Talk:Courtney Love/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Courtney Love. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Beliefs
"In January 2011, while attending an Oxford Union debate, Love publicly endorsed her support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and called it "a step in the right direction for democracy".[130]" This is incorrect, is was an Oxford University Conservative Association debate (even the sources says this). It should also be noted that she became a member of the Conservative Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLawson1337 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Bus
Greyhound bus service DOES NOT depart from Anchorage, Alaska! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.112.77 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Substance abuse edits
Here are some subtle inaccuracies that make the substance abuse paragraph tough on the eyes of anal retentive pharmacists:
"According to Love, "Later that day Jennifer gulped down a bunch of dilaudid and overdosed." -Dilaudid is a brand name; the 'd' needs to be capitalized.
"Love has also admitted to abusing rohypnol and other opiates.[15][108]" -Rohypnol is also a brand name. But, to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph in referring to drugs by their generic name, it should really say "abusing flunitrazepam." - Flunitrazepam (Rohypnol) is not an opiate. It is a benzodiazepine. Reference 108 says Love admitted to abusing Oxycontin, an opiate. So, I think what the author is trying to say is: "Love has admitted to abusing flunitrazepam (Rohypnol) and the opiate, oxycodone (Oxycontin)"
I don't know if you need a citation for this but it's very simply verified with a Google search. Drugbank.ca is a great source for verifying such stuff too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.136.140 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominating for good article
I have worked on this article tremendously (beyond tremendously), and I think it's time for a nomination. It's pretty darn clean if you ask me. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Courtney Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not listed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Initial comments
|
|---|
Tick listGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments
On holdThere is a lot of information in this article, and it is well organised. I have yet to check sources for accuracy and balance of coverage. I am putting on hold for an initial seven days for the presentation issues to be dealt with:
I will try to help out if I get the time. Any questions or queries please feel free to ping my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
More comments
|
Refresh
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
To make it easier to see what still needs doing, and to see if I can pass the article as it stands now, I'm starting afresh. I have implemented many of the suggestions mentioned above, though some still need doing. It helps to clear the blackboard, and make a new list. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pass
- Original research. Pass. I've not noticed any original research. This is, as Scottdoesntknow notes above, a complex subject - Love's life has been fairly rich, and she has added to that by making larger than life statements about her history, so it can at times be difficult to pin down the truth. Is that really her on the back of the Grateful Dead album, for example? The only person who appears to say so is Love herself, and the Dead have not confirmed it - indeed, have been rather lukewarm about their relationship with her father. However, though this is a complex and difficult subject, the article does stick with published statements. The quality of those statements I'll come to later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Major aspects. Some aspects that might need more coverage are her dress style. In sources I'm frequently coming upon references to Love's dress style, in particular to her use of torn Baby Doll dresses, and her dress style is seen as influential on later female musicians. Also, there is a fair deal of commentary in sources on how disturbed Love is due to her background, and I'm not sure how fully that comes over. However, I'm inclined to pass this section, as GA doesn't require comprehensive coverage, simply broad, and I think the main aspects of her life are adequately covered here, and her broken childhood is covered here. Perhaps just a bit more on her fashion sense as part of ongoing development. On balance - Pass. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is a crucial aspect to Courtney Love's fame which centers around her body and her styles. She humorously addressed its significance by putting one of her most famous dresses in a museum display case on the cover of their b-sides album. The description of kinderwhore often loses an element of reality in its description, because to describe the dress without describing the woman wearing it is pointless. Courtney has powerful shoulders, strong-looking, somewhat masculine hands, and great legs, with piercingly upsetting eyes, so when she dressed in an ultra-feminine style, her own personal "dangerous" body became a strong contrast to the dress itself, which was created to make a woman appear as demure as possible. This would highlight the perversity of a history of women's fashion and popular perception wherein women are treated or styled as ineffectual, weak, demure, safe, nice, generous, kind, etc. In essence she created a psychadelic, surreal effect by dressing ultra-feminine while appearing incredibly dangerous, e.g. wearing a stately dress but then thrusting a bare leg up onto a monitor while performing. She also played with images of Victorian era and medieval womanhood. To put it simply, it's a real loss that all the images of her on this page are from present day, because a) she's had too much plastic surgery and b) she's dressed much less interestingly. We're losing a lot of what made her interesting simply by not showing how she looked in her heyday. How does one go about procuring images with proper approval?Mistertruffles (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fail
