The first paragraph of the Background section with a description of the Hilary Duff album, including chart positions and a summary of critical reviews for this album; which has nothing to do with the Dignity album.
The remainder of the Background section is about Hilary Duff's personal life and should be included on the Hilary Duff article; but there is no "background history" on the album itself. The section seems irrelevant to me. I think the editors were trying to tie in Duff's increasing maturity with her personal affairs, which would result in the more mature outcome of her new album, but this connection is never made. Not obviously, at least.
Writing and Development section has an image of Pink and Composition section has an image of Gwen Stefani. I left a note on the talk page regarding this image (as well as an image of Gwen Stefani). I'm not fully familiar with fair-use laws or guidelines, but the Hilary Duff Dignity article has no images of Hilary Duff, performing or otherwise (excluding album cover), and I don't see how images of Pink and Stefani can be listed as fair-use on a non-Pink and non-Stefani article. The fair use rationales don't indicate any reason for their appearing on the Dignity article. And the captions can be easily included in the prose and the images are not needed, nor would their removal be detrimental to the article or its information. Also, the captions are not cited.
Also, a quick glance revealed that acharts.us was being used as a reference, a deprecated chart listed on WP:BADCHARTS
Finally, I was trying to get in touch with the GA reviewer, but he or she has been banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I think the article still needs a lot of work to be GA quality, at least in the first half of the article. It just seemed to me this article was passed quickly and without much consideration to the work that still needed to be done. In fact, the GA review has little comments and zero suggestions regarding anything of the sort, as if the article were perfect. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I don't think an article promoted by a sock puppet should remain a good article, I don't see much wrong with the article itself. The background section is perfectly justifiable IMO. The information on her previous album is just three lines and gives a good indication of how her previous album fared. The other information about her personal life is important because she wrote songs about them. The "Composition" section wouldn't make much sense without that info. As for the images, aren't they FREE images, which makes them allowable to use wherever? I personally don't think they are needed, but being free images, I believe there's nothing wrong with them being there either. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Cornucopia said, the Background section gives background as to how the previous album performed on the charts and the images of Pink and Stefani are in the Commons and therefore there is no need for a fair use rationale. Also, the Background section describes events that occurred between the releases of the two albums that shaped Dignity's lyrical content. I had previously consulted User:Kww, an active contributor to WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS, who informed me that using acharts.us to source chart trajectories (for charts that GOODCHARTS notes acharts is an approved source for) is fine. The reviewer turning out to be a sock is of little importance to this article being GA. To assume that numerous comments were needed is an insult to my work on the article; I prepared the article for GA review for several months, and not all GANs need extensive comments. I see no reason why this article should be delisted. –Chase (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the captions for the Pink/Stefani images don't need to be cited. The information stated in the caption appears in the images' respective sections. –Chase (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more comment (this is it for now). User:Keraunoscopia, your dismissal of the personal information in the Background section when its importance is explained later on in the article, and your failure to see that the content in the Stefani/Pink captions appears in the prose cited makes me feel as if you have not extensively looked through this article. With as much respect as possible saying this, I do not feel you are capable of conducting a proper reassessment. –Chase (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community reassessment, and all views (with reasoning) on whether the article meets the GA criteria are welcome. Invalid concerns (such as fair use issues for free images) can be ignored. Geometry guy23:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying I don't welcome the comments. But I don't feel it's appropriate for someone who seems to have skimmed through this article to be handling an individual reassessment. It seems to me like someone just wants this article delisted for no apparent reason; I see no violations of the GA criteria. –Chase (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for an individual reassessment, I asked for a community reassessment because I know full well that I could not give a reassessment myself. Requesting a reassessment is never meant to be an insult to anyone; I stated my concerns, and so far it seems I'm entirely in the wrong, and there we have it. I'll consider this a lesson learned. The image use is obviously not a problem according to the few comments above (though I still find it odd, as it were, to find a Hilary Duff-related article with images of anyone but Hilary Duff). I still think the Background section is the weakest link, but if no one else sees any issues with it, then the article I suppose is fine. Why you would feel offended by my requesting a community reassessment, I don't know; if you're the major contributor to the article, I'd think you'd be satisfied and confident enough that it stands well as a GA. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended by the fact that this is at GAR. I'm offended by the fact that you implied that since the last GAN had little comments, that it was an invalid review. –Chase (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, I just wanted to clear up a couple more things about the article. Looking at past revisions (here's a random one from August 2008), there seems to be quite a lot of information that was randomly cut out. Yesterday I added a lot of information about the album's chart performance, which I basically took from that old revision. Why was all this taken out? Also, there's a lot of "promotion" information in that old revision that could be used. Some of it is trivial, but as a whole there's some really good stuff. There's also some stuff on production cut out, as well as some of the stuff in the "Style and themes" section, and the MuchMusic award and its corresponding photo. I'm just confused as to why all this information was removed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the references used in the promotion section? Most of them were primary sources, unreliable gossip sites, non-permalinks to Duff's website (which itself is also a primary source), etc. I don't even see why this is an issue – this has nothing to do with the GA criteria. –Chase (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this comment wasn't necessarily about the GAR, just a query in general - so don't take it so personally. It wasn't just the promotion section that I was talking about, but rather the article as a whole. A lot of information was removed, I am just wondering why this occurred. If bad refs are the reason, we could easily find better ones to replace them. Hilary has had a lot of media coverage and I'm sure finding replacement refs wouldn't be that hard. And yes, I do believe it has to do with the GA criteria, because point three is about broad coverage, and it seems like not everything is being covered when the information is out there. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion05:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a general query, it would be better suited for the article talk page, no? Basically, this article - prior to my revamping - consisted of numerous bad refs which included: non-permalinks to Duff's official site, copyright-infringing YouTube videos, etc. A lot of it was removed because it didn't have proper sourcing. Plain and simple. I did try to find some of the information with bad sources and replace them with more reliable ones but that was not always possible. The information may be out there, but it needs reliable sourcing to back it before we can include it in a good article. –Chase (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. My only concern was that some good information was removed just to get it through GAN quicker. I'm not accusing anyone of anything and I'm certainly not trying to create an issue; I merely am looking for what's best for the article. Over the weekend, I'll try to go back and re-add whatever I think can be salvaged. Anyway, nice work on the article. I myself had been planning to revamp it, but you beat me to it, so I guess I'm still stinging ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion08:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This GAR may be close to closing as keep. On reading through, one lingering concern may be that the "Release" section is rather too detailed. Do other reviewers have a view on this? Geometry guy21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "release" section is perfect as it is! In fact, I think the article in general needs to be expanded a bit. I know I said that I would go back over the "promotion" section but I haven't had the time. Hopefully I'll do it some time in the near future. Otherwise, I agree with the keep outcome. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
