see "Fashion" subsection). Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, authorship for two books isn't relevant. Thanks for explaining the producer/fashion/modelling ones. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done (except where noted). Lordelliott (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

  • Logical flow: "Cher's father was rarely home when she was an infant, and her parents eventually divorced when she was ten months old. " – this is connecting too loosely tied ideas, reducing the sentence's coherence.
  • Cher's mother divorced from her father because he was rarely home when she was an infant. Maybe it should be reworded? What would you suggest? Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "Cher's father was rarely home when she was an infant, ultimately divorcing Crouch when Cher was ten months old." I think that's grammatically right. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "They would marry and divorce twice more over the years." ("over the years" is far too vague to carry any meaning)
  • Clarification needed: "The third of Crouch's eight marriages was to actor John Southall, the father of Cher's half-sister" – if they married and divorced three times, wouldn't this be Crouch's fourth marriage at least? Or did Crouch marry Southall before remarrying Sarkisian?
  • Added: "After the first divorce from John, Crouch married another man." Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She changed her name to Georgia Holt and earned small roles in films and on television." – "small roles" → "minor roles".
  • Punctuation: Missing possessive apostrophe in "daughters acting parts".
  • I don't think the possessive apostrophe is needed here. Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not "daughters' acting parts"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear: "Holt secured her daughters acting parts as extras on the television show The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." – what do you mean by "secured" acting parts?
  • I mean Holt obtained Cher and Georganne minor roles on the Ozzie and Harriet show. Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a reword would work better: "Holt secured acting parts for her daughters as extras..." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diction: "Although her mother's marriage with Southall ended when Cher was nine years old..." – "marriage" should be "romantic relationship".
  • Clarification: "As Holt married and divorced..." – "married" should be "remarried".
  • Tense: "Cher remembers using rubber bands at one time to hold her shoes together." – "remember" should be past tense.
  • Redundancy: "Since she could not convince any boys to participate..."
  • Formality: "Fascinated by movie stars" – "movie" is too colloquial here. "Film" is better.
  • Cohesion: "Cher's role model was Audrey Hepburn, particularly after she appeared in the 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany's." – this sounds a bit clunky. You could take this one two better ways: (1) "Audrey Hepburn became Cher's role model after she appeared in the 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany's." (2) "Cher's role model was Audrey Hepburn, particularly due to her role in the 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany's." Whichever works best for you; I prefer the latter.
  • Flow and grammar: "Cher remembers her disappointment that there were no dark-haired actresses working in Hollywood at the time that she could emulate." → "Cher was disappointed by the absence of dark-haired actresses in Hollywood whom she could emulate then."
  • Superfluity: This feels a bit excessive: "She recalls, "All I saw was Doris Day and Sandra Dee ... In the Walt Disney cartoons, all the witches and evil queens were really dark. There was nobody I could look at and think, 'That's who I'm like.'"" – a lot of it is just a repetition of the previous sentence.
  • Awkward wording: "... and enrolled them in a private school, Montclair Prep, in the prosperous community of Encino, Los Angeles." – "a private school called Montclair Prep" is more pleasing.
  • Fluff: "She typically earned good grades..."
  • Tense and tone: "...she would entertain other students during lunch hour performing songs and shocking some peers when she would wear a midriff-baring top, being the first young woman in her social circle to do so." – (1) why are you using conditional tense? Use good ol' simple past. (2) Place a "the" before "lunch hour". Don't use telegram style. (3) "Surprising" is more subtle than "shocking", IMO.
  • (1) "She used to entertain..." - Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done (except where noted). Lordelliott (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a read. I think this is plenty for now. You've put in a lot of hard work, Elliot. Keep it up. What this article needs is a fine polish before FAC. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1960s: Sonny and Cher's rise and fall from pop stardom[edit]

  • Revise relative pronoun: "At age 16, Cher dropped out of school, left her mother's house, and moved into Los Angeles with a friend, where she took acting classes and worked to support herself." – in nonrestrictive clauses like here, "which" refers to what is directly before the comma, so here it is referring to "friend", but you mean "Los Angeles". This needs to be reworded for proper grammar.
  • Not sure of where is "which" on the sentence. Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "... and moved with a friend into Los Angeles ..."? Lordelliott (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context: "Cher met Sonny Bono..." – who is Sonny Bono? American singer?
  • Redundancy: "Shortly after, Cher's friend moved out of their apartment, and Cher accepted Sonny's offer to move in with him as his housekeeper." – no need for the transition here. The flow is clear.
  • WP:LASTNAME: Why is Sonny Bono referred to as "Sonny" rather than "Bono"? He should formally be referred to by surname.
  • I think the text turns a little bit confusing when his surname is used, because there are times when Sonny and Cher are referred both as the duo Sonny and Cher and as the couple Cher and Bono. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that as a big problem. I think readers will catch on. It's a more consistent style too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the problem: there are times where Sonny Bono is referred to as one-half of the duo Sonny & Cher, so he must be referred to as "Sonny". If he should be referred to as "Bono" at other ocurrences, what about this sentence? Sonny and Cher signed with the Kapp Records division of Decca Records in 1971, and Cher released the single "Classified 1A", in which she sang from the point of view of a soldier bleeding to death in Vietnam. Here, Sonny and Cher are referred both as a duo and as single persons. Also, if he should be mentioned as "Bono", should I use "&" for the Sonny and Cher mentions? I'm confused. (hope I'm being clear) Lordelliott (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you're better not to confuse things more, so "Sonny" is fine, given the Kapp Records contracts example. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "Sonny's offer to move in with him as his housekeeper." → "Sonny's offer to be his housekeeper." (since we are told she moves out from her friend's place, we can infer that she moves in with Bono)
  • Redundancy: "Sonny introduced Cher to Spector, who used her as a backup singer on many of his classic recordings..." ("classic" isn't needed; just added fluff).
  • Redundancy: Again, the unwanted "also": "Spector also produced her first single..."
  • NBSP: Be sure to add nbsps before ellipses in quotations.
  • Style: "...Sonny came along as producer." – missing word before producer (a, the, her, etc.).
  • Citation needed: "The album reached the Billboard 200 top 20, remaining on the chart for six months."
  • Style: "...a cover version of the Bob Dylan song..." → "a cover version of Bob Dylan's song".
  • Tone: "When a battle on the singles charts started between Cher and the Byrds..." – I wouldn't call it a battle. Perhaps, "When competition on the singles charts...".
  • Grammar: "the group's record label began promoting the B-side of the Byrds' single." – not habitual, so "began to promote".
  • Quotation formatting: Unless it is absolutely necessary for the context, avoid linking inside quotations. So the London Hilton link for example is not needed.
  • Quotation use: Cintra Wilson's quotation is around 60 words, which is quite long. Consider trimming it down and paraphrasing.
  • I think the quotation is tight, and I'm not really good with paraphrasing. Could you help me? Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paraphrase wouldn't be appropriate here because it wouldn't be as effective. Instead, I removed the last sentence in the quotation. It seems unneeded and just additive to what's already said. Feel free to question what I've done! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy: "Upon their return to America..." – should be "the US". Never "America".
  • Awkward passive voice: "Their shows were attended by Cher look-alikes..." – while passive voice isn't something I strongly oppose, here it sounds strange. You can try "Their shows attracted Cher look-alikes..."
  • WP:NUMERAL: Feel free to disregard this one, as it won't be a major issue: As per the manual of style, comparable quantities are consistently written as figures or are spelled out. So for weeks in charts and chart positions, you have to pick a format for each one (words or numerals) and stick to it. Also, you have "top 20" but "top ten", etc.
  • I chose to spell out numbers from one to ten. Is that right? Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind that much; it's cool. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible contradiction: "Several minor hits followed, notably" – if they were minor hits, why were they notable?
  • In fact, they weren't minor hits, but didn't match the success of "I Got You Babe". Should I remove the songs mentions? Something like this: Several mid-level hits followed, before "The Beat Goes On" returned the duo to the US top ten in 1967. Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing word: a "had" before "become" in "By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide and become..."
  • Clarification needed: Not sure what Bellafante means by "rock's 'it' couple."
  • Fluff: "Their monogamous, anti-drug lifestyle had also lost its popular appeal among American youths during the period of the sexual revolution and the rise of the drug culture."
  • Condense: "The movie was not successful" – if possible, avoid "not" and use a negative prefix (eg. "un-"). But this won't apply to everything.
  • Redundancy: "...ran in a diverse number of musical directions..."
  • "Also" again: "The duo had also been dropped from Atco..."
  • Unnecessary passive voice: "it was later proclaimed by Allmusic's Mark Deming 'the finest album of her career'." → "Allmusic's Mark Deming proclaimed it 'the finest album of her career'."
  • Clarify: "They were married after she gave birth to Chaz Bono" – was this their second marriage? If so, "They remarried after she...". Otherwise, just remove "were".
  • They told everyone they were married in Mexico in 1964, but the ceremony was not official. They were officially married in 1969. Should I remove "were"? Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense: "... it told the story of a young woman, played by Cher, searching for the meaning of life" – "told" should be present tense.
  • Clarify: what do you mean by "art film"?
  • Redundancy: "...costing the duo a good portion of their savings." could be "...costing the duo much of their savings."
  • WP:LASTNAME: "According to writer Cintra Wilson, 'Their lounge act was so depressing, people started heckling them." – no need. She was already introduced.
  • Wording: "and turned it into a success" → "and made it a success"
  • Formality: "Television executives took note, and the couple began landing guest appearances on prime-time shows" – "landing" is a bit informal here. Need something else, like "making".
  • Biographers: There's a lot of quoting biographers, perhaps a little too much. If this can be somehow reduced, the article would benefit from better flow. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1970s: Television and musical stardom and experiments[edit]