- Focused. More work needs doing. There is a lot of useful information in this article, though it does occasionally wander into too much detail and quoting. Unless particularly sensitive or important it is better to briefly summarise than to include quotes. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Also, detail like "The two first encountered one another at the Satyricon nightclub in January 1989, where Nirvana was playing a show. Cobain passed by a booth where Love was seated with a friend, and she blurted to him, 'You look like Dave Pirner' (lead singer of Soul Asylum). The two purportedly playfully wrestled on the floor in front of a jukebox that night." is more suited to a biography of Love than a short article in a general encyclopaedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Prose. I have been working a bit on the article to improve the prose, though I haven't done enough. There are lots of short untidy paragraphs, even a single sentence paragraph. This gives the article an untidy, amateurish look which is off-putting for readers. I think the article has been assembled bit by bit by a number of writers, rather than anyone taking responsibility for reading through to ensure the writing flows. GA doesn't require the same level of quality writing that FA does. As long as people can read through quickly, easily without distraction or confusion to get the information then that's a pass. But where the language is a bit awkward, as in "Love's song lyrics are often told from a female's point of view", "Her later work was more introspective in its lyrics as opposed to aggressive", "Love's most prolific relationship was with fellow rock musician Kurt Cobain", "In more recent years", then it can make the reader pause. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- MoS. I've done a bit of work on the lead, but it still needs a bit more. A crude rule of thumb is that each major section in the article should have a summary in the lead. I think that the rest of the article meets the MoS sections that apply to GA. I am unsure about the use of the table in Filmography. I also question the need to make the reader click through to two separate articles to find out that she has made five studio albums. Those albums could be listed in the Discography section. I also question the need to have such a detailed filmography in the article when the discography information is either elsewhere, or is to be abbreviated to the major works as I have just suggested. The filmography information can be moved to Courtney Love discography, and it may be considered that Hole discography be merged with Courtney Love discography as people looking for details of the one would welcome details of the other. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Possible pass
- Fair representation without bias. This is close to a pass. The article includes negative as well as positive details. Where I'm hesitating is that the tone could be seen as apologetic or even laudatory rather than purely neutral, and there seems to be a reluctance to detail some of the more negative aspects of Love's past. The concerns about her parenting are not objectively and appropriately given. There is no mention in that section of her drug use, but there is a long statement that "This is simply about Frances preferring to live with her grandmother", and there is a sympathetic line about Love feeling sorry for herself because she had "no real connection to her daughter". In the lead the lines: "Throughout her career, Love's wild stage antics and subversive feminist attitude have polarized audiences and critics,[7][8] with Rolling Stone once calling her 'the most controversial woman in rock history.'" could be read as laudatory. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of sympathetic or laudatory lines, including "wild stage antics" (which sounds embarrassing and childish or at best like she's setting off fireworks and biting heads off bats) and "subversive feminist attitude" (which is a bit coddlesome). The difficult aspect of editing Courtney's life details is that almost all coverage of them betrays some kind of bias either praising or damning her, and the dueling depictions of these events is often what makes them interesting. The public tension between the two viewpoints gives her a sort of heroic underdog and villain identity simultaneously, which is what makes her such an interesting subject. Mistertruffles (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources There is a commendable amount of inline citing. My quibble here is that when I have checked some sources, they did not always fully support what was said, or the sources were TV programs difficult to access, or which appear to be direct quotes from Love rather than independent commentary. While we can use Love's own quotes, they need to be used with care - see WP:PRIMARY. Where possible I have replaced insecure sources with accessible book sources. This would be an ongoing operation. FA would require much better quality sources than are present in the article so far. Also, the multiple sourcing needs to be reduced or bundled as I have commented in the previous section. I don't think any of the sources are insecure enough to hold this back from listing, so I'm inclined to pass this section, though with the strong caveat that the sources are to be looked into and improved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold
This review has gone on for over a month, so it would be good to see this closed one way or the other. Whatever the final result the article has improved during the GAN, and I've been pleased to see that the reader's Page ratings have gone up considerably over the past month. A concerted effort by the main contributors should see this listed. Putting on hold for a week to allow time to build the lead, and do the copy-editing and trimming this is required. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Close as not listed
Despite requesting assistance from all the related WikiProjects, main contributors and recent contributors, there has been no progress, indeed the article has gone backwards. This GAN has gone on for over a month, and though Scottdoesntknow has done some good work, there has been no support from anyone else, and it has not been possible to do everything necessary to get the article to meet GA criteria. I dislike failing an article after time and effort has been put into it, but progress has now stopped, and there is still a lot of work to be done. When the work has been done the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Better coordination between Love's acting career and filmography listings would improve this article.66.31.143.239 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ancestry
She's of part Russian Jewish roots. http://www.silver.ru/air/programmes/mishanina/interview/21323/ 1st audio 14:35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.152.183 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, she isn't. We've discussed this before, see [1] -- Foetusized (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Tom Grant reference
The disputed entry is:
"Despite allegations of complicity in the death of Kurt Cobain, no charges have ever been filed against Love to support such claims. The official ruling in Cobain's death stands as suicide"
Arguing that it's "poorly sourced gossip" is tempting, if dishonest. The testimony of a licensed private investigator (not to mention a former L.A. County sheriff's deputy) such as Tom Grant is generally considered reliable primary source. Furthermore, secondary analysis can be found among established, reliable sources (see the Dateline report, for instance). It's also published elsewhere here on Wikipedia, for that matter (see Kurt & Courtney and Love and Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain). Clearly, no mention whatsoever on this page would be in fact be an awkward omission; for the sake of continuity, some sort of reference belongs in the article. Whittle it down to something more palatable, if you care to - whatever works best in the article. But put *something* there. Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- This has been discussed in the past; there will be no tinfoil whackjobbery about Cobain's murder appearing in this article. Period. The death was ruled a suicide, any "info" to the contrary belongs out in the fringe of the fringe conspiracy theories, right alongside Obama's birth certificates, faked moon landings and Elvis still being alive. I hope this clears the matter up for you. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're skirting my points by way of straw man arguments. What exactly do you disagree with? How are the references that I provided insufficient? Please be specific. Sebastian Garth (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that the conspiracy theory about Kurt's "murder" IS in fact mentioned in the article in the career section; the fact that Nirvana fans threw shotgun shells at her onstage during Hole's 1994-95 tours is noted in there and addresses the fact that these people adhered to the theory that Love was somehow responsible for his death. So it IS in there. Regardless, it also is rumor straight from tabloids, and it definitely doesn't belong in the "Legal" section of the article because it never WAS a legal issue to begin with. He killed himself, the coroner ruled it a suicide, and that was the end of it. Let the man rest in peace. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Except that we're not talking about conspiracy theories here, per se. The allegation was leveled by a "high-level" investigator, analyzed and reported on by the media, and subsequently the subject of books and film. Which of those is not notable? Sebastian Garth (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well then, I'm going to reinstate the material until more compelling arguments against it are put forward. Sebastian Garth (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- We will not be placing gossip, innuendo, and conspiracies that Love was complicit in Cobain's murder. If you try to revert this back in, I do not think that the results will be pretty. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to think the the inclusion of the material amounts to WP:fringe. In fact, it is not. The policy specifically states that all opinions should have "representation in proportion to their prominence". You'd be a fool (or a liar) to say that the Tom Grant story held absolutely zero prominence in the media. Moreover, WP:BLP does not necessarily preclude "conspiracy theories" - it simply states that such inclusions should be done with care and concern for the subject, backed by reliable sources. The proposed text satisfies all of that, I think. If you disagree, then please specify precisely which Wikipedia policy is being violated. Resorting to emotional rhetoric, avoiding dialog, and making threats is not the answer, I assure you. Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go find another article to pester, preferably one that isn't of a living person as you do not have the slightest bit of understanding of giving undue weight, among other things. It doesn't matter if some reliable sources mentioned Grant's little investigations; we don't put UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS of fucking MURDER into a BLP. Period. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Specifically *where* is it stated in WP:BLP that such additions are disallowed? Also, please try to adhere to the guidelines of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL in your responses. It's hard to take you seriously, otherwise. Sebastian Garth (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- We do not put allegations of conspiracies and murder into BLP articles, its as simple as that. I have brought this to the WP:BLPN board; not the first time that I have had to to and probably not the last. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just looked at the disputed entry. If an editor doesn't see how this falls foul of spirit and letter of the BLP policy (and just about every other policy on Wikipedia, including WP:NOGOSSIP) then they should certainly stay away from BLPs, as Tarc suggested above. And don't just leave Cobain alone--leave Love alone, and continue this crusade elsewhere. I guess Facebook doesn't have a BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- We do not put allegations of conspiracies and murder into BLP articles, its as simple as that. I have brought this to the WP:BLPN board; not the first time that I have had to to and probably not the last. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Specifically *where* is it stated in WP:BLP that such additions are disallowed? Also, please try to adhere to the guidelines of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL in your responses. It's hard to take you seriously, otherwise. Sebastian Garth (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go find another article to pester, preferably one that isn't of a living person as you do not have the slightest bit of understanding of giving undue weight, among other things. It doesn't matter if some reliable sources mentioned Grant's little investigations; we don't put UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS of fucking MURDER into a BLP. Period. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to think the the inclusion of the material amounts to WP:fringe. In fact, it is not. The policy specifically states that all opinions should have "representation in proportion to their prominence". You'd be a fool (or a liar) to say that the Tom Grant story held absolutely zero prominence in the media. Moreover, WP:BLP does not necessarily preclude "conspiracy theories" - it simply states that such inclusions should be done with care and concern for the subject, backed by reliable sources. The proposed text satisfies all of that, I think. If you disagree, then please specify precisely which Wikipedia policy is being violated. Resorting to emotional rhetoric, avoiding dialog, and making threats is not the answer, I assure you. Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind to point out specific wording in the policy - or is that just asking too much? I do realize that this is a sensitive subject and I'm more than willing to discuss all of the relevant issues of adding such content to a BLP. I would appreciate it if we could avoid the ad hominem attacks in the meantime though... Sebastian Garth (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONSENSE. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I had considered that. I was referring to the policy on BLP's. Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Page under attack
Call me crazy, but it seems like this page is under attack by stark raving-mad fanatics who seem to despise Ms. Love. I can't tell you how many times I see "citation needed" pop up on here whenever there is an even slightly positive statement made about the woman or her work. There are constant arguments and a back-and-forth of people posting the "case" of Cobain's alleged "murder" and users are constantly nit-picking this article apart. For example, someone placed a "citation needed" after a sentence stating that Hole went on a tour to promote their album. WHY on earth does that need a citation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not STANDARD for a band to tour after they release an album on a major label? It's their biggest money-maker, actually. I can't help but feel that if such a statement were made on any other musician's page, it wouldn't be disputed or argued, but BECAUSE it is Courtney Love, people are going to insist that every little detail is cited fifteen times over. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Activities at age 16 not verified
The article makes a pretty bold claim that Love was a stripper at age 16, and I would think that a claim in a BLP that somebody was an underage sex worker would require strong verification. Instead, the only cite given is the web page of a Portland strip club which 1) is a self-published source and doesn't really meet the standards of WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE (unless the article is on the strip club itself, which this isn't), and 2) the only thing it says about her is "Courtney Love is one example - she danced here in the 1980's as 'Michelle.'" Note that it says "1980's" not "1980" - a big difference. Unless a source can be found for this claim from a more reliable biographical source, I suggest it be dropped.
