Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) edit

Been on FAC twice already, here's the last one. I think its ready or pretty much ready now. Everyking did most of the work, and I reworked the references and writing style. Rather thurough article Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination here, second here. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportObject. The article only mentions in passing her SNL troubles. However, this lipsync controvery spanned a much larger media circus than one would know by reading this article. First off, the incident made massive news (inspiring such sites as this: [1]). In addition, the incident lead to SImpson being severely booed at her next big appearance (at the Orange Bowl in Jan, 2005) [2]. Simpson was also repeatedly compared to Milli Vanilli (sp?). However, according to this FAC article, the cultural and media response to all of this was, "The following week the incident was the subject of several skits." For an article on a pop album to be FA, it should address all of the cultural responses arising from the album's release. If all of this controvery is covered in detail (and referenced) I will vote to support.--Alabamaboy 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about the album. The coverage SNL gets is generous, considering that. There is considerably more coverage in the Ashlee Simpson article, an entire section devoted to the incident, and that's where the info generally belongs. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AlabamaMan check your talk page I left a message about this hours ago :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I posted a response. As for Everyking's comments, all of this controvery came about while Simpson was promoting this album and playing songs from this album. As a result, it needs more here than a brief mention.--Alabamaboy 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course; thanks to RN for helping out a bit with it recently. Everyking 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comprehensive and well-written but not excessively long given the subject matter. Cedars 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - contains far too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been reworked a bit for POV - in addition there is very little fancruft/trivia left in the article (if any) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He defines fancruft as anything more than a few paragraphs, what most of us consider near stub length. And I don't think that's an exaggeration—I know what he thinks from hard experience. His objection is not actionable because if it was done nobody but him would think it was even close to featured quality. Everyking 08:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's so untrue it's offensive. See here and here.
          • This is actually considerably more moderate than what was done a few days later. At the time I was obviously outraged by that, but by comparison to the total butchering of the article that came later it was mild. But, lest I rehash this stuff excessively, the key point of it all is that none of these radical revisions, removal of huge amounts of content, was ever done with any attempt at compromise or consensus beforehand (compared with my emphasis on meeting halfway, which fell on deaf ears literally for months before something began to be achieved). Everyking 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I see it, the tone of the article is essentially, "This album was a hit on the charts, but not with critics", which I think reflects the reality of the situation. In my opinion, the article is several steps above most other articles on recently released albums in Wikipedia; some of which are little more than track listings, others are swamped by minutiae trivia and crufty detail, and precious few are supported by references. I'm sorry, but I can't see the "pro-Simpson POV" that supposedly "pervades" throughout the article. Please give specific examples of POV, or else your criticisms may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some specific examples of POV and other problems:
        • Ashlee claimed they were inspired... - claimed? They're her lyrics aren't they?
        • she wanted to do more rock-oriented music that some of her bigger influences did - that's just awful phrasing
        • For its part, The Village Voice... - this phrasing seems to be trying to give particular emphasis to what this one magazine is saying
        • "Autobiography" opens the album with retro instrumentation and dark chords... - this paragraph combines opinion, excessive quotes from the lyrics and a single positive review.
        • The description of pieces of me is also opinion followed by a quote from one positive review.
        • ...arguably the album's most rock-oriented... - who's arguing? Why? This is pure opinion.
        • "Better Off", described by People magazine... - only positive reviews quoted.
        • "Don't you know you're only wasting time", she sings; by stalling "you make your misery my company." - this is not encyclopaedic writing at all.
        • as she has said... - this one's come up repeatedly - this phrasing makes it look like Wikipedia endorses what she is saying. Many editors have tried to correct this but have had their edits reverted.
        • a melancholy song - POV
        • Lengthy descriptions of how the album sold in Norway and Switzerland are pure cruft, only of interest to hardcore fans.
        • The chart diagram is uninformative and illustrates nothing unique about this album.
        • the most rapidly added song on radio - what does this mean?
        • her voice had been weak in rehearsal due to acid reflux - a regurgitation of her PR. No source, unverifiable.
        • It appeared to viewers that Simpson had been lip synching - singing along to a pre-recorded track is lip synching, this phrasing is that of a defensive fan trying to deny that she was doing so.
        • although other explanations were that the crowd thought her voice was off-key or that they were expressing dissatisfaction with the half-time show in general - completely unnecessary fannish defence.