  • Awkward sentence structure: "Sonny and Cher caught the eye of CBS head of programming Fred Silverman while guest-hosting The Merv Griffin Show in 1971, and Silverman offered the duo their own television show." → "CBS head of programming Fred Silverman offered Sonny and Cher their own television program after he noticed them as guest-hosts on The Merv Griffin Show in 1971." (Here, the causal relationship is clear and the flow is much smoother. Also, "show" is only said once.)
  • Diction: "The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour debuted as a summer replacement series on August 1, 1971..." – "debuted" should be "premiered".
  • Awkward word choice: "Because it was a ratings success, the couple returned that December with a full-time show." – "ratings success" is awkward. Why not "critical success"?
  • Because the source says it was a ratings hit, and because the show's popularity was what propelled S&C to return with a full-time show rather than good reviews. Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant comma possible citation needed: "Watched by more than 30 million viewers weekly, during its three-year run..." – (1) the first comma just breaks up the sentence into short choppy sections, so remove. (2) This is quite a claim. Is it sourced?
  • Awkward word choice: "deadpan Cher ribbed Sonny about his looks and short stature." – odd word to use. Possible alternatives include "mocked" and "teased".
  • Awkward quantitative descriptor: "Cher honed her acting skills in sketch comedy roles such as the brash housewife Laverne, the sardonic waitress Rosa, and a slew of historical vamps" – better off removed since it's vague.
  • Clarification needed, "also" and weak coherence: "The designer clothing Cher wore on the show were also part of its attraction, and her style influenced the fashion trends of the 1970s." – (1) what is meant by "part of its attraction"? (2) "also" (3) the sentence has weak logical flow overall. The "and" conjunction of the clauses reads awkwardly.
  • (1) "Part of its attraction" means that Cher's clothing attracted as much viewers as the jokes and sketches performed by S&C on the show. Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its" here is ambiguous. What is "it"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The designer clothing Cher wore were part of the show's attraction - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition: "In 1971, Sonny and Cher signed with the Kapp Records division of Decca Records, and Cher released the single 'Classified 1A'..." – I'd replace the second "Cher" with "the latter" to avoid repetition.
  • Present tense please: "...in which she sang from the point of view of a soldier bleeding to death in Vietnam."
  • "Also": "Since Sonny's first attempts at reviving their recording career as a duo had also been unsuccessful..."
  • I think "also" is needed here because if removed, the sentence reads as if Garrett was recruited to work with them only because Sonny's first attempts at reviving S&C's career were unsuccessful. Do you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar, overlinking and redundancy: "He produced Cher's first solo number one, 'Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves', a recording which 'proved that ... Garrett knew more about Cher's voice and her persona as a singer than Sonny did', writes Cher biographer Mark Bego." (1) "number one" link is overlinking. (2) Should be complete, so "number-one single" or something. (3) Nonrestrictive clause error; remove "a recording". (4) Garrett dodidn't seem to be a major collaborator throughout Cher's career, so Bego's quotation comes off as overdetailed and unnecessary.
  • (4) Garrett produced six albums by Cher, including three of her five US number-one singles. I think he was the second most important producer in Cher catalog, only behind Sonny. Is this quotation really unnecessary? Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I just thought since he was only mentioned in that section that he wouldn't be so important. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "The single became the biggest selling in the history of..."
  • Awkward wording and fluff: "The single became the biggest selling in the history of MCA Records at the time and earned Cher a Grammy Award nomination for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance." (1) "The single became the biggest selling" is awkward and not professional prose (2) "at the time" can be condensed to "then" (3) tighten "...earned Cher a Grammy Award nomination for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance" to "was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance".
  • (1) It became the the biggest-selling single in the history of MCA Records then - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present tense please: "...the album of the same name featured cover versions of contemporary hits..."
  • Condense: "a US top-ten single that established Cher's renewed confidence as a recording artist." – why not just "restored Cher's confidence"?
  • The source says the single "solidified the image of a new, more confident and powerful Cher." Established Cher's renewed confidence is a paraphrase, but I don't think it works well; can you help me with that? Lordelliott (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's difficult to paraphrase. Maybe "established Cher's more confident image". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a US top-ten single that established Cher's more confident image as a recording artist. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "...which demonstrated the evolution of her vocal abilities." – "which demonstrated" → "demonstrating".
  • Redundancy: "That same year, Garrett quit as producer after disagreeing with Sonny about the kind of material Cher should be recording."
That's about a third-way into the section, so this is plenty for now. As always, feel free to ask questions. But looking downward a bit, I see "that same year" more. No need for "same". Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition: The phrase "...album of the same name" is used a little too often. You can replace some instances with "namesake album" and the albums' actual names for variation.
  •  Done. Released in September 1971, the Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves album features ... - Is that right? Lordelliott (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant "also" and word choice: "Between 1971 and 1974, Sonny and Cher's career was also revived with four albums released for Kapp Records and MCA Records" – (1) "also" isn't needed here (2) "for" should be "under".
  • Clarify: "top-ten singles" → "top-ten charting singles".
  • Clarify: unclear what "controlled" means in "the company he controlled". "Owned"? "Managed"?
  • Redundancies: "Geffen also secured a $2.5 million deal for Cher with Warner Bros. Records and reunited her with producer Phil Spector to record and release a test single with the intention of using it to launch Warner-Spector Records, Spector's own Warner specialty label."
  • Specificity: "The resulting 1974 single, 'A Woman's Story', was poorly received." – by what? Sales, critics, or charts?
  • It should be made clear that it didn't do well commercially. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting 1974 single, "A Woman's Story", and a follow-up duet with Harry Nilsson, "A Love Like Yours", were commercial failures. - Is that right? Also, should the "noncommercial" sound of these singles be mentioned on the article? Lordelliott (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's perfect. Regarding "noncommercial", probably not, unless they were ironically commercially successful. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancies: "A follow-up duet with Harry Nilsson, entitled 'A Love Like Yours', was also a commercial failure."
  • Fused participle: "Entitled Cher, it began as a highly rated special featuring guests" – either add comma after "special" or change "featuring" to "with".
  • Ambiguity and plain diction: "Cloris Leachman and Jack Albertson both won Emmy Awards for their guest appearances on the show, and it received nine additional Emmy nominations that year." – (1) what is "it"? (2) "More" is plainer than "additional", and plainer is always better.
  • Cloris Leachman and Jack Albertson both won Emmy Awards for their guest appearances, and the show received nine more Emmy nominations that year. - Is that right? Lordelliott (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colloquialism and redundancy: "The Cher show was produced by David Geffen and centered on Cher's songs, monologues, and comedy performance, as well as on [and] her wardrobe [variation of clothing], which was the biggest ever [largest] for a weekly TV show." (1)
  • The question is: why keep the word "ever", right? Is the meaning or readability harmed without the word? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because without the word "ever", the sentence reads as if her wadrobe was the biggest compared to other contemporary TV shows, not "of all time" as the source says. Lordelliott (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't that what you're trying to say? Without "ever", it's obvious that this means "of all time". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification and subject–verb agreement: "The critical response to the first episodes were favorable..." (1) "were" should be "was" (2) First how many episodes? Ths is open to interpretation. If unknown, cut "to the first episodes" and write "Early critical reception was favorable...".
  • Fused participle: "with Los Angeles Times exclaiming" – combination of poor connector ("with"), then noun, followed by participle (–ing). This is a poor grammatical construction and needs to be fixed.
  • Early critical reception was favorable; Los Angeles Times exclaimed that "Sonny without Cher was a disaster. Cher without Sonny, on the other hand, could be the best thing that's happened to weekly television this season." - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "However, Cher lasted for less than a year, to be replaced by a reunion of Sonny and Cher;[83] she said, 'doing a show alone was more than I could handle.'" – (1) remove "However"; it's a poor transition. (2) I'm not sure what is meant by "to be replaced by a reunion". The "to be" is strange construction and how can a show be replaced by a reunion?
  • (2) It means that Cher's solo show was replaced by a new Sonny and Cher show. Lordelliott (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be specified. Because "reunion" can mean they simply married again, not that they had a collaborative TV show. Be sure to remove "to be". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cher lasted for less than a year, replaced by a new Sonny and Cher show - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, just without "new". By "a", we can tell this is a different S&C show. If it were "the" instead, that would be different. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense: "... but the pair later reconciled and remained married until 1979" – "the pair later" → "they".
  • Flow: "...they released in 1977 a duet album called..." → "...they released the 1977 duet album..."
Here's the next bunch. Hope these help. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diction: "At the time Cher announced..." – "announced" isn't appropriate here. Just "said".
  • MOS:QUOTE: Avoid linking in quotations.
  • Fused participle: "The resulting album, Stars, received negative reviews, with Janet Maslin of The Village Voice writing:" – Also, a comma instead of a colon should be alright.
  • The resulting album, Stars, received negative reviews; Janet Maslin of The Village Voice wrote, "Cher is just no rock and roller ... - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy and WP:WEASEL wording: "However, the album has since become a cult classic and is generally considered one of her best." – (1) Remove "however"; poor transition. (2) One of her best cult classics or one of her best albums? (3) By whom is it regarded as one of her best?
  • (2) A cult classic and one of her best albums. (3) The source says the album is generally considered one of her best, but doesn't specify by whom. Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly "is generally considered among her best work". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "...the latter of a return to her pop style at Warner's producers insistence..."
  • Condense: "...debuted in February 1976 and lasted until mid-1977." → "...lasted from February 1976 to mid-1977."
  • Difficult flow: "The adverse publicity of Cher's troubled relationship with Allman and her much-reported extravagant lifestyle added to the pair's insult humor in the context of a "painful" divorce had created a public backlash that contributed to the failure of the show." – this sentence is rather incomprehensible.
  • Explaining: The Sonny and Cher Show was a ratings failure because it received a public backlash. This backlash was created by the bad publicity of Cher's on-again off-again relationship with Gregg Allman (a scandal then) and by her crazy, controversial style of living. Also, Sonny and Cher's insult comedy, which was their trademark on the Comedy Hour, had become "dirtier" as their show went on air a hour later. They frequently made jokes about their divorce, but everybody knew they were battling in court at the time, and the jokes just weren't funny to the public. Hope I'm being clear. Can you help me rewording this sentence? Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest something nice, smooth and simple, like "Cher's reportedly extravagant lifestyle, her troubled relationship with Allman, and Sonny and Cher's insult humour about their divorce caused a public backlash that contributed to the show's failure." Thank you for the explanation. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Thanks for rewording the sentence! Lordelliott (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense: "She made a brief return to prime time television, starring in the specials Cher... Special (1978), which received three Emmy nominations, and Cher and Other Fantasies (1979)." – "which received three Emmy nominations" → "nominated for three Emmy Awards"
  • Redundancy: "In 1978, in an effort to eliminate the [use] complication of using four surnames, she legally changed her name from Cherilyn Sarkisian La Piere Bono Allman to Cher, with no surname or middle name." – no need to state the obvious. I'd even move the "to eliminate..." clause to after the "she legally changed..." clause for better causal flow.
  • In 1978, she legally changed her name from Cherilyn Sarkisian La Piere Bono Allman to Cher, to eliminate the use of four surnames. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward wording and redundancy: "They became instant hits, remained bestsellers for more than half of 1979, and were both certified gold by RIAA" – (1) "more than half of 1979" sounds awkward, mainly because you are referring to a specific year than saying "more than half a year". (2) no need for "both" because "were" (3rd-person plural) makes this clear.
  • (1) This is according to the source. Should it be changed to "more than half a year" anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. What you have may be grammatically right but sounds unfamiliar to me. Let's keep it for now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diction: "Despite her initial lack of enthusiasm with disco music, she changed her mind after the success, declaring..." – "declare" is an ugly word and here it isn't used appropriately.
  • Ungrammatical and questionable importance: "Berman described the album's cover as 'memorable', featuring Cher draped in chains as a 'prisoner of the press', spurring controversy among feminist groups for her perceived portrayal of a sex slave." – (1) "featuring" refers to Berman here, not the cover as you intend. (2) Also, the two participles after the commas is unpleasantly flowing. (3) Why is Berman's opinion on the cover (a less important aspect of albums) noteworthy?~
  • The album's cover featured Cher draped in chains as a "prisoner of the press", spurring controversy among feminist groups for her perceived portrayal of a sex slave. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and "causing" is better than "spurring". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reundancy: "Cher insisted on including some rock songs..." → "Cher included rock songs..."
  • Cher included rock songs, which made the disco release seem unfocused and thus a commercial failure. - I added the word "disco" before "release" to make clear that the album was disco music-oriented. Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coherence: "...which made the release seem unfocused, contributing to its commercial failure." → "which made the release seem unfocused and thus a commercial failure."
  • Wording and redundancy: "Prisoner produced the minor hit single "Hell on Wheels", also featured on the soundtrack of the film Roller Boogie." – (1) "minor hit" seems like an oxymoron. What is a minor hit? (2) Remove "also".
  • Grammar: "The song exploited the late 1970s roller-skating fad and contributed to its popularity" – "and" should be "that".~
  • Cher contributed to the fad's popularity, not the opposite. Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for this section. Good luck with these suggestions! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1980s: Musical missteps, Broadway, film stardom and return to musical success[edit]