Also, Love would have had to have been older than 16 when she wrote articles for Maximumrocknroll, as the magazine didn't even *begin publishing* until 1982, when Love would have been 17 or 18. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's been widely established that Love stripped when she was a teenager; it is stated in her biography, and in multiple television programs on her (VH1 Behind the Music, E! True Hollywood Story), and she herself has discussed it multiple times. She would lie to club owners and make up stories that would get her jobs. It was illegal, yes, but illegal things happen every single day. It is mentioned in the E! True Hollywood Story that a club she was working at in Portland was raided by police and she got in trouble for it, and that was how a social worker uncovered her trust fund, which enabled her to go over to Ireland and England to live for several months. If you want citations for the VH1 program, the E! piece, and her biography, I can attach those.Scottdoesntknow (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Widely established" but needs to be solidly sourced. This is a WP:BLP and Wikipedia's rules about verification of potentially controversial claims are even more strict. The biography you cite does rise to that level, though the strip club web page and probably "E True Hollywood Story" (unless stated in a direct interview with her) not so. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- She discussed it in her interview with The Fix in May 2011, and that is used as a citation already. She discussed in-depth how she worked at a dance hall in Japan with underage girls and also talked about her experience in Taiwan. I don't know what else you're expecting as far as sources go. We've got multiple literary sources (books and biographies), TV programs, and personal interviews backing it. I mean, sure, you can't believe EVERYTHING you read, but the same goes for any and all information on Wikipedia. For all we know, she could have lied about all of it, so I don't see how her saying it from her own mouth makes a difference. If it were slanderous to make such a statement she would have sued 500 journalists by now; it happened, it's been discussed, she's discussed it— that's really all there is to it. Try doing biographical research on her and you'll find this information just about anywhere from multiple resources.Scottdoesntknow (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Info on Courtney 's name
It was previously used on the article: "Although some sources give Love's birth name as "Love Michelle Harrison", her listing on the California Birth Index from the Center for Health Statistics gives a birth name of "Courtney Michelle Harrison". Between adoptions from several stepfathers, she has also gone by the names "Courtney Michelle Rodriguez" and "Courtney Michelle Menely". The name change to "Courtney Michelle Love" happened in early 1990s, in the beginning of her musical career and after the end of her first marriage (of which the legal records still feature the name "Courtney Michelle Menely"). According to the same statistics list above, the birth status of Courtney's 1992 born daughter, Frances Bean Cobain, already include "Love" as the mother's maiden surname." Israell (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Activity on Twitter
Should there be any mention of Ms. Love's recent claims on Twitter, including accusing Dave Grohl of having seduced Frances Bean Cobain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.175 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Marlon Brando
The issue in question: "Harrison at some point claimed to be the granddaughter of Marlon Brando." The name "Harrison" refers to her father, Hank Harrison, not Courtney (referred to as Love). Furthermore, it was her mother who stated this in 2003, as per the source: http://www.film1.nl/blog/4646-Is-Marlon-Brando-de-opa-van-Courtney-Love.html. I'm not sure if the person sourcing the content had mistranslated or just was confused. In any event, it should read as follows: "In 2003, Carroll claimed that Love was the granddaughter of Marlon Brando." or something of that nature. I would make the revision myself, however I am yet to be confirmed as a member. Thank you for your consideration. ZacJB (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Freezing of page
Courtney Love has claimed that she has frozen the page and only she can edit the page. Is this true? Because I see a lot of editors. --Muppet321 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The page isn't frozen. It's "protected." I just edited part of it, so I know that not only Courtney can edit it. -- Copy Editor (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Found mention of this at [2], but she doesn't know what she's talking about -- Foetusized (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
INTRO PARAGRAPH - review
Hello, can we relook at the introductory paragraphs? There have been huge improvements, but I still find the middle paragraph extremely problematic.
My understanding is that the intro section should highlight the major events of an artist's personal and professional career. Do we need to mention: Alex Cox, Woody Harrelson, every album title, and rehab?
Love began her acting career in independent films in the 1980s and refocussed her career on acting in the mid-1990s. In 1996 Love was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance in The People vs. Larry Flynt.
- If we mention her solo albums, they should be in the first paragraph (which is about music)
After the dissolution of Hole (2002), Love went on to release a solo album and in 2009 reformed Hole as the sole returning member.
- Also there is a date discrepancy throughout the article - the index and heading says reformation 2008 but the article says 2009.
- If we are mentioning Love's drug addiction, maybe we can use Keith Richard's wikipedia entry as the template?
- Will we just be updating the last line with each current project Love is working on? (This is a legitimate question).
In 2012, she debuted an art exhibit featuring a collection of her own paintings and drawings titled "And She's Not Even Pretty".
