Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Connie Talbot
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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [1].

Connie Talbot edit

Nominator: J Milburn (talk)
previous FAC (01:14, 6 August 2008)


I am nominating this article again as I feel it meets the featured article criteria. I feel the last nomination was closed a little early, and since then, I have kept the article updated (for instance, with news of the video game) and worked with the suggestions from the original FAC- minor fixes. The last discussion was a little clouded by some discussions about the article which are now resolved, and I can't see there being any further major objections. I am more than happy to work with people's suggestions, but I am finding that my time on Wikipedia is, at the moment, pretty limited, so I may take a little while to reply. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Last time, if I recall, there were concerns about going into personal detail. Do you think it's still too detailed to give her hometown? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of sources say her home town, and it's a fairly large area- completely different issue to what came up last time. I don't think it's an issue, and I certainly feel that we wouldn't be able to have a comprehensive article without it. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check - all images offered as free via OTRS- I'm going to contact someone with an OTRS account to verify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I got OTRS access myself. Permission verified; images check out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was rereleased 18 June 2008 with a new track listing" - not that notable event, is it worth mentioning in the lead?
    • It feels like it- the press certainly paid it a fair amount of attention.
  • The lead really focuses on the album too much, I feel. I know it's a different circumstance, but look at some other musician FAs and compare...
    • Again, other than her personal life and her connection with the TV show, all that the press have really talked about is her album and her (brief) tour of Asia. I honestly don't think there's much else to talk about. I'm open to suggestions, obviously.
  • "Talbot had been joint favourite (along with Potts) to emerge as the winner of the first series of Britain's Got Talent" - sounds a bit awkward to say now that it was the first series... maybe start the paragraph by mentioning that instead.
    • Fixed.
  • "Rainbow Recording Company, an offshoot of record label Rhythm Riders made specifically for Talbot" - maybe it's just me... but she signed with an offshoot of a record label made for her? Why not go with her record label? Am I misreading?
    • Rainbow Recording Company was made specifically for her- I gather that the management at Rhythm Riders did not feel it was appropriate to treat a young child in the same way as their other artists.
  • "It was later reported that the album was named Over the Rainbow" - just say "It was called Over the Rainbow"... use "it was reported" if it turned out to be false
    • I use "it was reported" as the next part (the news about the first single) later turned out to be false- the single was never released.
  • "but it was then reported that the single was cancelled in favour of an album-first release" --> "but the single was then cancelled..."
    • Done.
  • "there was much speculation about Talbot and the album" - can you be more specific?
    • Next clause? "with music experts describing her as potentially being "the next Charlotte Church"." The phrase "there was much speculation..." was placed in in the last FAC, because someone pointed out that the "Charlotte Church" bit had nothing to do with the previous sentence.
  • "At the event, on 7 December 2007, Talbot was quoted as saying "I love it here, it’s brilliant, really fun" but had to be ushered off-stage by the police" - throw in a comma after the quote and change "was quoted as saying" to "said"
    • Done.
  • "Sharon Mawer, of Allmusic, praised Over the Rainbow by saying" - remove the commas
    • Done.
  • "to replace the Christmas-themed songs on the original album" - to avoid overuse of "album", maybe "to replace its Christmas-themed songs"?
    • Done.

Giggy (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by karanacs. I don't think the prose is quite there yet and the article is too detailed.

  • I think that there is too much detail in the article. Is it important that she turned on Walsall's Christmas lights and performed in their store or that she made appearances on a new show?
  • There is a contradiction in the paragraph on the rerelease. Was the preorder in May or March? It only really needs to be mentioned once anyway.
  • The writing is a little clunky: (example) "Talbot's "signature song", "Over the Rainbow", is the song that she sang at her grandmother's funeral, due to the fact she and her grandmother enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz together"
  • Watch for repetition. For example, we're told twice in the Over the Rainbow section that her album was released on 26 Nov 2007.
  • Watch for passive voice. Examples: "The team behind the album was John Arnison, who also managed "...could be changed. "In October 2007, it was reported that Talbot had signed with the Rainbow Recording Company for a six-figure deal." - who reported it?

Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really should oppose this, but I feel bad bringing up the same point - This is an 8 year old girl. This article is definitely going to expand over her life. These sections are going to be trimmed down because they will no longer be as important via weight. Thus, the article in a few years will be quite different than now, and that would mean an FA would be pointless. When it was a figure like Michael Jackson who, at the end of his life, isn't doing much worth while, then yeah, I can approve of it. But not this girl who will only become more and more famous and thus have to radically alter her page to keep up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had similar arguments on articles for the US presidential candidates, but the consensus has been that information will likely change very gradually, so the article will meet the stability criterion. If the additions reduce the quality of the article, then it can be brought to FAR at some point and revamped. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an 8 year old, not a person who is above 50 and had most of their major career. I really don't care what consensus may say, it is unreasonable to allow these articles to reach FA when they are prone to major changes. It is dishonest and would only lead to an FAR. One of the FA rules is a stable page. Regardless of how other may define it, I will always hold long term stability as part of stability. I will keep doing that until consensus removes it, and then I will keep it to comments and not oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is currently stable, from what I can tell. The FA criteria does not say anything about the possibility of future instability; any biography about a living person has the ability to become unstable. What if your fifty year old washed-up performing artist was murdered in the streets tomorrow by the president of their fanclub? Certainly the article would become unstable despite their seniority and lack of expanding career. New sections ("Murder", "Trial and conviction", etc) would appear. Users would edit war and IPs would vandalize. What I'm trying to say is that no article is essentially stable for the long haul, and you can't judge FACs on their potential for instability. Otherwise no BLP could ever become Featured, which would be absurd. María (habla conmigo) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its only a comment, so whats the problem? I should be able to comment about the future state of a potential FA, shouldn't I? And Maria, I would believe historical biographies would be far more stable than someone who is 8 and at the beginning of their career. I really don't like the idea of allowing articles to become FA when someone is still a live for a large list of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 3 October 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/archive2&oldid=1069799563"