  • Flow and context: "In 1980, Cher co-wrote with Giorgio Moroder her last Casablanca disco recording, 'Bad Love', for the film Foxes." – who is Giorgio Moroder? He needs to be introduced. And the "co-wrote with Giogrio Moroder ... 'Bad Love'" is awkward sounding. Perhaps, "In 1980, alongside Italian songwriter Giorgio Moroder, Cher wrote her last Casablanca disco recording, 'Bad Love', for the film Foxes."
  • Added "Italian record producer". This is not supported by the source; is this a problem? Lordelliott (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formality: "That year, she formed the rock band Black Rose with her then-boyfriend, guitarist Les Dudek." – "boyfriend" should be "lover".
  • Concise: "The group's album..." → "Their album...".
  • Unnecessary quotation: "pointedly negative" – why not just "unfavorable"?
  • Clarification needed: "Black Rose broke up soon; at the same time, Cher had become a successful nightclub singer in Las Vegas, earning $300,000 a week" – are you sure at the same time, and not just soon afterwards? Was she doing two jobs?
  • Yes, she was doing Vegas and singing with her rock band at the same time. I changed this sentence to: Black Rose broke up in 1981.[101] During the band's active period, Cher had become a successful nightclub singer in Las Vegas, earning $300,000 a week.[100]. Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Was" is grammatically better than "had become", but otherwise, good clarification. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary introduction: You continue to say "biographer Mark Bego". This is only needed at first occurrence. After that, just "Bego" suffices because there is only one Bego. Similarly, Berman and any other author.
  • I'm confused about it. Other users said the introduction is needed when one mention is far from the last. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously on this same PR, according to user Noleander:
Who? - "According to Berman, .." - Lost track of who this is, restate full name each time used, unless prior occurrence is very nearby. Lordelliott (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, sure. That seems fine with me and a good idea too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formality: "With decreasing album sales and a lack of hit singles..." – again, "successful" is more formal than "hit".
  • Awkward wording: "Her earliest entertainment ambitions had lain in film, as opposed to music..." – (1) "had lain" is strange. Not sure about that. (2) "as opposed to" → "instead of".
  • I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but is it that she had been an aspiring film star then? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, no, it's better sounding as "as opposed to". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unneeded transition: "...however, she had no films to her credit except the poorly received Good Times and Chastity, and the Hollywood establishment did not take her seriously as an actor" – if you truly disagree, I guess you could use "but" in place of "however,".
  • Condense: "She moved to New York in 1982 with the intention of taking [to take] acting lessons with Lee Strasberg, founder of the Actors Studio, but her plans changed and she never enrolled." – also, for slightly better flow, "but never enrolled after her plans changed".
  • Wordy: "She played a member of a James Dean fan club that is holding a 20-year reunion." – sure you end up with a fused participle, but here it's not a problem and the meaning is clear.
  • Passive voice and wording: "That year, she was cast by Altman in the film version of the show..." → "That year, Altman cast her in the film adaptation..."
  • Diction: "...offered her the part of Meryl Streep's lesbian girlfriend and plant co-worker in the controversial motion picture Silkwood." – in general, avoid informalities like "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". "Lover" is much better. Also, "film" is preferable over "motion picture". In that case, "When the film opened" → "When it premiered".
  • Condense: "...audiences were skeptical about Cher's ability as an actress." – "were skeptical about" → "questioned".
  • Tigthen: "For her role as a pill-popping biker who has [with] a lover, played by Sam Elliott, and is coping with her [a] teenaged son, played by Eric Stoltz, who suffers from [with] a severe physical deformity, she won the Best Actress Award at the Cannes Film Festival."
  • Questionable importance and relevance: "According to authors James Parish and Michael Pitts, 'There were ... many conflicts between Cher and director Peter Bogdanovich ... Many felt (including Cher) that because she was so anti-Establishment, the industry bypassed her in the Oscars nominations. To show her scorn for the "system" she showed up at the Academy Awards that year [1986] in one of her most outlandish (tarantulalike) costumes.'"
  • The Bogdanovich vs. Cher conflict was highly reported by the media during that time. The 1986 Oscars incident too. I think it should be paraphrased. Lordelliott (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a paraphrase would be much preferred. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of this:
During the making of the film, Cher reportedly fought with director Peter Bogdanovich, and her anti-establishment behavior caused her to be ignored in the Academy Awards nominations. For this reason, she attended the 1986 Academy Awards in a tarantula-like costume to show her "scorn for the system", according to authors X and Y. The incident was highly publicized. Lordelliott (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really good. But is there anything more subtle than "fought"? Because I don't think they did that physically (I hope not!). Also, "For this reason" doesn't seem necessary. The causal relationship is clear due to her "scorn[ing] the system". But otherwise, it's perfect. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I have some questions: (1) "The incident was highly publicized" is not necessarily suported by the source, and I think just the fact that the incident is mentioned on the article shows it was highly publicized. Should this passage be removed? (2) "to show her scorn for the system" The word "system" is in quotation marks on the source. Should it be changed to "to show her scorn for the 'system'"? (3) Is the reason behind their conflict relevant to the article? (4) I can't think of any word more subtle than "fought". Maybe "conflicted"? (5) Is "reportedly" necessary? Lordelliott (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright—let's break this down...
  1. If it isn't sourced, safer to remove it. Although if you can somehow collect sources to describe the general reaction to this incident by authors, people, etc., that would be delightful.
  • I have this quote from her designer Bob Mackie:
"[The next day] she was in every newspaper around the world and even the winner of the award [whom she presented], Don Ameche, said he wouldn't have had his picture in any of those papers if it hadn't been for Cher."
I also have this excerpt from Cher's biographer Connie Berman:
"People certainly paid attention. One observer said Cher’s headpiece seemed suitable for the funeral of Darth Vader. Another quipped that she looked like a float at Mardi Gras."
Which one can stay? Lordelliott (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the first one can be used to cite, "The incident was highly publicized." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Lordelliott (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, for proper quoting.
  2. If it can't be summarized in less than a few words, than probably not. But if it can be, just a brief integration of the reason into the sentence would be good.
  3. "conflicted" sounds fine.
  4. Nope, I agree. per WP:ALLEGED.
Hope that helps! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All  Done (except 1). Lordelliott (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun this section and plan to do the other half once these have been addressed. Best wishes. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy and overlinking: "When asked by Letterman why she had been so reluctant to be a guest on his program, Cher replied that she thought he was an 'asshole'." – (1) removie "so" (2) unlink asshole.
  • Overemphasis: "...and he later told People, 'It did hurt my feelings ... Cher was one of the few people I've really wanted to have on the show, and then she calls me an asshole. I felt like a total fool, especially since I say all kinds of things to people. I was sitting there thinking, "Okay, Mr. Big Shot, can you take it as well as you can dish it out?"'" – is all of this really necessary? Can't we just way that he was offended and/or embarrassed?
  • Maybe a paraphrase or tightening the quotation. What would you suggest? Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest just saying that Letterman was offended and embarrassed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audience clamored, and he felt offended and embarassed. Lordelliott (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "In 1987, Cher returned to the show in an appearance with ex-husband Sonny Bono, reuniting to sing "I Got You Babe" for the first time in ten years."
  •  Done. Also, is "ex-husband ... Bono" necessary? Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, and you're right; it shouldn't be necessary. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly laid-out and poor sentence overall: "By 1987, Cher was receiving as much attention from her Jack LaLanne Health Clubs commercials as from her still-controversial lifestyle, specifically her romances with younger men, her exhibionist fashion sense, her reported plastic surgeries, and her tattoos; she returned to the screen three times that year." – (1) we start talking about health clubs, then back to her controversial lifestyle. There's a lack of logical flow here. (2) why "still-"? (3) "affairs" is preferable over "romances". (4) There's repetition of "her" here and it's bad sounding.
  • (1) Health clubs and her lifestyle are connected because the attention Cher was receiving by both. However, I find the sentence strange too. What would you suggest here? (2) Removed. (3) Substituted. (4) Removed "her" after the first mention. Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1987, Cher was receiving attention for her Jack LaLanne Health Clubs commercials and controversial lifestyle, including...". Also, why is "...she returned to the screen three years later" connected by a semicolon when there isn't a relation and is there a more formal and direct way to say "returned to the screen"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1987, Cher was receiving attention for her Jack LaLanne Health Clubs commercials and controversial lifestyle, including her affairs with younger men, exhibionist fashion sense, reported plastic surgeries, and tattoos. She starred in three films that year. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly laid-out sentence: "She played a public defender who is both helped and romanced by one of the jurors, played by Dennis Quaid, in the homicide case she is handling in Suspect." – why not begin the sentence with "In Suspect..."?
  • Irrelevant: I forgot to say this, but things like who played the "pill-popping biker"'s lover and teenage son, as well as the juror and mysterious wealthy visitor from hell are not important and just dozing off into distracting details that overall disrupt the article's flow.
  • Formality: Also forgot to say this above: what is a "pill-popping biker"? It sounds like a very informal and unencyclopedic expression.
  • A person who is addicted to pills. Maybe "addicted to pills biker"? Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just stick to the general "drug addict biker". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy and wording: "For her performance as an Italian widow who falls in love with her fiancée's young brother, played by Nicolas Cage, Cher won the 1987 Academy Award for Best Actress." (1) remove "who falls" just to tighten prose. (2) "young" should be "younger". (3) Again, Nicolas Cage's involvement in this is unimportant.
  • Informal expression: "The audience rose to their feet when her name was announced and during her Oscar acceptance speech she said..."
  •  Done "rose to their feet" --> "stood up". Is this correct? Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "also": "She also won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy for Moonstruck."
  • Unclear: "...which earned about $15 million in its first year sales..." – did it earn her around $15 million, or was this in total? It's awkward to say that a fragrance earned money.
  • The source reads: "Uninhibited earned around $15 million in sales in 1988." Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking along the lines of "grossed", but that would be an odd word to use here. Let's leave it until it is questioned. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present tense: "It featured the rock ballad..."
  • Diction: "...her first top-ten hit in over eight years..." – "more than", not "over".
  • Informal expressions, fused participle and restrictive clause: "The music video of the album's first single, "If I Could Turn Back Time", stirred up controversy due to a scantily clad Cher performing on a Navy warship, straddling a canon, and wearing a see-through bodystocking which revealed her tattoed rear end." – (1) "stirred up" is too informal; try "caused". (2) same with "clad"; try "dressed" or "clothed". (3) The sentence needs to be restructured to remove the fused particple "Cher performing". (4) Here, "which" should be "that". (5) Overall, this sentence could have been written to read much more smoothly, clearly and impressively.
  • (3) and (5) I have no ideia how to reestructure this sentence. Can you help me? Lordelliott (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some changes I suggest are dropping "a scantily dressed" since the following sentence says "partial nudity" anyway and writing "Cher's performance" rather than "Cher performing". Also, "buttocks" is more specific and formal than "rear end". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many networks on television initially refused to air the video because of its partial nudity." – "Many networks on television" → "Television networks".
  • Repetition of "hit": "The corresponding song was an international number-one hit and quickly became one of Cher's biggest hits ever." Try, "The song was an international number-one hit and quickly became one of Cher's most successful singles."
  • Informal expression: "For the most part, critics liked the tour's nostalgic nature and admired Cher's showmanship." – are you implying "Most critics"?
  • Remove comma: "Its parent television special, Cher at the Mirage was filmed during a concert in Las Vegas."
  • Citation needed: "...and Rob Camilletti, an 18-years-younger bagel baker whom she met in 1986."
That's a lot for half a a section, but here we go. Feel free to ask questions. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is the nationality needed in these cases? Italian record producer Giorgio Moroder; American singer Sonny Bono. Lordelliott (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying "record producer" or "singer" is unspecific and less interesting. It adds context and sets readers up. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: isn't the repetition of "with" strange in this sentence? For her role as a pill-popping biker with a teenaged son with a severe physical deformity ... Lordelliott (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, clever catch and I should have been more careful. How about "teenaged son who has a severe physical deformity"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is the "comedy horror" link needed? Lordelliott (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some changes on the fifth paragraph of the 1980s subsection. Feel free to review it if you can. Lordelliott (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Elliot. All of your italicized sentences are perfect, so you can make the changes. As for linking comedy horror, it would be nice to link it as it isn't really a common term. I'm quite busy now, but I'll try to take a look at some of your rewrites. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes were made. I think we can resume the PR as soon as possible. Lordelliott (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am hoping that I will continue the review after my exams, by the end of this week, depending on the weather here (due to which exams can be postponed). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1990s: Multimedia stardom, infomercial struggles, high-profile comeback and musical departure[edit]

