Wikipedia:Peer review/Céline Dion/archive2

Céline Dion

Ok. Im trying (again) to get this article to FA status. Can anyone tell me what (if anything) is missing? Any help would be appreciated. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the third lead paragraph should go. But you must mention the Chopard Diamond award somewhere in the lead. I'd argue that award is the most notable achievement of her career. I'll keep reviewing the article now. Harro5 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive removed it, and I also worked the Diamond award into the 2nd paragraph (hopefully it flows). Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It works well there. I've tweaked the "Image and celebrity status" section, but don't like that name for the heading. Thoughts, anyone And I've removed the caption from the lead pic - this isn't needed, says what the description page does. Harro5 03:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did all those great references come from? =). Seriously though, is there a reason why some of them you put in notes and others you put in references? Why not put all of them in notes and just forget references altogether, except for maybe some of the sources you quote from more than once? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I dont know where they (the references) came from, they just popped up =). I put some sources in references because they contribute generally to the article i.e information was directly or indirectly synthesised from them. The notes, however, are for direct quotes or explicit point of views that are needed to provide proof for a particular point. Make sense? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I'm going crazy or maybe someone fixed it, but it looks good now. You won't get an object out of me the next time around on WP:FAC. I'll try to watch the nomination to see what people say about the number of references, so that I can try to dig up some more if necessary. Good work! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually would have tried to salvage something about her vocal qualities in the introduction. Otherwise it lends itself to the earlier complaint of "too much charts and awards, not enough musical information" (paraphrased). But the article has definitely improved, and I appreciate the effort to find more and better references. --Michael Snow 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bit tricky, but Ill see what I can do. As for the sales and awards. This is a bit difficult. The thing is, she is the best-selling female artist, ever. As the introduction mentions this, it is dificult to avoid sales performance in the rest of the article, as this would affect its coherence.

Im not rushing, but I was wondering if tomorrow would be too soon to renominate the article, many others have told me that it would now be a good candidate (plus, if it passes, it would be a nice Christmas present =).) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you avoid the topic of sales, they are noteworthy enough, but more information on the musical side might provide some context to why she does as well as she does. Anyway, I won't stand in the way of a renomination at this point. --Michael Snow 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner. I can't find any huge problems with the article, and it's very good. I'd suggest reading the article a couple of times over to see if the prose can flow a little better, however (though I am aware from personal experience how one's eyes can glaze over once you have edited an article a lot in a short space of time :)). For example, "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner: choreographed poses usually found on her album covers were discarded for a more relaxed, natural look" could be replaced by "The cover showed Dion in a simple and relaxed manner, a contrast to the choreographed poses usually found on her album covers". Also, piped links to "years in music" (e.g. 1990) are to be avoided, per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Piped link. Again, I'd like to stress that I think this is a very good article. Extraordinary Machine 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]