Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot

< 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:41, 15 November 2008 [1].

Connie Talbot edit

Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Third time lucky. I have nominated this twice before, but both nominations have failed. I have worked with the suggestions from the past two nominations, and hope that the article is now ready for featured status. I have also kept the article updated. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I feel that the prose still needs work, preferably a thorough review by an experienced copyeditor. Some examples:
  • Despite being received negatively by critics... How about "Despite its negative critical reception..."?
  • In October 2007, it was reported by the Express & Star that... This is still passive voice (presumably changed from the last FAC), even though we now have a subject. The subject should be the focus of the sentence: "In October 2007 the Express & Star reported that..."
  • Talbot has said that the belief her grandmother was watching gave her confidence... Keep it simple: "Talbot drew confidence from the belief that her grandmother was watching..."
These are a few random examples. I recommend having the entire article copyedited carefully by someone with a careful eye and significant distance from the evolution of the project. You can probably find someone to help on the peer review volunteers page. (I looked but didn't see evidence of such an outside-perspective copyedit prior to the FAC.) Good luck! Scartol • Tok 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I'll ask there now- I realised that the prose could perhaps use work. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been worked on by me and five others. Has it improved enough? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Looks like it's almost there. The prose isn't professional though, which is a requirement of a FA. You might want to consider aiming for GA status first because it's more lenient with the prose. TKGD2007|TALK 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This oppose is rather vague. What about the prose, exactly, needs work? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been GA for months. I have contacted a couple of people who may be willing to give the article a copyedit. Any specific suggestions would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aah... I thought all good articles had the little green plus icon in the corner. There was some strange wording within the first paragraph alone but I see that it has been through a copyedit so I retract the oppose. TKGD2007|TALK 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose needs significant work, but featured standards are within reach. Comments through halfway of the Over the Rainbow section:
  • Talbot had been destined to sign with Sony BMG but the label pulled out of the deal due to her age. - "Had been" → "was".
  • Songs from the album are to feature in an upcoming video game about Talbot. - "Are to featured" → "are to be featured".
    • What's wrong with the current wording? I'd argue it's more concise and flows better. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite its negative critical reception, the album has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries. - Which album?
  • On top of her musical career, Talbot continues to attend primary school, and lives in Streetly with her family. - "On top of" → "aside from".
    • IMO the current wording is better, again J Milburn may disagree. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although auditioning for the first series of television reality show Britain's Got Talent was originally a family day out, Talbot's confidence increased when Simon Cowell, whom she is said to have idolised,[2] described her as "pure magic" and said that he would make her earn "£1 million-plus this year". - What is a "family day out"?
    • It's when a family go on an outing together, as a group. Since clearly not everyone is familiar with the saying I've reworded it. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite her never taken singing lessons, and the judges expecting a "joke" performance, Talbot's initial performance received international press coverage. - "Despite her never taken singing lessons" makes me cringe, unfortunately. Change to "Although she never took singing lessons".
  • She reached the final after winning her semi-final with a live performance of "Ben" by Michael Jackson. - Sounds like there's a word missing after "final". The final what?
  • According to journalist and Britain's Got Talent judge Piers Morgan, it was thanks to Talbot that so many children, including Faryl Smith, auditioned for the second series of the show. - "It was thanks to" doesn't really sound encyclopedic.
  • Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke after his victory of his participation in the first series - Change to "After his victory, Series 2 winner George Sampson spoke of his participation in the first series".
  • Cowell had preliminarily agreed to sign Talbot with his own record label, Sony BMG. After recording two songs in London with Talbot ("Over the Rainbow" and "Smile"[2]), the company changed its mind. A company doesn't have a mind, nor does it change it.
  • In October 2007 Talbot signed with the Rainbow Recording Company for a six-figure deal. - "Six-figure deal" is vague. Was it as low as $100,000, or closer to $999,999?
    • It's not known, and the ref says a six-figure deal with no more specifics. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A schedule was worked out so that Talbot could continue with her normal school activities while recording the album in her aunty Vicky's spare bedroom, which her mother described as "a better solution [than Sony BMG offered] which has not robbed her of her childhood". - Using "that" in this context is one of my pet peeves; more importantly, it's redundant.
  • Although Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were laid out for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007. - The plans were literally laid out on the ground?