Starting... here's the first paragraph. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Word choice: "In her first film in three years, Mermaids (1990), Cher played tribute to her mother as a woman who moves her two daughters..." – should be "payed tribute".
  • Passive voice: "She conflicted with the film's first two directors, Lasse Hallstrom and Frank Oz, until they were replaced by Richard Benjamin." – a better causal flow would be achieved by changing "until they" to "who".
  • Awkward: "As the producers believed that Cher would be the star attraction for the film, they allowed her creative control behind the scenes." → "Believing she would be the star attraction, the producers allowed Cher creative control for the film."
  • Needless transition: "Today, the film is considered a cult classic, according to biographer Connie Berman." – also, the comma before "according".
  • In total honesty, the constant introductions to Berman are getting repetitive. We've established who Berman is, and I think his surname is quite enough.
  • "Cher's final studio album for Geffen Records, Love Hurts (1991), stayed at number one in the UK for six weeks and produced four hit singles, most notably the UK top-ten hit 'Love and Understanding'." – per WP:EDITORIAL, avoid words like "notably" since this is your opinion. Why not just "including"?
  • Note "nb 1" is not relevant to the sentence it is cited after. Looking at peer reviews, this was done because it was a distracting and superfluous detail. My suggestion would be to remove it altogether. It's just a nomination. She didn't win.
  • All  Done, except for the last observation. She did win. Do you think it should be removed even so? Lordelliott (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, OK. The citation isn't well placed. If you can find a more relevant and suitable place to put it, it can stay. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "In the early 1990s, Cher contracted the Epstein-Barr virus and developed chronic fatigue syndrome, leaving her too exhausted to sustain her music and film careers." – should be "which left her too exhausted".
  • Unneeded transition: "However, because she needed to earn money and was not healthy enough to work on other projects, she starred in infomercials launching health, beauty, and diet products, which earned her close to $10 million in fees." – a case of "however" overuse. Remove.
  • Colloqualism, fused participle and passive voice: "The skits were spoofed on David Letterman's show and Saturday Night Live and Cher was attacked as a sellout by critics, with many of them suggesting that her movie career was over." – "spoofed" is colloquial; try "parodied". (2) "Attacked as", while proper English, is poor. Stick to something neutral such as "called", "considered" or "deemed". (3) I'd prefer active voice here: "...and critics considered [or whatever word you want there] a sellout, many suggesting her film career was over."
  • Seasonality: "In the fall of 1994, she started a mail-order catalogue business, Sanctuary, selling Gothic-themed products." – avoid references to seasons for time periods, per WP:SEASON. You can say "late 1994", or if you know the month or quarter, specify.
  • Poor: "That year, she collaborated with MTV's animated series Beavis and Butt-head for a rock version of 'I Got You Babe'." – (1) "That year" isn't necessary here, because since the next sentence beigns "In 1995", we can assume this was before then; (2) How do you work with a TV show? Perhaps its producers, you mean? Or if the song was for the show, "she contributed a rock version of 'I Got you Babe' to MTV's animated series Beavis and Butt-head."
  • She released a single "featuring" Beavis and Butt-head. Anyway, I chose to go with your suggestion. Lordelliott (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward and journalistic wording: "In 1995, she went to number one on the UK Singles Chart..."
  • Fused participle and tone: "The album received generally positive reviews, with some critics commenting that Cher's voice sounded better than ever." → "In general, critics favored the album, some saying her voice had improved."
  • Tone: "It's a Man's World was released in Europe at the end of 1995 and in North America, under Reprise Records, in the summer of 1996, and sparked the UK top-ten singles 'Walking in Memphis' and 'One by One'." – I'm OK with "spawned", but not "sparked".
  • Spelling and missing word: "In 1996, she played the wife of a businessman who hires a hit man to murder her in the Chazz Palminteri-scripted dark comedy Faithful, which was poorly received by critics." – (1) "hitman" (2) "film" after "comedy" would make the sentence sound more complete.
More to come. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim sentence and tense: "She tearfully praised him and called him "the most unforgettable character" she ever met." – also, it should be "she had met", past perfect.
  • Repetitive: "That month, Sonny and Cher received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for Television.[152] That year, Cher published the book The First Time, a collection of autobiographical essays of .first-time. events in her life..."
  • Sonny and Cher received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for Television.[152] Later that year, Cher published the book The First Time ... - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice: "... which was praised by critics for revealing the singer to be down to earth and genuine." → "... which critics praised for revealing the singer to be down to earth and genuine."
  • Wording: "...she was undecided about whether to include his death in the book..." → "...she could not decide whether to include his death in the book..." (That's three "she"s in one sentence BTW. Needs reworking.)
  • Although the manuscript was almost finished when Sonny died, she could not decide whether to include his death in the book; she feared being criticized for capitalizing on the event. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about, "Although the manuscript was almost finished when Sonny died, she feared being criticized for capitalizing on the event and could not decide whether to include his death in the book."? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tighten: "Cher's twenty-third studio album Believe (1998) marked a musical departure for her, as it was a collection of dance-pop songs." – was a collection of" → "comprised".
  • Redundancy and fused participle: "Several tracks on the album captured the 'disco-era essence', with Cher commenting, 'It's not that I think this is a '70s album ... but there's a thread, a consistency running through it that I love.'" – change the period in the last sentence to a comma and write, "many of which captured the 'disco-era essence'; Cher said, 'It's not that I think this is a '70s album ... but there's a thread, a consistency running through it that I love.'"
  • Missing word: "Believe was certified quadruple platinum by RIAA and went on to be certified gold or platinum in 39 countries." – add "the" before "RIAA".
  • Wording: "On the British charts, 'Believe' claimed the number one slot for seven weeks and became the biggest-selling single of all time by a female artist in the UK." – simply write "was number one" in place of "claimed the number one slot".
  • Needless "also": "The song was also awarded the Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording." – Just say "The song won the Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording."
  • Remove third comma and fused participle: "According to VH1, it was the most popular, and most watched, program in the television network's history, with Cher's presence being 'a huge part of making it exactly that.'" – regarding the fused participle, try "...history, as Cher's presence was...".
  • Repetitive: "In January 1999, Cher performed "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Super Bowl XXXIII.[161] In March 1999, she performed on the television special VH1 Divas Live 2."
  • Probably for the second one, "She sung on the television special VH1 Divas Live 2, which aired in March 1999." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: You have "most watched" (no hyphen) but "highest-rated" (hyphen). I can see "best-selling" having a hyphen since that it considered one word, but the other two are not the case, so no hyphen there. Just wanted to make sure you were clear on that.
  • Clarify: "Its companion television special, Cher: Live at the MGM Grand In Las Vegas, was the highest-rated original HBO program in the past two years and received seven Emmy Award nominations" – past two years means 2011 and 2012, or 1999 and 2000?
  • 1998 and 1999. How should it be clarified? Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "in past two years" → "in 1998–99"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "Later in 1999, Cher released in Europe the compilation album The Greatest Hits, which reached number one on German and Australian charts." – just remove "in Europe"; sounds better and unimportant detail. Same with "in America" for the subsequent sentence.
  • I'd also like to bring to light that the article may be over-illustrated. For example, there's no reason the fifth paragraph of the section needs to be sandwiched by both the Walk of Fame image and the 1996/1998 New York photos. Remove the "Cher performing in New York" ones as they add nothing. Also, in the 1970s subsection, remove the "Cher performing live in 1971" and one of the "Sonny & Cher" images since they're superfluous. We only need one image of Sony and Cher in that section. In the long run, the removals will better the article and distract readers less.
  • I think at least one of the "Cher performing in New York" images could stay, because the 1990s subsection is really long, and because they show the successive re-invention of her image. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I don't see the reinvention of her image in the photos; she looks the same as in the "Cher performing at the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation in 1989" image above. I'd recommend removing the photos. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think the 1990s subsection will look tiring to read with just one image? Lordelliott (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. We have plenty of images of Cher elsewhere in the article, and if it's prose-to-image ratio that's got you worried in the subsection, the "Cher performing at the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation in 1989" image does overlap into the 1990s section, at least on my screen. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think of removing the 1989 image and keeping the 1996 one? Lordelliott (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's a good alternative. Be sure to move the 1996 image upward so that it does not sandwich the text in between itself and the Walk of Fame one. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright,  Done. I think we can move on to the 2000s. Lordelliott (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that this section felt a little too linear and read like a timeline. (In 1996 ... In 1997 ..., etc.). The article's already long, so things like this have to be taken into good consideration to keep the reader engaged , interested and attentive. One way to redunce this issue is to use less of the "On/In [month/year]" transitions so frequently as they get tiresome and repetitive. Working on this will better the flow and coherence too.
Overall, this section is OK, but needs some more work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000s: Musical stardom, touring success and Vegas residency[edit]

