Wikipedia:Peer review/Kesha/archive2

Kesha

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently listed as a B scale article. I can easily see that it can become a A scale article, I just need some constructive criticism to make it so.

Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I have to say to start with that I don't really have any experience with A-class reviews, either reviewing them or writing the articles, but I can give some general advice to improve the article. An A-class review is one option, but there is also good article nomination, which can be another "stepping-stone" on the way to WP:FAC. I think you've picked up the fact that Featured Article nominations are supposed to be undertaken by editors who have contributed significantly to the article, or at least with the main contributers' knowledge. This isn't a requirement for WP:GAN, but if you do nominate this article, I would strongly recommend you do so only if you are very familiar with the article and the sources used, and that you contact the main editors first. It works out better that way for everyone, and you will need to know what you're talking about with regards to the sources in a review. You can see the main editors (by number of edits, and over time) to the article here. You can also often pick up who's heavily involved in an article by checking the talkpage. I also notice that the article had a peer review a few months ago, so it would be worth checking that everything that came up there has been addressed. Having said all that, I'll go through the article and make comments on any issues I find, including things that would concern me at a GA review.

Infobox

I'm not quite sure why there are two citations for her "origin". This should be cited in the article, and not need to be cited in the infobox.

Lead

The lead could be expanded a bit, it doesn't adequately summarise the rest of the article at the moment.

1987–2004: Childhood and youth

I'm not sure that the years are needed in this heading, just personal choice though
I'm a bit confused about her mother's publishing deal. Was that to do with her songwriting?
Th emention of Louis is a bit sudden. Presumably he was a younger brother?
It's unclear to the unknowing who Dr. Luke and Max Martin are. Did she know them? Why did they convince her to leave school and move to LA? Ok, reading the next sentence it becomes clearer, but it's a little disjointed as it is, and it's still not really clear who they are.
Please spell out BMI

2005–09: Career beginnings

"At age eighteen" - be careful of redundancy; this could just be "At eighteen". Also, per MOS:NUM, numbers above nine should be written in digits, so "At 18".
Is Dr. Luke known as just "Luke". Usually we refer to people by their surnames, but Luke is not his surname, and "Dr. Luke" appears to be a stagename or nickname
"Six months after hosting Paris Hilton at her house, Luke gave Kesha the opportunity..." - this is not quite right, grammatically. The first part of the sentence is referring to Kesha as the subject, but after the comma, the subject is Luke.
It seems a little strange that this sentence about singing backing vocals for Paris Hilton has three citations. It doesn't seem particularly contentious. If the sources are reliable, one cite should be enough.
There's a mix of referring to her age ("at age eighteen"), and referring to the year ("In 2006...") - this sort of assumes that the reader remembers when she was born and how old she was at each point. Off the top of my head, I don't know how much time has elapsed between when she was eighteen (and six months later), and 2006. This could be clearer.
Do we know why she and Luke "hardly interacted" later? Did they fall out?
"She worked with several top writers and producers while at the company..." - do we know who these "top writers and producers" were? If not, it sounds like a bit of hyperbole
Is there any more information of the session that developed her "beat driven sound"? It sounds like that was quite a formative part of her career so far
"moonlighted as a waitress to make ends meet" - this is slightly informal. Maybe "earned her living as a waitress"?
"The deal fell through due to conflicts with her existing contract with Dr. Luke's label." - this is a bit confusing, was she signed to two labels at once? It was pretty much implied that she had parted ways with Luke. I don't pretend to know much about the music industry, but it is a little confusing.

Image and artistry

"Kesha has been noted for her party girl image" - noted by whom? This is kind of a sweeping statement that is just cited to one journalist for a gossip website.
I think you need to make it clear that Kesha said her look is derived from "being poor". "Poor" is a relative term, and I think it needs to be clear that the word is hers. Having said that:
"The look developed from her being poor and trying to brand herself as best she could on a budget." is a very close paraphrase of the source material. It needs to be reworded enough to avoid plagiarism, or directly quoted.

Sources

What makes 21-7 magazine reliable?
Ditto We Are Pop Slags?
Ditto Hitz Only?
There is a bare URL that needs more citation information
There is a dead link that I've marked

While it's important to avoid overlinking, there are some words (eg. people's names, album titles) that could do with being linked in the main article, after the lead.
In general, the prose is probably good enough for WP:GAN. There are parts where it doesn't flow very well and I think it would benefit from being copyedited from someone as yet uninvolved in the article. It also sounds a little less than neutral in places, lots of mentions of "opportunities" and her being "sought after". I don't think it wildly violates WP:NPOV, just that the tone seems a little off at times. I'm not saying you need to introduce negative opinions that aren't there, but at the moment it reads as it written by someone who is a fan, and you shouldn't be able to tell.

I think the article's in pretty good shape and could be ready for WP:GAN soon. I think the main thing is to tighten up the prose a bit. If you have any questions, please let me know as I don't usually watch peer reviews. --Beloved Freak 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from Belovedfreak

Regarding the recent changes by Fixer23, they look good. One concern I have is this sentence: "Kesha and her music have been dismissed early on as lightweight, calculating and crude..." Firstly, purely a grammatical thing, "have been dismissed early on" doesn't sound quite right. I'd go with either "were dismissed early on as lightweight..." or "have been dismissed as lightweight..." Secondly, it's not clear who dismissed her as such. It seems to need some kind of attribution. I checked the reference that comes at the end of the sentence and see that it's from that article, but I don't know if maybe this should be reworded somehow to make that clear. I'm not sure how exactly. I see also that the party girl thing comes from that source. It's ok to mention it, it's just a matter of how it's worded. Perhaps you could frame it in a way that makes it clear it's from one interview. "In an interview for The Times, Kesha discussed comments from critics that..." blah blah etc, and then carry on into the quote that's currently used. Or whatever wording you like, but that would be my suggested structure.--Beloved Freak 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining work to be done

I think I adressed most of the things listed above. I'm listing the things that have not been done so it's easier for someone else to step in and do what they have to do.

Lead

The lead could be expanded a bit, it doesn't adequately summarise the rest of the article at the moment.

Sources

What makes 21-7 magazine reliable?
Ditto We Are Pop Slags?
Ditto Hitz Only?
There is a bare URL that needs more citation information
In general, the prose is probably good enough for WP:GAN. There are parts where it doesn't flow very well and I think it would benefit from being copyedited from someone as yet uninvolved in the article. It also sounds a little less than neutral in places, lots of mentions of "opportunities" and her being "sought after". I don't think it wildly violates WP:NPOV, just that the tone seems a little off at times. I'm not saying you need to introduce negative opinions that aren't there, but at the moment it reads as it written by someone who is a fan, and you shouldn't be able to tell. Fixer23 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]