Wikipedia:Peer review/Christina Aguilera/archive1

Christina Aguilera

This is the first time I put an article on Peer Review. This article has been put for nomination, but one user opposed that the article is not in depth enough? Do you have any other comments? --219.77.54.163 12:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I. e., the article was first nominated on WP:FAC, then listed here as well. I think it was a good idea to list it on peer review, I hope you feel welcome here, but it shouldn't in fact be in both places, so please remove it from one of them. I think the best thing would be to keep it here and remove it from FAC (then re-nominate it there later, when all objections have been addressed). Please also copy + paste in this place all of the good advice you have already received on FAC! It is useful for both reviewers and yourself to have all comments here, in one place. Bishonen | Talk 15:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Since the requester hasn't yet responded to my post above, I've removed the nomination from WP:FAC myself. Below follow the comments it had gathered there:
  • Object. No lead section or references. Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for several reasons. What's in the article is well written but: as above, no lead section or references, photograph may be copy vio, needs to be replaced with something public domain (an album cover would be acceptable), the bulk of the article is about her image, but the discussion of her music gives very little explanation about what her music actually is, basic copyediting is required (there needs to be consistency in using the correct Style for album titles and the correct "Style" for single titles etc). Also phrases such as "Aguilera decided to take on a more mature image; this move was widely praised by critics everywhere" - if you take this literally it's saying that every critic in the world liked the new image and felt compelled to comment upon it. That type of phrase needs to be rewritten to make it neutral, and if critics commented on it - use quotes/give references etc, and to be balanced also remember to treat the negative comments as equally significant. Suggest putting this on Wikipedia: Peer review (whose job I've gotten carried away with and started doing here) because it has got some good things going for it, but needs some work. Rossrs 12:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The world already knows her. This article is pretty clearly not ready yet, although it isn't bad by any means. Everyking 12:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see that you have now listed the article on peer review as well. It shouldn't be in both places, so please remove it from one of them. It's up to you, but I think the best thing would be to have it on peer review, not here, and then re-nominate it here when you have addressed all the objections and feel that the article is ready for FAC. Bishonen | Talk 15:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rossrs, this should be on Peer Review first. In addition to what has been mentioned above: no sound samples. Single sentence sections ("Personal life") and oddly titled ones ("2003 through 2004") also shouldn't be in a featured article. Jeronimo 07:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

End of FAC comments

---