  • Redundancy: "In 2000, Cher released an independent album titled Not.com.mercial, which was written mostly by her after attending a songwriters' conference in 1994."
  • Tone: "Full of personal revelations, painfully honest language and disturbing content, Not.com.mercial marked Cher's first attempt at writing an entire album."—the first part sounds like something that would come out of an album review, and is not a neutral fact.
  • Do you think the first part should be trimmed out? Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and perhaps combine what's left of this sentence with the first one. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2000, Cher released an independent album titled Not.com.mercial, written mostly by her after attending a songwriters' conference in 1994; it marked Cher's first attempt at writing most of the tracks for an album. Because the album was rejected ... - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The first sentence says "mostly written by her", but then you say "first attempt at writing an entire album". Explain?
  • Changed to Not.com.mercial marked Cher's first attempt at writing most of the tracks for an album. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm writing here to re-ask you if the change I made is okay. Lordelliott (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, looks fine to me. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present tense: "In the song "Sisters of Mercy", she called the Catholic nuns who cared for her when she was a child "cruel, heartless and wicked" for keeping her in their orphanage long after her mother attempted to retrieve her..."
  • "...that caused controversy among church leaders, who quickly issued denouncements."—can this be condense to "church leaders quickly issued denouncements"?
  • More WP:PROSELINEish structuring: note how four of the five paragraphs begin with an "In [month/year]" transition. This needs to be varied. Readers don't want to be reading a timeline; they want a smooth-flowing description of her life.
  • Changed the beginning of the second paragraph to Cher's highly anticipated dance-oriented follow-up to Believe, Living Proof (2001), entered the Billboard 200 at number nine, making it her highest-charting album debut to date. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks OK to me! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: "In 2001, Cher released the highly anticipated dance-oriented follow-up to Believe: Living Proof..."—change colon to comma.
  • Unclear: "...and extending her album chart span to 36 years and seven months."—I don't understand what is meant by this and question its relevance.
  • Unclear: "Slant Magazine proclaimed the album 'the most life-affirming piece of pop art to emerge since 9/11'."—I don't get the connection here; 9/11 is an affirming piece of pop art?
  • No. I think the source relates the life-affirming nature of the album to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is confusing and I'm sure I think I won't be the first to question this. Also, what makes this one critic's opinion have more weight than anyone else's? I'd preferably describe the general critical consensus, as that would be more beneficial and informative. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose to mention this review because it's very extreme ("most life-affirming piece of pop art") and because I think it's interesting to relate the album to the time it was released. We can trim this out because I think the album doesn't have a general critical consensus. But I also think the album's subjective aspects should be covered on the article. I have this quote from her: "We just chose songs that felt right on an individual basis. It wasn't until we started to assess the entire album and play with sequencing that we realized that this had subconsciously become an album filled with love and warmth. It was a pleasant surprise, and it's certainly an appropriate time to put some positive energy out into the world." If you think it adds to the album's description we can paraphrase it. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing to remind you of this unaswered question. Lordelliott (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that more subjective aspects should be covered, but this just does not seem like a very powerful statement to me. Off with it, IMO. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy: "Living Proof spawned various club hits and the UK top-ten hit 'The Music's No Good Without You'."—I'd also probably reword this so that someone unfamiliar with music can more easily understand, such as "Tracks from Living Proof became club hits." The top-ten hit is unnecessary, IMO and just makes the article bog down with chart jargon.
  • Factual accuracy: "Living Proof was certified gold by the RIAA for sales exceeding 500,000 copies in the US."—RIAA certifications are based on shipments, not sales. This renders this fact less noteworthy, and it can be removed, IMO.
  • Repetitive: "In 2002, her personal wealth was estimated at $600 million (£315 million)." → "Her wealth in 2002 was estimated at $600 million (£315 million)." Also, need to be specific: was this estimate by Forbes? What publication? And why do you have the figure in pounds too? She's not British.
  • The source doesn't specify by what publication her wealth was estimated. Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but if you can find a source that does (like Forbes itself), be sure to replace it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colloquialism: "In June 2002, Cher embarked on the Living Proof: The Farewell Tour, announced as the final live concert tour of her career, though she vowed to continue making more records and movies."—please avoid "movies". "Films" is preferable.
  • Preposition: "Cher found success on television once again with Cher - The Farewell Tour, a NBC special taped in Miami on November 2002 and aired in April 2003, which attracted 17 million viewers."—should be "in November 2002".
  • Lack of chronological flow: "In September 2003, she signed a worldwide deal with the US division of Warner Bros. Records; she had left Warner UK the previous year."—reorder.
  • After leaving Warner UK in 2002, she signed a worldwide deal with the US division of Warner Bros. Records in September 2003. - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word: "Her three-year, 325-date Farewell Tour ended in April 2005 as the highest grossing music tour by a female artist at that time."—should be "at the time".
  • Superfluity: That last quotation from Cher doesn't seem useful. It's just a repetition of what's already told and the rest is self-explanatory.
  • MOS:NUM: This is a general concern about the whole article: be consistent on whether numbers and their ordinals are written as figures or words if they are between or outside −9 and 9. I see "twenty-third", but "40", etc.

2010s: Film return and upcoming projects[edit]

  • If we're going to mention Aguilera's role, we'll have to mention other important Cher co-stars such as Nicolas Cage, Dennis Quaid, Jack Nicholson, and Kurt Russell. Lordelliott (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary detail: "The same month, Glamour magazine honored Cher with the Woman of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award."—doesn't matter what month; all that's important is that it was 2010, and that's self-explanatory.
  • Preposition: "In a 2010 interview with Architectural Digest magazine, she revealed that she became involved in Buddhism..."—interviews are done with people, but for magazines.
  • Transition: "Starting in 2012, Cher has been working on her first studio album since 2001's Living Proof."—just "Since 2012" is simple and elegant.
  • Needless "also": "She also announced plans to embark on a concert tour..."
  • Just for reference, although this isn't actionable at the moment, since there isn't an article on her album yet, it may be tempting to post almost anything that comes up about it. Avoid that, as that is what's called WP:RECENTISM and works against summary style.

General comment

Well, Life and career is finally finished! We're making slow but steady progress (this is a long article), and I'm trying not to procrastinate and am doing my best to compensate for lost time spent while I was preparing for exams. But don't hesitate to continue trimming. For what it's worth, when Michael Jackson's article was promoted, it was only about 110 KB (well now it's about 100 more KB, due to his death, etc.), but you get my point that keeping biographies concise and well summarized is very important in an encyclopedic article.

The next few sections may take a little more time, but at first glance, some of them will need to be cut down as that appears to be where a lot of the superfluous and excessive information was found during the FAC. Also make sure that information is not being repeated down here that had already been stated in the Life and career subsections. I think doing in-depth reviewing of the sections once they have been trimmed would be the ideal choice as time and energy is saved. But post questions as you feel the need and as tempting adding more information may be, try your best to refrain from doing so.

Hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! :) Thanks for taking your time to help. Your advices are really great. I will continue to work on trimming the whole article, but I feel we can already move to the "Artistry" section. These sections were even longer when the FAC was opened. Cheers! Lordelliott (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'll take a look at the Artistry section to see if it does need to be trimmed further, because I strongly think we should lose several words—the article's total size has reduced very little since the FAC. But nonetheless, I will continue my review. Best wishes, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why the article's total size has reduced very little is the notes on the bundled cites. When the FAC was opened there were no bundled cites. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't reply to two questions I made on this section, I'm not sure if you did read this. Writing just to make sure you read this. Lordelliott (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music and voice[edit]

Needs trimming, POV issues

I see this section as a great opportunity to lose a few words and trim down the article. There seem to be many unnecessary reviews that solely come out as puffery. Some examples to follow:

  • Peter Fawthrop of Allmusic stated that despite its frequent changes, Cher's musical style always seems "just as sincere and just as much Cher as the previous change" and that "her personality is set in stone and shines through."
  • Cher has been praised for her songwriting efforts. One of her self-penned songs, "My Song", co-written with musician Mark Hudson about her relationship with Gregg Allman, was described by Keith Tuber of Orange Coast Magazine as "revealing psychologically".[208] He concluded, "While some of the lyrics are contrived and forced, their honesty and the feeling Cher puts into it more than compensates ... Poignant, tearful, tragic, true. And beautifully recorded." (this is all about one song)
  • It was followed by a series of rock albums that had revitalized her music career in the late 1980s and early 1990s: Cher, Heart of Stone, and Love Hurts. (this is already told above)
  • with "quite engaging lyrics"
  • Living Proof (2001) included heavy, electronic beats and lyrics about heartbreak, loneliness, and survival. It was also marked by the use of Auto-Tune, which gave Cher's voice a "canned electronic robot" sound.
  • In general, this section feels long, and just reads like a more condensed version of her biography above. Avoid repeating information and remove excessive praise. We're here for musical analysis, not Cher eulogies.
  • I've made a major restructuring on this subsection. Let me know what do you think. Lordelliott (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see an improvement, yes. I'll continue with my review. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. The changes were made, so we can move on. Lordelliott (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's too much citing specific songs of her career. You can use a few as examples to describe her overall style, (e.g. what you have for "the Cher effect") but refrain from discussing just the one song (i.e. some of the other songs). It has gotten to the point in this subsection that it seems repetitive and tiresome, and feels like a re-rundown of her musical career.
  • My main concern is how little the article has shortened. A reviewer during the FAC cited "nearly 13000 words" and it is still at around that much. You don't have to trim it down too much, but please pay special attention to the flow.
Hope this helps. I plan on reviewing the prose after the trimming is complete. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