Please advise, thanks. Edit-editor-editing (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm trying to see what the problems are with the things you pointed out, but it reads well to me and is modeled like many intros/leads on lots of GA and FA articles. The lead highlights the major events in her career in a chronological order, which is not unlike many other articles. Case in point: Kirsten Dunst's article. I will brush up a couple of things, but I don't see a problem with it in terms of readability. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I see some additional changes (like removing co-star name drops, which helps). Here are my recommendations.
Courtney Michelle Love (born Courtney Michelle Harrison; July 9, 1964)[1] is an American singer-songwriter, musician, actress and artist.
Love initially gained notoriety in the Los Angeles indie rock scene with her band Hole, which she formed in 1989 with Eric Erlandson. Their debut album, Pretty on the Inside (1991) garnered critical praise, and they went on to achieve international critical and commercial success with their albums, Live Through This (1994) and Celebrity Skin (1998). After the dissolution of Hole in 2002, Love went on to release a solo album and in 2009 reformed Hole as the sole returning member.
In the 1980s Love began her career in acting, originally landing small roles in Alex Cox films. In 1996, Love starred in The People vs. Larry Flynt and was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance. In addition to music and acting, Love is also a published author and artist. In 2012, she debuted an art exhibit featuring a collection of her own paintings and drawings titled "And She's Not Even Pretty".
Love was married to Kurt Cobain, frontman of the grunge band Nirvana, with whom she has a daughter, Frances Bean Cobain.[6] Throughout her career, Love's wild stage antics, subversive feminist attitude, and substance abuse issues have polarized audiences and critics,[7][8] with Rolling Stone once calling her "the most controversial woman in the history of rock."[9][10]
cheers, Edit-editor-editing (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Unjustified page ratings
Does anyone else find it kind of disconcerting that the page ratings for Courtney Love's Wiki are consistently low? This is a pretty well-rounded and densely referenced article, and I can't help but think that the reason for the low ratings is due to the non-inclusion of conspiracy theories about Kurt Cobain's death. If you take a look at Cobain's article, it is heavy in detail about his critical and cultural acclaim and appreciation (almost leaning, in my opinion, away from article neutrality), and has consistently high ratings in all four categories. Meanwhile, Love's article is more matter-of-fact and pruned in detail compared to Cobain's article, and yet it currently has a 1.0 rating in terms of Trustworthiness and Objectiveness (which is funny since the article is HEAVILY referenced with REPUTABLE sources at the insistence of so many Wikipedia users, and doesn't overtly praise nor criticize her), and has 2.0 ratings for Completeness and "Well-Written". Anyone else catching onto this? I have a feeling disgruntled Cobain fanatics frequent the page and throw tomatoes because it doesn't come out and call her a coldblooded killer. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of accusations against Hank Harrison
It is currently being discussed whether it is a violation of BLP to mention Love's accusations against Hank Harrison on the talkpage of that article. Since this article also mentions those accusations it may be of interest to editors here as well to make sure that both articles are neutral and free of BLP violations.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Would love to get this at GA status
I've worked laboriously on it off and on for the past several years, and I think the article is really coming full circle. I'd like to nominate it for GA, or have someone else do it, but I'm wondering if anyone thinks it's ready or has suggestions? Thanks! Scottdoesntknow (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I should hope not, it is one of the more absurd articles on Wikipedia, reading more like a magazine article written by a fawning reporter, than any sort encyclopedic entry. But, don't lose hope. Judging by your ability to obsess over her and spend a lot of time making sure she is perceived as positively as possible, to the point of lunacy, I'm sure you could be her PR consultant or something in that vein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Look at Kurt Cobain's article. You think hers is absurd? His reads like literally like a biography hellbent on painting him as a tortured artist. Everything I've put into this article is from published sources. I've compiled information. Not everything in the article is flattering, you're absolutely wrong. I'm assuming you're one of Tom Grant's minions. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong references in intro
The part about her being in the Alex Cox movies is referenced by three article on George Kuchar, which reveal nothing about Love's roles in them. They were minor. Here's a reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2725377.stm Correcting it won't take away from Love's appeal. Please change.--108.27.62.122 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good catch. Thank you. I replaced the non-supportive three with the one you found. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)