Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Levine/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by Graham Colm 16:57, 29 March 2014 [1].

Adam Levine

edit
Nominator(s): GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about singer-songwriter and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine. I think the article gives a fair, detailed idea of him and his work. It passed GA criteria in April and since then it's been edited frequently so that it now meets FA criteria, or so I fervently hope. GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to the talk page

Alright. Thank you for your time. GinaJay (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine performing both the vocals and the guitar - one doesn't perform the guitar, would suggest just, "The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine on vocals and guitar"
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't have the "the" here - so removed two of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its title is supposedly an allusion to Levine's ubiquity. - I guess that would be public ubiquity - presuming it refers to his appearances on media?...or....what?
Just his general all-over-the-place-ness ... which would be public ubiquity, yes. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Musical collaborations segment comes across as a bit listy - if there are any comments about any of these collaborations Levine particularly enjoyed..or didn't...or any that were particularly cirtically praised, inserting this material will break up the listiness of it a little and improve the flow.
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true of the Early life section - any colorful stories would liven up this bit a little.
Drugs, religion and little brothers aren't colorful enough? I suppose I could find something along the lines of "I hated school, I wanted to do music" ... like the first few sentences of artistry? Will get to it soon.
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice - gives it some colour. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto TV and media section.
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ADHD material is interesting- does he mention anything else in sources?
Added. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious supportOther than that, reads quite nicely. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and support. GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Check and my Support: I didn't realize there already was an image truck, but a second one never hurts, I suppose. I was the user who passed the GAN and I have kept this article on my watchlist. It meets the criteria now and, due to the tireless work of the Nom, likely will continue to be built and stay up to date. PrairieKid (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support PrairieKid! GinaJay (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • Hi GinaJay, is this your first FAC? If so I'll want someone to spotcheck sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we promote (unless someone's done that and I missed it).
    • Also, as a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation -- Musical collaborations and the third para of Artistry do not as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Added the citation for those two paras. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecking:
Cite 2 (this article) may not be RS and does not contain Levine's middle name.
Replaced that with another [2], though I'm not sure it's RS. It obviously takes after his wikipedia article, but there's a copyright at the end .... GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cites 1 and 6 lead to specific pages in the article, but neither of those pages actually contain the information in the article.
The info in the first one is there in the article- I've linked it to the one-page view. The other article has the information in the next page, but there is no option showing it in a single view. Changing the page wouldn't help since there are other sentences that refer to that particular page. Separate refs for the same article, then? GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Kara's Flowers, it is said that they were discovered at a beach party in Malibu. Can't find that in the citation. Really, most of that is not cited.
I also don't see anything saying the album The Fourth World had higher expectations for sales.
Most of the Kara's Flowers section comes from here. I've added that ref wherever it's cited. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done up to Kara's Flowers. Will continue soon. PrairieKid (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that, to me, some of the citations don't appear to be WP:RS. I am not used to entertainment articles, so I'm not positive and I would like someone else to triple check that for us. PrairieKid (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm very sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The Internet is down at my house and I don't have regular internet access. I am writing this from school but I won't be able to finish the spotcheck for a day or two. Huge apologies. I will finish ASAP unless someone else wants to take over. Thanks for the understanding. PrairieKid (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, pending significant cleanup on sources and MOS issues. There are many inconsistencies in how sources are presented, and many citations that are incomplete. There are also some questionable sources in use, such as the Daily Mail, and a "clarify" tag to be addressed. In terms of MOS concerns, I see hyphen/dash confusion, inconsistent treatment of ellipses, repeated wikilinks, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brought all references to cite web form, addressed the tag and the ellipses. Also, it's all en dashes in the article now, except in the quote box and the chart tables.
Whatever's been linked in the lede and infobox can be linked again (once) in the later sections, right? Outside of that, I think I removed all the other repeating links.
I'm surprised to know Daily Mail is a questionable source. Why so? And could you tell me the other unreliable sources in this article? I'm a little clueless when it comes to reliability of sources. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over the citations. They're incomplete because some information just isn't given - date issued, name etc. GinaJay (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes information isn't given by the source, but other times it is: for example, the link for FN48 clearly identifies the publisher. There are still inconsistencies in the citations beyond missing info: for example, Daily Telegraph is not italicized in FN4 but is in FN91. MOS issues too have been partially but not completely addressed: for example, it's fine to link in both the lede and the body, but you've got Stevie Wonder linked twice within a few paragraphs.
In terms of questionable sourcing, Daily Mail has been discussed extensively at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN ([Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail|recent example]]), where the consensus has generally been that it is not a high-quality source, particularly for BLP-related material. Other questionable sources would include 411mania and Reality Nation, and I'd suggest checking whether there were independent sources to supplant some of the press releases currently being cited.
In some cases, you should also look at citing the original source, as with this (the source is the show, not that site). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except that one press release on his ADHD project is still cited - I can't find anything else that gives as much infromation about it as the PR, other than articles that directly quote the PR itself. GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of this now? I notice the article's been edited since Nikki's last comment here; the concerns need to be resolved ASAP if the article is to be promoted. The nom's been running for over two months now -- a long time at FAC even these days -- but if we're close to fixing outstanding issues I'll let go a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Long time indeed. I've addressed the issues Nikkimaria's raised so far. If she does have more to add, I'll try resolving it ASAP. But I think they're mostly technical in nature, so that shouldn't be a problem. Is a week too much to ask? GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about that spotcheck: PrairieKid is apparently unable to complete it. Could you please put in a word for it at the WT:FAC? GinaJay (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sources used aren't the best. Should an academic resource like Wikipedia cite a tabloid like The Hollywood Reporter—seven times? A scan through the references reveal several other such low-quality sources—People, Glamour, Cosmopolitan...

Since Levine is an entertainment figure (and hasn't exactly reached the sort of global icon status that would make The New York Times regularly publish articles on him), the primary sources will have to be magazines like THR and People - both of which are quite reliable in entertainment news and are regularly used in wikipedia's media-related articles, including FAs (this, this this etc.) As for Glamour, it's used only to cite one of its own celebrity list. Deleted the cosmo ref. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other major source for the article, used five times, is a book published by the Hal Leonard Corporation, a music publishing company. They publish Maroon 5's music too, so I doubt they are a neutral source.

They may not be netural, but the book is used to cite only some basic facts about Kara's Flowers (when, where, who) and a direct quote by Levine, both of which are probably not affected by the neutrality of the book. The way I see it, it's like citing Maroon 5's website - it's a bad ref for things like their global impact or level of success, but facts (like when they were formed) would be correct. This is the only ref I could find that gives this level of details and IMO the article would suffer from its removal. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the prose could do with some polish. It is often ungrammatical, 'While earlier work was deemed "vaguely funky white-soul" and "rock", recent ones have been judged to have a more reggae, anthemic pop sound, and being "top shelf radio sucrose", evoking comparisons to Coldplay" or repetitive:

The project targets young adults and adults who were previously diagnosed with ADHD, focusing on how ADHD may continue into adulthood. Levine, who himself was diagnosed with ADHD as a teenager, said, "This campaign is important to me because it can help young adults and adults realize that there's a chance they may still have ADHD if they had it as a kid". In connection to this, he wrote an article in ADDitude Magazine about his personal experience with ADHD.

—indopug (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the two. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Adam_Levine/archive1&oldid=603194489"