  • Word choice: "Cher has worked in a wide variety of musical styles, such as folk, pop, punk and arena rock, power ballads, disco, New Wave, and hip hop, in order to 'remain relevant and do work that strikes a chord', according to herself."—(1) "worked on" is awkward. Maybe "Cher has employed various musical styles..." (2) "such as" with that many styles is strange too. I'd use "including". (3) "In order" is redundant. (4) And finally, ending the sentence with "according to herself" is poor in my opinion. Remove it?
  • Don't you think "remain relevant and do work that strikes a chord" should be attributed to her anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe "in order to" → "which she said is to".
  • Word choice: "Cher's early albums were based in the songbooks of writers like Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, DeShannon, and Sonny Bono, who produced a large part of her 1960s material using his Phil Spector-derived production skills."—(1) Do you mean "based on"? (2) this usage of "like" is informal. Here I'd recommend "such as". (3) "a large part" → "much".
  • Redundancy: "...while several of her early hits were penned by or sung with Sonny, most of her solo hits, which far outnumbered the duo's successes, were songs composed by independent songwriters, selected by Cher."—remove "far" and "songs".
  • Tighten: "Cher's first album with most of the songs written by herself" → "Cher's first album mostly written by herself".
  • Repetition: "...according to Allmusic's Jose F. Promis. According to Marder..."
  • "according to Allmusic's Jose F. Promis.[196] Marder wrote that Cher's ..." - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overquoting: I'd definitely try to paraphrase many of the quotations. This section feels like a quote farm right now.
  • I think we can work on paraphrasing much of the quotations after the prose review. Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject–verb agreement: "Some of Cher's early songs broaches controversial areas such as divorce, prostitution, unplanned and underaged pregnancy and racism."—"broaches" or "broach". To be honest, it's a rather difficult word. Maybe "cover".
  • Tone: "Cher developed an 'ass-kicking attitude'" in her vocals on the album Black Rose (1980) to cement a rock and roll persona."—I wouldn't quote that. This seems like fan cruft.
  • Content: "The song 'Believe' (1998) has an electronic vocal effect suggested by Cher, called Auto-Tune."—(1) integrate the year into the prose ("The 1988 song"). (2) What is meant by "suggested"? "Proposed"? (2) If I'm right, "Believe" was one of the first contemporary songs to use Auto-Tune. Maybe, if the source would support this, say something like that. The way this sentence is worded now sounds awkward to anyone who doesn't know this. (3) Additionally, I'm surprised this is the only mention of Auto-Tune in the entire article, considering she has used it in several songs (correct me if I'm wrong). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) I will take a look. (3) In fact, Cher only used Auto-tune in some tracks of her two dance albums (Believe and Living Proof). There was a mention to the usage of Auto-tune in the Living Proof album but you said it could be removed (I agreed). What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I re-wrote this. Let me know what you think: The 1998 song "Believe" has an electronic vocal effect proposed by Cher.[1] It was the first commercial recording to feature Auto-Tune, a pitch correction tool, as a deliberate creative effect. After the success of "Believe", the technique became known as the "Cher effect".[9] According to Chris Lee of the Los Angeles Times, the song is "widely credited with injecting Auto-Tune's mechanical modulations into pop consciousness."[18] Cher continued to employ Auto-Tune as a creative effect on the album Living Proof (2001).[19] Lordelliott (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good. I remember having made a few tweaks to this one. Maybe "Cher used Auto-Tune in albums such as..." to fix one of your concerns. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After "Believe" (the song), Cher used Auto-Tune only on the album Living Proof. That's why I suggested Cher continued to employ Auto-Tune as a creative effect on the album Living Proof (2001).[19] Do you think that's wrong? Lordelliott (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a "later" before "used" instead be cool? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Lordelliott (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption reads: Cher performing at the Sanremo Music Festival in 1967. She has been praised for her ability to meld the intensity of her vocal performance with her acting skills. Could it be shortened to just Cher performing at the Sanremo Music Festival in 1967? Lordelliott (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say just remove the image altogether. Together, with the sound samples, it feels a little too crowded. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you help me with paraphrasing the following quotations?
  • Cher developed an "ass-kicking attitude" in her vocals on the album Black Rose (1980) to cement a rock and roll persona.
    See above re. "bold"/"aggressive". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In her late-1980s and early-1990s work, her "determined and chipper" vocals were noted for having highlighted her sexually autonomous persona.
    "...her bold, sharp vocals..."?
  • Marder wrote that Cher's contributions to rock and roll have been overlooked because "she has transcended Rock" by becoming a show business icon.
    Let's keep this the same since it's difficult to paraphrase and we might lose the meaning. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic's Joe Viglione wrote that she "never minded androgynous or neutral gender identity in her songs" and that "her solo material could soar to heights not possible in a partnership" because of her ability to carry both male and female ranges. (I think the entire sentence could be paraphrased)
    "Her ability to carry both male and female ranges allowed her to sing solo in androgynous and gender-neutral-themed songs." You can add the attribution only if you really want to. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic's Bruce Eder wrote that Cher's ability to meld the "tremendous intensity and passion" of her vocals, despite her "relatively narrow singing range", with her acting skills, results in "dramatic, highly intense performances, almost as much 'acted' as sung". (same here)
    Just a question: how on Earth does she have a narrow singing range if she can hit male and female notes? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know actually. There's always a contradiction between critics when it comes to Cher's singing voice. Some say she has a very limited range, and some praise her range as if it was from another planet. Lordelliott (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be OK with removing this opinion then? It's more praise than analysis. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda agree, but I do think her dramatic, almost "acted" vocal performances should be mentioned as an important part of her musical persona. Maybe a paraphrase removing excessive praise such as "tremendous intensity and passion"? Lordelliott (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be up for that. What do you have in mind? Maybe word it so that it doesn't make the article seem so self-—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "so self"? I'd suggest: Cher's dramatic, almost as much acted as sung performances come out of her ability to compensate her narrow singing range with her acting skills, according to Allmusic's Bruce Eder. Lordelliott (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Typo—sorry I meant "seem self-contradictory", since readers may be confused why this sentence says "narrow singing range". That seems a bit close to the original. Try "limited vocal range". And not "compensate", maybe "combine". The first part "Cher's dramatic, almost as much acted as sung performances come out" may need to be revised. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first part seems kinda awkward too; what would you suggest? I think the self-contradiction is not a problem, because the article presents her "limited vocal range" as an opinion attributed to Allmusic's Bruce Eder. Lordelliott (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First I think we need to know what is meant by acting skills in performances. Are we talking about choreography or musicals, etc.? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, we're talking solely about the music. I think he meant she sings as if she was literally interpreting the songs, giving an emotional and dramatic feel in her performances. Do you get it? Lordelliott (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite, and the sample didn't help either... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, since I'm struggling to explain it, I think we can remove the entire part (Cher's dramatic, almost as much acted as sung performances come out of her ability to combine her limited singing range with her acting skills, according to Allmusic's Bruce Eder.) Agree? Lordelliott (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think many readers will be "mystified". I'd agree to the removal, thanks though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldmine magazine's Phill Marder credited Cher's "nearly flawless" song selection as what made her "one of Rock's biggest superstars"; while several of her early hits were penned by or sung with Sonny, most of her solo hits, which outnumbered the duo's successes, were composed by independent songwriters, selected by Cher. Lordelliott (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "almost perfect" and "a notorious rock singer"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the DMA magazine's mentions, I chose to only mention the magazine's name because the source has so many authors. Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's totally fine and what you should normally do when the author is anonymous. If you want you can say "An editor for...", but that's jsut extra words when you don't need them. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your opinion, are those three ogg files really neccessary, or could we trim some? Lordelliott (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's needed, but if you want, you can remove the first one. I'd like to see a sample that shows her male and female range because that's what she's known for. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think of using a sample of this song? It was her first solo hit, and when it came out, people thought it was a Sonny and Cher song because the "Beat on, cheat on, mistreat you" and subsequent parts were so low. Lordelliott (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find sources for a detailed caption, this is perfect. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll work on that. Meanwhile, we can move on to the next section. Lordelliott (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about: In her first big solo hit, Cher sings one verse in a high register, followed directly by a verse she sings in a lower range, causing listeners to think it was a Sonny and Cher song. It shows her ability to carry both male and female ranges. Lordelliott (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost good. How about, "In her first major solo hit, Cher sings one verse in a high register and the subsequent verse in a lower register; this gave listeners the impression of a Sonny & Cher song and demonstrated her ability to carry both male and female ranges." Is the ampersand (&) correct there? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Added the sample. I don't think the ampersand is correct in this case, because we achieved a consensus that, after the duo's first mention, they would be mentioned as Sonny and Cher to avoid confusion, right? Lordelliott (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we can use "and". Do you think four sampels is a bit overkill? Would you be open to removing the "Gypsies" one? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was thinking about removing the "Gypsies" one too. Lordelliott (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can we get a sample with both verses? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)~[reply]
    I think she sings both verses in the sample: Simplify you, classify you (high); Deny, defy, mystify you (low). Lordelliott (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't that seem like lines instead of verses? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but the source says "verses". What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "...Cher alternates between a high register and a low register..." This removes any mention of verses or lines. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. What do you think of this edit? Lordelliott (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad, but it sounds a bit strange ("beginning in the album..."). Perhaps "First heard in the 1980 record Black Rose...". Also, the citations need to be ordered numerically at the end of this sentence. My suggestion would be to, if possible, put citations immediately after a comma if that is all that they cite. That makes it clearer and less WP:SYNTHy. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll order the citations as soon as we finish with this section. I strongly agree with putting citations immediately after a comma if that is all that they cite, but one user said this goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. He told me that I should prefer cite bundling in case of multiple cites, indicating what each one cover in the sentence. Lordelliott (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I think citations can follow any type of punctuation (except dashes, which should follow the citation). It can help distinguish which source is for what. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so too, and I think this would save loads of space, since the captions for the bundled citations are occupying much space. Lordelliott (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cher used Auto-Tune as a creative effect on the album Living Proof (2001)" sounds to me as if this album was her only to use Auto-Tune. Don't you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See my suggestion above, cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In her late-1980s and early-1990s work, her bold, sharp vocals were noted for having highlighted her sexually autonomous persona. Do you think this sentence needs attribution? Lordelliott (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. I may have to reread the section to see if there is too much attribution, but here I see it as fit. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In her late-1980s and early-1990s work, her bold, sharp vocals were noted by Jim Farber of Entertainment Weekly for having highlighted her sexually autonomous persona. Right? Lordelliott (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this: "The bold, sharp vocals in her late-1980s and early-1990s work were noted...". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DMA magazine wrote that instead of sticking to a catalog that "includes some of the most indelible pop anthems of all time", she "has kept [her] musical inclinations sounding fresh and vital when many of her contemporaries falter" through "[a] unique blend of panache and tenacity". I think it could be paraphrased to give the reading a better flow. Lordelliott (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This opinion does not really add anything to the article IMO? Nothing that's really factual. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, removed. Lordelliott (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the captions for the ogg files are OK? I will search for an example of her male and female ranges. Lordelliott (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They look good, but I'd remove "today" in the third caption. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned about the excessive attribution, which is making the prose repetitive and tiresome. Perhaps removing some of them and paraphrasing will improve the flow? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I can try, but I'm not really good with paraphrasing (which I think you are). We could work on the paraphrase together, huh? Lordelliott (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, would be glad to. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Where do we start? Lordelliott (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We can begin by removing Jim Farber's attribution. It isn't really needed. We can also trim Bessman's quotations or remove them altogether. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Lordelliott (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Chris Lee of Los Angeles Times, 'Believe' is 'widely credited with injecting Auto-Tune's mechanical modulations into pop consciousness.'"—my proposed rewrite: "...and has since been widely used in popular music." (merge with previous sentence)
     Done. Lordelliott (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider briefly explaining what Auto-Tune is, or its history before "Believe" (what it was originally for, for example). To most readers, "pitch correction" doesn't say much.
    Maybe: The 1998 song "Believe" has an electronic vocal effect proposed by Cher,[195] and was the first commercial recording to feature Auto-Tune, an audio processor originally intended to disguise or correct off-key inaccuracies in vocal music recordings, as a deliberate creative effect.? Lordelliott (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I'd cite that, and probably surround the description in dashes instead of commas so that it doesn't drive away focus from the song itself. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, I'd love a little more elaboration on the themes Cher touched on, and her songwriting inspiration—what inspired her to use the themes she has done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could only find this source. I'll highlight the most interesting passages:
    In her early bad girl era, she sang about miscreants while also posing as one. There was "Une Enfante," about a 16-year-old runaway who winds up dead; "Magic in the Air," about a defiantly pregnant teenager; the story-of-a-divorce "You Better Sit Down, Kids"; "Mama (When My Dollies Have Babies)," about a young woman abandoned by her husband; "Behind the Door," which depicts suburbia as sinister and evil; and "Where Do You Go," about the horrors of being a teenager with quarrelsome parents. Sonny, who produced each track as a Spector symphony of doom and gloom, wrote most of these songs, and all but "Une Enfante" were released as singles, ensuring Cher's reputation as a champion of whores and mischief-makers.
    Backstage introduced a more mature Cher, a young woman willing to balance girl-gone-wrong songs with more adult material. For this disc, Sonny traded faux "Wall of Sound" for more subtle musical backing. Cher covers the Moody Blues ("Go Now"), Tim Hardin ("Reason to Believe"), and even Miriam Makeba, in a delightfully bizarre take on "The Click Song (Number One)." The Dylan cut here -- her seventh in five years -- is "Masters of War," in which she berates arms manufacturers, hollering "I hope that you die . . . I'll stand over your grave until I'm sure that you're dead" before segueing quickly into the hopeful pop of John Sebastian's "Do You Believe in Magic?"
    This sort of funky fusion of hippie and dippy vanished, more or less, from Cher's recorded repertoire until the striking release of 2000's not.com.mercial, an Internet-only folk-rock disc Cher wrote herself.
    On that album, which her label refused to release in the early 1990s because it contained no disco, Cher revisits her bad girl days with songs about evil Catholic nuns ("Sisters of Mercy"), homeless people ("Our Lady of San Francisco"), and the suicide of Kurt Cobain ("The Fall [Kurt's Blues]"). It's a recording that recalls the Cher of yore, a youngster who was the '60s equivalent of Courtney Love with better taste.
    In fact, I believe none of these passages cover the inspiration behind her controversial song choices. She only began writing some of her songs after her career was established in the late 1970s. The 2000 release Not.com.mercial is her only self-penned material to issue controversial areas. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully I'll be able to get to this when I'm back. Feel free to be bold and improve the article, and I'll review later. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films, music videos and live performances[edit]