  • Try to avoid "the album...the album...the album" to begin sentences.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Julian; I've replied inline to comments that aren't resolved. Giggy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Talbot drew confidence belief her grandmother was watching? Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I think that was me- God knows how I managed that. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - For now. It's incredibly hard to fix the volume of prose needing a touch-up from the last FAC. I'll try to copy edit, but I doubt that this will pass at this time. —Ceran♦(Sing) (It's snowing in NJ already!) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed my !vote, and I'll try working on the prose whenever I can. — Ceranthor  (Sing) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any specific examples? All of Julian's above are addressed and copyediting is ongoing. Giggy (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by MacGyverMagic (I've run through the article and done a copyedit. If the following points are addressed adequately, I will support - please inform me on my talk page if you do):
    • The lead says: "Despite its negative critical reception, Over the Rainbow has sold over 250,000 copies worldwide and reached number one in three countries." Neither the lead nor the section on the album mention those countries by name. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're mentioned in the discography section. Should they be moved into the prose? I just felt that sort of specific information should be reserved for the album article. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Telling were the album reached number one gives an indication of how many people know her as well as how succesful the album was. Also, telling there are three countries will generate the question which in the reader and it is not immediately evident where to find it (I was expecting it to be in the section about the album) - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Arnison claimed he did not "want to put her through the promotional grind which most artists go through because she is too young", plans were made for appearances on daytime television programme This Morning and perhaps even The X Factor, as well as an appearance on Children in Need on 16 November 2007." The words perhaps even are speculative and the reference does not mention the X-factor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • She didn't appear on the X Factor, and I'm not aware of any plans for her to appear on this series. I'll just remove the mention. The source does mention it- the DM interviewer asks Talbot "Are you scared of the television appearances on This Morning with Fern and Phil, and possibly even X Factor which are coming up to promote your album?" J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was later announced on Talbot's official website that the release date for the U.S. version would be 14 October, and that Talbot and her family would be travelling to the U.S. at the start of the month." This line should be updated. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Despite the "free" images, I question if the article requires three photos showing the same subject. If they displayed her at significant stages of her life, it would be great. They are, however, of a child who has not changed much. Since for images, we are asking for the best representation of the subject or idea, what do Image:ConnieTalbot3.jpeg and Image:ConnieTalbot2.jpeg have that Image:ConnieTalbot1.jpeg cannot hope to serve as? Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image three (the one in colour) shows her recording with Sony BMG, while the others are with Rainbow, so does illustrate something a litte different. The one with the band in the background is obviously a good "this is what she looks like" photo, and I feel that the other is a good one to show the recording (well, it shows the recording equipment) and the way that she is portrayed by her management. As the images are free, I don't think there is any problem with using multiple images- they all display the text that they are next to, and liven up the article a little. As it happens, I am currently talking to Talbot's agent about getting some more images, specifically of her trip to Jamaica- something that is mentioned in the article but not illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I acknowledge their "freedom" (heh), but question their indiscriminate use. I fail to see the relevance of her recording or the recording equipment requiring a photo to add additional information (unless the article specifically states that her singing is enhanced or altered by those equipment). How are those photos supposed to show her portrayal by her management? If she was in costume, or in a publicity shot that is free and different from her everyday persona, that could be valid. As it is, the three photos show the same girl (I will even hazard that she is wearing the same dress in all three photos). I would think that "free" pictures are given a looser reign for use on Wikipedia but still need to be justified in their use. The infobox's picture is good enough to identify her. There is Commons to host a collection of free photos of Connie for others to peruse at their pleasure. Jappalang (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be willing to remove ConnieTalbot2, but I feel that the other images do add significantly to the article. However, I do feel that the image adds a little interest to the article- does anyone else have an opinion on this? J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, now that my concerns have been addressed via a copyedit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hopefully this is easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What's the point of a direct link? They were supplied via OTRS, so there are no sourcing issues, and the indirect link allows people to see the captions. I would provide a link if I was on my own laptop, but I'm not going to the site here- I'm on a college computer. They should be easy enough to find, they'll be somewhere in the pictures section of the official website. They're early photos, so they'll be on the oldest pages. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, I've realised what you meant. I've updated the links to show the gallery pages where the images can be found. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there are three different date formats in the citations: unlinked ISO dates, linked dates and unlinked day month year dates. Please work to standardize these over time to one format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (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/Connie_Talbot&oldid=1192368741"