Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alizée/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 03:23, 12 April 2007.
The article is currently a GA, and has been further polished and refined since it has become a Good Article. As it stands, its in a pretty stable state, and IMO, it is ready to be an FA. It is fairle extensively referenced and contains all-round information regarding the subject - including prose about her career, critical and mass reception as well as lists to summarize information where necessary. --soum (0_o) 04:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general
- Overall I think that the lead section does a good job in establishing context and it introduces the headlines, as WP:LEAD prescribes. I don't see the real need of expanding the lead section too much, since WP:LEAD also suggests to "avoid lengthy paragraphs". Myself, I have written the Alizée Jacotey section of the Alizée Search article. In that paragraph I also tried to match the criteria of WP:LEAD for an Alizée article. Maybe it would a good idea to take a look at it and blend the current lead section with that Alizée Jacotey section. For example:
- One of the things that could be more emphasised is the criterion of WP:LEAD "explaining why the subject is interesting or notable" by adding that Alizée was "highest-selling female French singer in 2001" (with the citation).
- to be more factual and precise by adding that Laurent Boutonnat composed and Mylène Farmer wrote her music instead of using the word "collaborating" and adding her supposed return in "2007" instead of "soon", because that was the actual "unofficial news".
- Your idea on rewording the 2nd para on the lines of Alizee Search seems like a good idea. Since the actual chronology of releases is described later, it makes better sense to not follow the same sequence here. Starting with the albums first and delving into notable singles does a better job of capturing the essence in a summary (which is what the lead section is for). And yes, mentioning sales stats is a good idea. --soum (0_o) 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific comments on the current lead section
- 1st paragraph
- 2nd sentence:
- Is it that important that she is a "daughter of a computer scientist and a businesswoman" to mention that in the 2nd sentence? That would be something one would expect in the early years or personal life section.
- It says that her dad is a "computer scientist". One would expect a scientist to work at a university, but the university of corse (http://www.univ-corse.fr) does not have a (former-) employee named "Jacotey" to my knowledge. I know that one of the sources is Alizée Fan Page (http://www.alizee-fanpage.com/page.php?language=en&content=bio) and www.moi-alizee.com seems to be their source. Their french section (http://www.alizee-fanpage.com/page.php?language=fr&content=bio) however says "informaticien", which means "informatician". Could someone clarify this point.
- Her mom seems to have quited her job temporily to support Alizée. Would that be interesting to add? And does anyone have a citation for that?
- 5th sentence:
- Wouldn't it be better to specify "outside" France.
- 6th sentence:
- something seems to be missing here.
- Is it factual enough for the lead section to mention that Alizée is supposed to have "struck out on her own".
- 2nd paragraph
- 1st sentence:
- Wouldn't it be better to specify "elsewhere"?
- 5th sentence:
- Wouldn't it be better to specify "quite successful"?
- 6th sentence:
- To my knowledge the "Alizée en Concert" tour also toured through Belgium and Switzerland. Is that right?
- 7th sentence:
- Her marriage is subject to controversy. Is her marriage in Las Vegas for example legally valid in France? Wouldn't it be better to just say that she got a daughter together with Jérémy.
- Legally, marriage is just a registration. And registration is no big deal - who knows they moght have sneaked into some registration office and got registered. However, the social connotation attached with it is quite different - once married, people stay married (until they head for splitsville) - regadless of where they are. As such, I think we do not need to go into the legalese and go with the social connotation of the term. Since, there is no source justifying the controversy, I think we should not tread into it. --soum (0_o) 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8th sentence:
- Wouldn't it be better to change marriage into parenthood here too?
- language: Wouldn't it be better to formulate it as "Since her parenthood, she has been taking...". The word "Since" implies already "presently", isn't it?
- Is the word "slated" used here correctly?
- Oppose—1a. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it, particularly unidiomatic wordings. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.)
- "were hits in France and outside"—no, "and elsewhere".
- "It was a success both in France and abroad — after it had its international launch in 2001 — earning her the distinction of being the highest selling female French singer in 2001."—I find the em dashes a little sharp here: commas instead?
- "fall of 2003"—No good for southern hemisphere; see MoS.
- "Since her marriage, she is presently taking a break"—Tense is wrong.
- "Also known by her nickname Lili, Alizée started dancing early in her life.[6] By the age of four, she became quite proficient in it. "—Uncomfortable merging of different ideas in the first sentence. "in it" is stubby.
- "she won a coloring competition ... Her design won first prize"—Same thing?
- " a former French airline now partly acquired by Swissair"—Is this relevant?
- "the "Meilleure Graine" award for most promising young singing star of tomorrow"—"the" is missing. "of tomorrow" is odd (if it's in the title, please express it as a title). Tony 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little better, but I'm not thrilled. In particular, there are lots of stubby paragraphs, giving a choppy feel to the article. This is not helped by the small size of some of the subsections. Tony 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.