  • Clarity: "...she came under her own ownership and control in her later career."—what does this mean?
  • In the 1960s and 1970s, her career was controlled by men (Sonny Bono, Snuff Garrett, TV and record producers). In later years, she took control of her own career. Lordelliott (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to abstract of an idea to have value to readers. I'd remove it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you remove the entire sentence ("According to author Diane Negra, Cher was presented in her early career as "an ideal site for the meaning of others" and as "a body that could showcase male creativity"; she came under her own ownership and control in her later career") or just "she came under her own ownership and control in her later career"?
  • Repetitive: "Cher's star image, according to author Yvonne Tasker..."—the "according to" attribution is used twice in two sentences.
  • Cher's star image "operates in terms of a refusal of dependence on a man and the determination not only to forge a career (as an actor) on her own terms but to refuse the conventional role assigned to women over forty years old in a industry that fetishises youth", writes author Yvonne Tasker. - Right?
  • Sentence structure: "By interacting with Eric Stoltz's elephantiasis victim in Mask (1985), Liam Neeson's mute homeless veteran in Suspect (1987), and Nicolas Cage's socially isolated baker with a wooden hand in Moonstruck (1987), she showcased her status as 'an emancipated ... body'."—seems a bit back-to-front, with the long clause followed by the short clause. I'd suggest a rearrangement.
  •  Done
  • Repetitive: "...by making the decision of playing a lesbian in Silkwood (1983)..."—the "by [ing]" structure is used again, and too close to the previous instance.
  • What would you suggest here?
    "According to Jeff Yarbrough of The Advocate, Cher was 'one of the first superstars to 'play gay' with compassion and without a hint of stereotyping', as she portrayed a lesbian in the 1983 film Silkwood." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitive: the first two sentences of the second paragraph all end with the "according to" structure. Should get some variation in there with regards to structure and use of phrases and expressions.
  • Changed the first "according to" to "writes".
    I'd use past tense "wrote". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flow: "The video for 'If I Could Turn Back Time' (a title that refers to her youthful body) was the first banned by MTV."—the parentheses break up the sentences. I'd suggest dashes and say instead "the title of which refers to her youthful body".
  • Length: "Tasker noted that while other music video and stage acts like Janet Jackson, Madonna and Tina Turner feature usually female backers who mimic and frame the star's performance, the 1992 concert video Cher at the Mirage 'features a male dancer dressed in one of Cher's glamorous, revealing ... costumes during a number in which Cher sings "all my life I've been dreaming by perfection". As the "real" Cher comes on stage ... to confront her impersonator, 'she' stops singing: the two then 'perform' together as the 'fake' Cher poses, is photographed and pursued by dancers with an oversized contract.'"—this really needs to be trimmed. Think summary style; no need to synopsize the performance. This is also a little flowery and overcomplimentary. The main idea is that she used a male dancer in one show, unlike other musicians. Also, "usually" should be moved before "features", as it sounds a bit strange.
  • Unlike other 1980s music video and stage acts, who usually feature female backers who mimic the star's performance, Cher used a male dancer dressed as her in the 1992 concert video Cher at the Mirage. According to author Diane Negra, "In authorizing her own quotation, Cher acknowledges herself as a fictionalized production, and proffers to her audience a pleasurable plurality." - Something like that? Lordelliott (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Negra's quotation is helpful, but the rest seems good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Lordelliott (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overquotation: This section really comes across as a bit of a quote farm. Consider trimming and paraphrasing many of the quotations. Also consider removing tiny tidbits from newspapers and magazines that are only praising Cher, without offering a lot of insight. (eg. "high energy circus", New York Times).
  • Passive voice: "Cher's live performances were described by Billboard magazine's Cary Darling as..."—change to active voice ("Billboard's Cary Darling described..."). No need for "magazine".
  • Repetition: Try to freshen the use of attribution. The "according to" expression is a little overused.

Overall, this isn't too bad. I'm very sorry for being so busy. School and exams really make you forget about everything else. Hopefully I'll finish the review soon! Cheers and keep up the good work, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion[edit]

  • Vague: "...after the modeling industry discovered her."—a little vague. How was she discovered?
  • Then-Vogue editor Diana Vreeland discovered Cher backstage at a 1967 party for Jacqueline Kennedy. Should it be mentioned? Lordelliott (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I'd make it past perfect and say "had found" rather than "discovered" (repetition). Maybe even connect this sentence with the previous with a semi-colon? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 05:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think of: "Then-Vogue editor Diana Vreeland discovered Cher backstage at a 1967 party for Jacqueline Kennedy, and she began working as a model that year for photographer Richard Avedon."
    Maybe more along the lines of "She began working as a model in 1967 for photographer Richard Avedon after then-Vogue editor Diana Vreeland discovered her at a party for Jacqueline Kennedy that year." Here, we know for sure "she" refers to Cher. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Lordelliott (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formality: we should use the term "navel" instead of "belly button".
  • Condense: "Cher is also known for wearing wigs ever since her 1970s TV shows." → "Cher has also worn wigs since her 1970s TV shows."
  • Trim: "There hasn't been a girl like Cher since [Marlene] Dietrich and [Greta] Garbo. She's a high-fashion star who appeals to people of all ages. She's a great influence on both adults and teenagers. It's never happened before. She can stand there in the wildest garb and get away with it. It's fun to watch a performer who is so connected with fashion."—the struck parts I don't see as necessary. They come off as puffery.
  • Diction: "In May 1999, after Cher was honored by the Council of Fashion Designers of America with a special award for her influence in fashion..."—remove "a special" and write "an". I'd also write this out in active voice: "In May 199, after the Councin of Fashion Designers of America recognized Cher with an award for her influence in fashion...".
  • Booth Moore's quotation also seems unnecessary and repetitive to me.

Hope this helps! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public image[edit]

  • Redundancy: "Throughout her career Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of 'whole new' [various] personas..."
  • Passive voice: "...for which she was called "the ultimate pop chameleon" by professor Richard Aquila from Ball State University."
  • Overquotation: I would remove either the Phil Marder quotation or the She Bob IIone as they both talk about the same thing.
  • Removed the She Bop II quotation.
  • Clarify and fused participle: "...she led the way to advance feminine rebellion in the rock world, with contemporaries Marianne Faithfull and Nancy Sinatra being her followers."—what is meant by "advance feminine rebellion in the rock world"? It sounds journalistic. Also, beware the noun+ing in the last clause.
  • I think it means she was the leader of an effort to increase the active participation of female singers in the rock and roll genre. Do you get it? How could we clarify this in the text?
    If you're not sure what it means either, it's best to remove this. The wording is not exactly encyclopedic and the idea in general is a blur. I would remove this sentence altogether. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I think this sentence provides some valuable info about her early influence, I can remove it. But I don't understand why this sentence wasn't a problem when we were working on the intro. The intro says: "Goldmine magazine's Phill Marder described her as 'the leader of an effort in the 1960s to "advance feminine rebellion in the rock world' [and] the prototype of the female rock star, setting the standard for appearance [and] attitude"." Lordelliott (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To tell you the truth, I don't know why either. I completely missed this, but now I want to bring it up. Maybe something like "led the way to advance influenced the presence of women in rock music". That sounds clearer to me and more encyclopedic. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Lordelliott (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weasel-ish: "She has often been called the "poster girl" of plastic surgery."—by whom?
  • She is called so by many sources, as the book Transformations: Identity Construction in Contemporary Culture indicates. The same case of Michael Jackson's "Wacko Jacko" nickname.
    We can use a broad term, like "authors", "journalists" or "fans", etc. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Journalists have often called her the "poster girl" of plastic surgery." Is this right? Lordelliott (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caroline Ramazanoglu's quotation seems a bit over-the-top. It really needs to be trimmed and paraphrased and much of it is factual.
  • I'll remove this part: "Cher admits to having had her breasts 'done', her nose bobbed and her teeth straightened; reportedly she has also had a rib removed, her buttocks reshaped, and cheek implants". I think just mentioning she famously have had plastic surgeries rather than mentioning what parts of her body were modified is enough.
  • There isn't much to comment about here in terms of prose because much of it includes quotes. This section is far too reliant on quotations, which are used as substitutes for original prose when they should only be used here and there. I strongly suggest some work here.
  • Since I don't want to mess the article because I'm no good with paraphrasing, I'll leave the quotes the way they are now. Maybe in the future I'll do some paraphrasing work.
  • All  Done (except where noted). Lordelliott (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some quotations can be outright removed. This section is overdetailed and wordy in my opinion.

Additional points:

  • The Chaz Bono information would fit better into the Philanthropy section.
  • I'll move it.
  • The third paragraphs talk about the plastic surgeries as if they are fact, but the last sentence calls them "rumors" denied by Cher herself.
  • Cher denies 'most' of the rumours about her plastic surgeries, not all. She openly talks about her nose and breast jobs. But since a lot of people know her for being the "poster-girl of plastic surgery" the press says she is, I added some info about the extreme makeover she supposely have had. Is this right?
  • I'll try to trim some of the Oscar stuff. Lordelliott (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed and paraphrased some of the Oscar stuff: "Cher's 1988 Oscar win, according to biographer Connie Berman, signaled an important change in Hollywood, as she appeared in a negligee outfit, danced onstage and was applauded for her daring." Is this right?
    Better. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • Layout: I'd put this section at the very end, after "Other interests".
  • Content: I feel as though some of the information here in this section does not belong and should either be removed or taken to a different section. For example, the fifth paragraph feels like a major repetition of the public image section. There's probably some difference, but it's too slight. Having read such a long article, the last thing I (or more importantly readers) need is repeated information.
  • I'm thinking of blending the first two paragraphs of the public image sections with the legacy section. What do you think? Lordelliott (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree here. The purpose of the Public image section is to comment on her artistry and presentation. The purpose of the legacy section is to discuss what impact she had on pop culture. But with that said, the last sentence (female presence in rock and her rock followers) could stay in legacy as that talks about influence. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does belong in this section is what she left (i.e. people she has influenced, things done in honour of her and only special awards that recognize her whole career.) Mentions of regular awards (for lack of a better term) does not constitute "legacy". Likewise, avoid trivia ("With the song 'Believe', she became the oldest female artist (at the age of 52) to top the Billboard Hot 100.[158] It gave her the distinction of having the longest span of number-one singles (33 years) and the longest gap between number-one singles (ten days short of 25 years) in the rock era of the Hot 100.")
  • I think of those records more as an example of how long she has been in the top of the music industry than trivia. Don't you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it's a minute detail to the average reader and the facts are oddly specific, too specific for the legacy section, which should summarize. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think those records should be replaced or simply removed? Lordelliott (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed, definitely. The Wikipedian Penguin 00:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that much more than half of the prose in this section comprises quotation. Serious trimming and paraphrasing is direly needed.
  • Puffery: "Goldmine magazine's Phill Marder called her '[a] superstar of the highest order' who [wrote that Cher] 'has been and remains today one of the Rock Era's most dominant figures'. He added that 'no female has represented Rock & Roll with her music, appearance and attitude more than Cher.'"
  • Overquotation: "She was credited by Chicago Tribune as 'the person who paved the way for Madonna, Lady Gaga and many more'."—easy paraphrase. "According to the Chicago Tribune, Cher has influenced contemporary singers such as Lady Gaga and Madonna."
  • Suggestion: Mark Bego's quote, with a little trimming, would be an excellent way to finish the entire article.
  • In general, this section needs to be cut back quite a bit. It feels wordy and tiring after reading such a big article. Something concise and punchy is what one would like for this section to be.
  • Do you think the infobox on this section should be removed? Lordelliott (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If by infobox you mean the quote box, yes, I'd remove it. It doesn't seem to add anything more than what we already have. The Wikipedian Penguin 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm restructuring the legacy section. It will take half a hour or less. Lordelliott (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to review the prose after some clean up is done here. This section has too much puffery and wordiness and could benefit from trimming. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • POV: "Cher's enduring success in various areas of entertainment earned her the nickname 'Goddess of Pop'."—say "contributions to" instead of "enduring success in".
  • Flow: "She was honored with special awards from World Music Awards and Billboard Music Awards for her..." → "She received a special World Music Award and Billboard Music Award for her..." (note the italicization).
  • Since "Billboard" here is referring to the award, not to the magazine, I don't think it should be italicized. In the article Billboard Music Award, "Billboard" is not italicized when referring to the award. What do you think?
  • Structure: "In 1992, Madame Tussauds wax museum honored her with a life-size statue as one of the five most beautiful women of history." → " In 1992, Madame Tussauds wax museum honored her as one of the five most beautiful women of history by creating a life-size statue."
  • "In November 2010, Cher placed her handprints and footprints in cement in the courtyard in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood."—briefly specify the significance of this: why did she do this? For all we know, she could have just vandalized the courtyard when there was wet cement, but this isn't the reason is it?
  • According to the source: "In November 2010, Cher received the honor of placing her handprints and footprints in cement in the courtyard in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood." Better?
  • Diction: "He defended that, with her dominant attitude over partner Sonny Bono and her daring outfits, she influenced the presence of women in rock music..."—"defend" is awkward and POVish to me.
  • Is "agreed" better?
  • Formality: The word "contemporaries" as a noun is rather colloquial. Perhaps "contemporary followers"? So then for the next sentence, you can say "pop singers" instead of "contemporary singers".
  • Linking: wikilinking Mark Bego once in the article is enough, and try to refer to him as "Bego" more often. Also, I think we should link self-actualization.
  • Authority: I feel as though this section is putting too much emphasis on Mark Bego's opinions and that his opinions seem more important. And he seems to be praising Cher too much to the point that the section feels POVish. I'd remove this opinion in the 3rd paragraph completely, another reason being we've already discussed her career shifts and changes in persona elsewhere in the article. Beginning the paragraph with the NY Times quote seems better.
  • Parahphrase: I'd like to suggest a paraphrase for Berman's quote: "Biographer Connie Berman wrote that Cher's transition from a difficult childhood to fame has led her to become an inspiration."
  • Redundancy: Avoid the expession "a number of".
  • Unnecessary transition: "However, Kathleen Park of Orlando Sentinel felt that this choice was miserable..."—remove "However".
  • WP:QUOTEFARM: the fourth paragraph desperately needs some work on paraphrasing.
  • Could you help me specially with this fourth paragraph? I feel like if I try to do some paraphrase work myself, I will lose much of the quotations' value.
  • Relevance: Alec Mapa's quotation does not seem related to her support from the LGBT community.
  • It is related because The Advocate is a LGBT publication and when he says 'us', he is referring to the LGBT people. Do you think it should be removed anyway?

