Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as a B scale article.
I can easily see that it can become a A scale article, I just need some constructive criticism to make it so.
Thanks, Ziggyseventh ( talk) 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to say to start with that I don't really have any experience with A-class reviews, either reviewing them or writing the articles, but I can give some general advice to improve the article. An A-class review is one option, but there is also good article nomination, which can be another "stepping-stone" on the way to WP:FAC. I think you've picked up the fact that Featured Article nominations are supposed to be undertaken by editors who have contributed significantly to the article, or at least with the main contributers' knowledge. This isn't a requirement for WP:GAN, but if you do nominate this article, I would strongly recommend you do so only if you are very familiar with the article and the sources used, and that you contact the main editors first. It works out better that way for everyone, and you will need to know what you're talking about with regards to the sources in a review. You can see the main editors (by number of edits, and over time) to the article here. You can also often pick up who's heavily involved in an article by checking the talkpage. I also notice that the article had a peer review a few months ago, so it would be worth checking that everything that came up there has been addressed. Having said all that, I'll go through the article and make comments on any issues I find, including things that would concern me at a GA review.
Infobox
Lead
1987–2004: Childhood and youth
2005–09: Career beginnings
Image and artistry
Sources
I think the article's in pretty good shape and could be ready for WP:GAN soon. I think the main thing is to tighten up the prose a bit. If you have any questions, please let me know as I don't usually watch peer reviews. -- Beloved Freak 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent changes by Fixer23, they look good. One concern I have is this sentence: "Kesha and her music have been dismissed early on as lightweight, calculating and crude..." Firstly, purely a grammatical thing, "have been dismissed early on" doesn't sound quite right. I'd go with either "were dismissed early on as lightweight..." or "have been dismissed as lightweight..." Secondly, it's not clear who dismissed her as such. It seems to need some kind of attribution. I checked the reference that comes at the end of the sentence and see that it's from that article, but I don't know if maybe this should be reworded somehow to make that clear. I'm not sure how exactly. I see also that the party girl thing comes from that source. It's ok to mention it, it's just a matter of how it's worded. Perhaps you could frame it in a way that makes it clear it's from one interview. "In an interview for The Times, Kesha discussed comments from critics that..." blah blah etc, and then carry on into the quote that's currently used. Or whatever wording you like, but that would be my suggested structure.-- Beloved Freak 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I adressed most of the things listed above. I'm listing the things that have not been done so it's easier for someone else to step in and do what they have to do.
Lead
Sources
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as a B scale article.
I can easily see that it can become a A scale article, I just need some constructive criticism to make it so.
Thanks, Ziggyseventh ( talk) 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to say to start with that I don't really have any experience with A-class reviews, either reviewing them or writing the articles, but I can give some general advice to improve the article. An A-class review is one option, but there is also good article nomination, which can be another "stepping-stone" on the way to WP:FAC. I think you've picked up the fact that Featured Article nominations are supposed to be undertaken by editors who have contributed significantly to the article, or at least with the main contributers' knowledge. This isn't a requirement for WP:GAN, but if you do nominate this article, I would strongly recommend you do so only if you are very familiar with the article and the sources used, and that you contact the main editors first. It works out better that way for everyone, and you will need to know what you're talking about with regards to the sources in a review. You can see the main editors (by number of edits, and over time) to the article here. You can also often pick up who's heavily involved in an article by checking the talkpage. I also notice that the article had a peer review a few months ago, so it would be worth checking that everything that came up there has been addressed. Having said all that, I'll go through the article and make comments on any issues I find, including things that would concern me at a GA review.
Infobox
Lead
1987–2004: Childhood and youth
2005–09: Career beginnings
Image and artistry
Sources
I think the article's in pretty good shape and could be ready for WP:GAN soon. I think the main thing is to tighten up the prose a bit. If you have any questions, please let me know as I don't usually watch peer reviews. -- Beloved Freak 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent changes by Fixer23, they look good. One concern I have is this sentence: "Kesha and her music have been dismissed early on as lightweight, calculating and crude..." Firstly, purely a grammatical thing, "have been dismissed early on" doesn't sound quite right. I'd go with either "were dismissed early on as lightweight..." or "have been dismissed as lightweight..." Secondly, it's not clear who dismissed her as such. It seems to need some kind of attribution. I checked the reference that comes at the end of the sentence and see that it's from that article, but I don't know if maybe this should be reworded somehow to make that clear. I'm not sure how exactly. I see also that the party girl thing comes from that source. It's ok to mention it, it's just a matter of how it's worded. Perhaps you could frame it in a way that makes it clear it's from one interview. "In an interview for The Times, Kesha discussed comments from critics that..." blah blah etc, and then carry on into the quote that's currently used. Or whatever wording you like, but that would be my suggested structure.-- Beloved Freak 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I adressed most of the things listed above. I'm listing the things that have not been done so it's easier for someone else to step in and do what they have to do.
Lead
Sources