        • may have caused "La La", promotion for which began in the U.S. in November 2004, to have fared more poorly on the charts than it otherwise would have. - pure speculation
        • enabled Simpson to end the Autobiography era of her career on a high note - POV
        • The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co - trivia. Not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's the point of trying to satisfy any of your objections, some of which are sane, when others are wildly unreasonable, asking for the violation of consensus that has held for months now and for the removal of information that survived through long revert wars? Everyking 18:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks World - I'll work on these - please check back in 2 or 3 days Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK World, me (and apparently ExtraordinaryMachine) took care of most of these and more. Sans the chart and the performance in other countries, which was just tweaked a bit, there shouldn't be many if any POV issues/unreferenced stuff left. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Abstain. While I'm very impressed by this article, I encountered "hidden" ref/notes and editorial comments while performing some minor edits, leading me to believe that this article is still very much a "work-in-progress". However, I still think it's a great article nonetheless, which is why I am abstaining rather than voting "object". Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, the hidden ref/notes are just noting which references (from the references section) are used where. Editorial comments are just notes from me being pedantic... there are no real problems as far as I know in the article Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I removed (Well, userfied) the comments... any change in opinion :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well. If there is nothing else to be done, I now vote support. Just so long as you're sure everything is referenced and in order. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it's quite good. My only suggestion is to provide a link in the references section for the two chart compiling companyes. Tuf-Kat 22:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as with Ashlee Simpson. I can't shake the feeling that the tone of the article wouldn't be out of place in a fan club publication. I'm sorry, I really do want to see this article featured, but I can't in good faith support an article that I feel doesn't make the cut. I won't stand in its way, however; it is a good possibility that my opinion may be clouded by the huge conflict Everyking had with myself and several other editors. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, your comments on the Ashlee Simpson article were quite helpful... is there anything in particular you see wrong with this? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, it's difficult to quantify in words. I think it's a decent article, but the tone of writing just sounds too positive. Then again, most articles about celebrities on Wikipedia seem that way to me, so, like I said, I'm not sure if that's sufficient grounds to object. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object --Revolución (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this an actionable objection? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. That's the best I'll give considering it's pop culture. But it seems as neutral as possible I suppose. There's been good work done dealing with objections and balancing the article, so I won't stand in the way any more. Object. Agree with John Lee. Same problems as her article. Short paragraphs make for poor flow. The SNL bit gives only the pro Ashlee explanation. If you're going to go into 6 paragraphs on how it did in the charts, sqeezing the SNL bit and the Orange bowl into one paragraph under 'promotion and publicity' is a bit much. - Taxman Talk 03:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • What would be your suggestion? (aside from delving deep into the incedent as the ashlee simpson article already does this) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I maintain that the SNL and Orange Bowl incidents should only be dealt with briefly in this article, which is about an album. The chart stuff, on the other hand, is directly relevant to this specific subject so warrants a bit more detail. Everyking 04:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... what I mean is should I extend the criticism somehow or try to make the chart stuff more pithy? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I guess I agree, it shouldn't be expanded, it just shouldn't toe the PRO Ashlee line only. For ex. Acid reflux is a claim that I don't think many people beleive. My opinion on that doesn't matter, but we can't promote that claim as correct. Have your chart details of how the album did in 233 countries around the world week to week, I don't care, other than it makes the article look a little silly. My point was more that hiding the criticism under that heading is whitewashing it. Maybe make it promotion and criticism or something. The elminating the short paragraphs helped a lot in my opinion. - Taxman Talk 17:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, heading renamed and we took out most of the POV stuff out of the criticism (which made it shorter but more damning) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some phrasing is still POVed, and on occasion, the prose reminds me of what you'd find in a fan magazine. For example, "It appeared to viewers", although readable in a neutral manner, implies that the situation was different, and that Ashlee wasn't lip synching, although there's no way we can tell for sure. It should be clarified that numerous media sources do not believe the official explanation of Ashlee's camp about the incident. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any official media sources that seriously doubt that explanation? I mean beyond sarcasm and jokes. Everyking 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some phrasing is still POVed and WorldTraveller pointed out many of them (which I'm still working on on this particular article). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the POV issues should be mostly gone folks. let me know what you think. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support after making several changes to tighten the prose and smooth the flow (and some snipping at POV portions of the commentary on the tracks). I'm not quite sure about the reviews section, though — it seems to me that it leans ever so slightly in favour of Ashlee. (Compare the length of the quotes from positive and negative reviews.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added a few quotes from another negative review. Hopefully, that should make sure things are balanced out. Extraordinary Machine 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. If my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson were any indication, my only question is, how did she get a separate page for an single nothing album??? Don't answer. I know the answer: her fans wrote it. This FAC would truly make Wiki the laughingstock of encyclopedias. People magazine doesn't even gush this much. No way. --Noitall 07:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to note that even among radical deletionists the idea that #1 albums should not have articles is seldom heard. As for your other point, this article has no "gush" at all. Did you actually read it? Everyking 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noitall, it would be appreciated by many here if you were to list specific examples of "gush" within the article (like Worldtraveller did) instead of accusing its editors of "building an "I love Ashlee" fan site". Otherwise, your objection may be considered inactionable and thus ignored by Raul. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically referenced my comments on the Ashley Simpson FAC, which is obviously related and they obviously apply. I am not going to repeat them all, because I already referenced them and they occureed at the same time. It gushes because she is notable for having no talent and the article makes her look like Madonna. It is entirely misleading, and, yes, looks like a fan site (which it actually is -- nobody does this much work for such a non-notable talent, notable non-talent). You have to get half way into the article (nowhere in the summary), before you get "Critical reviews of Autobiography were mixed." You have to be kidding me. How about something like, "a substantial number of people state that she has no talent and only had the opportunity to make this album because of the success of her sister, her father's dedicated star-pushing, connections in the industry, and media manipulation." --Noitall 02:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches for terms such as "Ashlee Simpson sucks" do not count as references. The objections you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson refer to the Ashlee Simpson article, and not Autobiography. I'm beginning to doubt you have read the Autobiography article at all, or at least thoroughly, as it states in the second sentence of the lead section that critical reception was mixed (and it has done for at least a week). Also included in the article is a direct quote from the Billboard director of charts stating that Ashlee's success would not have occurred if not for her sister, along with several negative reviews in the article. You're here to comment on the article, not its subject. Unless you provide specific examples of "gush" within the article, your objection may be considered inactionable. Extraordinary Machine 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too much unskeptical presentation of information that's ultimately sourced from the performer's publicity machinations. Monicasdude 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give us an example, please? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the material sourced as "Simpson said," to interviews with her, to comments from her label and her publicists? It's the bulk of the article. Monicasdude 16:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What sources shall we use instead, or in addition? Everyking 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Autobiography_(Ashlee_Simpson_album)/archive2&oldid=1079026983"