All  Done (except where noted). Lordelliott (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'm still very worried about the overabundance of quotations not just in Legacy but throughout the article. Remove them where you can and only use them as tiny blurbs here and there. I will do the Other interests section soon. The Wikipedian Penguin 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lordelliott[edit]

  • Would you mind reviewing the changes I've made on the 1980s subsection? I'm not sure if they are correct. Lordelliott (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I forgot to to mention that. I had read what you had done in the section and am quite happy with the touches. They look fine to me! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the 1980s subsection, there's a long citation: She has often repeated the story about the audience's reception at a preview that Cher attended. At the beginning of the film, when her name flashed across the screen in the credits, the audience laughed. Cher was devastated. Her sister, who was with her, began to cry. Cher didn't cry, but she was deeply hurt. The preview audience changed its attitude by the end of the film. Hollywood also took notice at last, and so did the critics. - What do you think of trimming out devastated. Her sister, who was with her, began to cry. Cher didn't cry, but she was? Lordelliott (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, go for it. If you feel any detail is unnecessary, take it out. The article's long enough after all. I'm not sure what is meant by "repeated". That first sentence is unclear. How about just, "She recalls attending a film preview during which the audience laughed when they saw her name in the credits...."? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So it would be: When it premiered in 1983, audiences questioned Cher's ability as an actress. She recalls attending a film preview during which the audience laughed when they saw her name in the credits.[106] For her engaging and nearly flawless performance, Cher received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress and won a Golden Globe Award.[105] - Right? Lordelliott (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I made a typo above. Should be "paid tribute". Sorry about that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Lordelliott (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. I'd say "was nominated for" instead however. Otherwise, that's nice. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (again) made some changes on the 1980s subsection, as you can see here. Now it reads: By 1987, Cher was receiving attention for her Jack LaLanne Health Clubs commercials and controversial lifestyle, including her tattoos, plastic surgeries, exhibionist fashion sense, and affairs with younger men.[112] The later included actors ... - However, I'm not sure about "The later included". Is that right? Lordelliott (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's grammatically incorrect since latter (two t's, BTW) refers to the last of two items, not more than that. You can say "She dated...". That sounds fluent. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also removed some song mentions on the 1980s subsection because I'm trying to avoid citing songs just because they were top-ten hits - she has many of them. Do you agree with me? Lordelliott (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you can remove them. But some may be top-ten hits but have had a major cultural impact or were highly recognized by critics. We all know that songs can be commercial flops but widespread critical successes. Keep those if there are any like that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose to mention only the most successful single of each album because she has many hits. As an example, songs like "After All", "Just Like Jesse James" and "Strong Enough" are very associated with Cher, but are not mentioned on the article. I'm keeping the highly-recognized-by-critics songs on the "Music and voice" subsection. Do you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a cool approach. I never thought of that. Yes, do that instead. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think the following sentences would make great notes?
  • In 1980, alongside Italian record producer Giorgio Moroder, Cher wrote her last Casablanca disco recording, "Bad Love", for the film Foxes.
  • On December 24, 1995, Cher starred in the ITV special Christmas with Cher. Lordelliott (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are reasonably noteworthy and can stay in the prose. But your call. And wouldn't it be "ITV Christmas special"? Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There are some Cher facts that are not mentioned on the article, including the release of the Chastity soundtrack in 1969, the audiobook The Ugly Ducking in 1987, the Mego Sonny & Cher Toys, and a lot of compilations, because I thought it would turn the text into a endless reading, and because these releases didn't get much attention (just like "Bad Love" and the Christmas special). What do you think? I'm really confused. Lordelliott (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what should be considered is who you're righting for: an extreme fan who wants even the smallest details, or for a casual reader interested in the life of Cher. I'd go with the latter. If fans want to know something specific, there are designated subarticles like her discography and song articles. As for the soundtrack and toys: the soundtrack is for a poorly received and unsuccessful film, so no need. The toys are pure promotion and since they didn't get much attention they're fancrufty. I think "Bad Love" and the Christmas special can say however because they're different: one is her last Casablanca disco song, and the other is a Christmas special, which she hasn't done before. And these are all directly related to her career, unlike the toys. Hope that helps. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! I have the same thought as you. Thanks for the clarification. My questions are answered; we can move on as soon as you can. Lordelliott (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering if the following quotation could be paraphrased and worked into the prose:
When "I Found Someone" came out, radio just refused to play us. I [then] did as much TV as I possibly could to let people know that the record was out there. I finally had to put the video that we made for it into a commercial for Bally Fitness, and that's how we got it into people's minds. Finally, it just got so much attention, and people started asking for it that radio had to play it. Before that, radio was just not interested. Sometimes, it's amazing to me that I have a recording career at all!
If so, can you help me with it? Lordelliott (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to important to me, however. It talks about one song and just does not seem to add much about Cher. We have to continue to trim the article too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think this detail from her personal life is notable enough to the article? In a 2010 interview for Architectural Digest magazine, she revealed that she became involved in Buddhism: "As corny as it sounds, the soul of the universe, everything that I need, I can find in its practice." I think we can trim this out. Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think this content would make great notes? In November 2010, Cher placed her handprints and footprints in cement in the courtyard in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood.[191] Glamour magazine honored Cher with the Woman of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award.[192] Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, is this in the Legacy section?
    Nope, this is in the 2010s subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it should be moved to the Legacy section or removed entirely? Lordelliott (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, legacy is a good place to put it. I think it's relevant and noteworthy. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It became the best-selling recording of 1998 and 1999, as well as Cher's biggest hit to date.[158] - "as well" is needed here? What do you think of "... 1999 and Cher's biggest hit to date"? Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably add a comma after "1999"; otherwise good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cher's highly anticipated dance-oriented follow-up to Believe, Living Proof (2001), entered the Billboard 200 at number nine, making it her highest-charting album debut to date. I think we can trim "making it". Do you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially scheduled for 49 shows, the tour was extended several times, covering much of the US and cities in Europe, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Is the countries list really needed? Is there a short way to say the tour covered numerous cities around the world? Lordelliott (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that lists such as these are unsightly. Why not "... the worldwide tour was extended several times."? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think the following sentence is overlong? The show paid homage to her 40 years in show business, featuring vintage performance and video clips from the 1960s onwards, highlighting her successes in music, television, and film, all set amongst an elaborate backdrop and stage set-up, complete with dancers, acrobats and backup singers. Lordelliott (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Long and convoluted. I suggest trimming or splitting it. Perhaps remove the "all set amongst" clause altogether. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "all set amongst" removed. What about this: The show paid homage to her 40 years in show business. It featured video clips from the 1960s onwards, highlighting her successes in music, television, and film, and an elaborate backdrop and stage set-up, complete with dancers, acrobats and backup singers. Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably add "featuring" before "elaborate". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "featuring" would sound strange because the sentence begins with "It featured". Lordelliott (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about this: The show highlighted her successes in music, television, and film through 40 years in show business, featuring video clips from the 1960s onwards and an elaborate backdrop and stage set-up, complete with dancers, acrobats and backup singers. Lordelliott (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad, though it's a little convoluted. Would you consider removing "through 40 years in show business" and "complete with dancers, acrobats and backup singers"? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the titles for the Life and career subsections are OK? Lordelliott (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They look good to me. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can trim the "Advertisement for Cher's Las Vegas show" picture, right? Lordelliott (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Trim as in actually crop it? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, remove it. Lordelliott (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So? I think we can remove it because the image does not add something important to the article and because it sandwiches the first paragraph of the "Music and voice" subsection. Lordelliott (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for keeping you waiting. Yes, remove it. It's not that useful. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this edit OK? Lordelliott (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine, just "the top five". Otherwise, good condensing! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added this bit to the 1990s section because many people know her from this episode (it may sound strange but it's true lol): "Cher's music played a large role in the American TV series The X-Files episode "The Post-Modern Prometheus", which aired in November 1997.[24] Written for her, it tells the story of a scientist's grotesque creature who adores Cher because of her role in Mask, in which her character cares for her disfigured son.[25][26]" Do you think it should be somewhere on the "Public image" section or should it stay on the 1990s section? Lordelliott (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's two duets on the Notes section: one with Eros Ramazzotti and one with Rod Stewart. Don't you think they should be removed definitely from the article since they're already mentioned on the Cher singles discography article? Also, I think the Will & Grace note should be worked into the article since her cameo appearance in this episode is very well-known. Don't you agree? Lordelliott (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Cher/archive1&oldid=1142513069"