To ensure this process is objective and transparent I have created a rubric for evaluating GA nominees based wholly on the Wikipedia Good Article guidelines.
In order to achieve GA status, the article must satisfy all the criteria listed below. If any are not met, I will post explanations and links to the article sections needing work. Editors will have the opportunity to improve the article before a final determination is made.
Because verifying sources is such a time-intensive process, I ask that significant problems with content, style and mechanics be fixed before I tackle citations.
Hola Lifebonzza and Atlantictire, I'm happy to offer a second opinion on this article. Atlantictire, could you please explain your views on the inclusion of material from the Hirschberg article? It's unclear from the discussion below how this was first raised - did you find the article independently and tell Lifebonzza that material from it should be included? Precisely what do you mean when you say "there is information in the piece which could help provide a balance"? I see no reason to include information about Frischmann introducing MIA to the 505 or being her classmate - seems to be slightly sloppy journalism on Hirschberg's part is all. That said I think there should be some mention of Hirschberg's criticisms as the article is very light on critical voices.
Hi Cavie. Thanks for the input. Hirschberg wrote a cover story about M.I.A. for the New York Times Sunday Magazine that caused the singer a lot of embarrassment. M.I.A. retaliated by posting Hirschberg's phone number to her twitter feed. A giant media circus ensued. My understanding from Lifebonzza is that she feels the Hirschberg article was a hit-piece and shouldn't be discussed at all. I think it's a major part of M.I.A.'s story.
M.I.A. is a very outspoken supporter of Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka. She has been criticized for making unhelpful, inflammatory remarks and not having a sufficiently nuanced understanding of Sri Lankan politics. In the Hirschberg article Sri Lankan human rights workers are quoted making criticisms of this sort. Also, M.I.A. is quoted as saying "Give war a chance."
Additionally a quick read of the article throws up a few issues which I think need to be dealt with.
The article seems rather poorly organised. For instance it goes from discussing MIA's personal life from 1975 to 2009 then suddenly jumps to the "Film and art" section talking about her first public exhibition. Firstly there are several bits of information which really should be included here such as why she wanted to be an artist, when the Euphoria Shop exhibition took place in relation to her study at St Martins and how/why she ended up directing an Elastica video. Secondly it seems very odd that her work on her own music videos is discussed before the main body of the article has even mentioned that she is involved in music.
Changed
There seems to be a fair amount of unnecessary detail e.g. "Prior to releasing her first album, M.I.A. made her North American debut in February 2005, performing for a diverse crowd at the Drake Hotel in Toronto. According to one critic, her reception was "phenomenal" and concertgoers already knew many of her songs.", "While a student in London, M.I.A. was approached by director John Singleton to work on a film in Los Angeles after he had read a script she had written, although she decided not to take up the request."
Changed
"M.I.A.'s music is a palimpsest of styles such as electro, reggae, rhythm and blues, alternative rock, rap ballads and Asian folk filled with intertextual and intermedial references to her musical influences including Missy Elliott, Tamil film music, Lou Reed, The Pixies, Beastie Boys and London Posse" "Palimpsest"? "intertextual and intermedial references"? I think the point could be made clearer without resorting to such arcane language. Cavie78 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed
Hi Cavie, thanks for your input! I agree that the organisation of the article could be better, and would be happy to work with you to improve it. I agree that the sloppy journalism of the NYT article makes citing material from a questionable source highly inappropriate. I've given User:Atlantictire's suggestions consideration, and have noted that if included, the undue weight that would be given to the contentious claims within a questionable source that Atlantictire clearly believes true would be wrong - no substantial reason has been given by the user why GA criteria and wiki policy should be violated to include this person's 'criticisms,' and as the motives of Atlantictire are based on the user's personal and discredited views, it would violate policy further. Whilst criticism of any artist should of course be included and has been, along with the overwhelming cited praise that they receive, an accurate ratio should be reflected in the article, and I believe the article in its current form does this.
Contentious fringe claims by random people in the NYT article are now what Atlantictire wants discussed and frankly her BLP page is not the place to do it. Additionally, whilst I have assumed good faith, I find it questionable that a user with one month's experience on wiki suddenly decides to review this article in GAR and base its pass/fail on this one source being included. As per my talk page, User:Atlantictire says "Actually, I see what you've done with it and it looks good. Really good. There's more of a balance in perspectives about her activism. Nice work!" She also goes on to say "In fact, the article is looking so damn good I might give it a GA rating then nominate it for feature article." Also, M.I.A.'S confrontation of this writer of the NYT did get coverage, and this is addressed and mentioned in the article with citations. That's my two cents. Lifebonzza (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both. Thanks for making some changes Lifebonzza and thanks to Atlantictire for explaining your concerns. I've had a more thorough look through the article now and I think it's in pretty good shape. I think the changes made to the "Film and art" section really improve the flow of the article and I've made a few tiny changes myself to improve clarity. I would still like to see the replacement of the word "palimpsest" with something like "mix" but it's certainly not a deal breaker (I feel that the average reader may not understand what is being said although perhaps I am doing the average reader a disservice) Sooo... the thorny issue of criticism and specifically the Hirschberg NYT article. I should point out here that I appreciate MIA's music and have all her albums (indeed I created the sample of "Bird Flu" that is used in the article) but I am no expert so I'm afraid I am at the mercy of the pair of you when it comes to the importance of Hirschberg in the MIA story. I agree with Lifebonzza that the NYT article in question seems to get some facts wrong but I think it would be perfectly acceptable to use purely along the lines of "MIA received criticism from X for Y in the New York Times, something which the singer strongly objected to". My recommendation would be that a statement such as this be added as a compromise: it will increase the amount of critical voices and give more balance to the article and appease Atlantictire who obviously thinks that mentioning Hirschberg is very important whilst avoiding giving undue weight to Hirschberg by discussing her article in detail which hopefully Lifebonzza will be happy with. Let me know what you both think, thanks Cavie78 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion Cavie. The sheer amount of information and sources covering this writer's motives, methods and cunning vis a vis this and other interviews, as well as the context behind why the New York Times commissioned such a hit piece against M.I.A. makes this a difficult incident to describe without giving undue weight to contentious claims within it and breaking WP:BLP rules, as I know you're aware. The point here is that you can't use a questionable source to add critical voices to an article, even if I was to believe that the article doesn't address criticism enough, which in any case is untrue. I've thought about it, and decided to refine what has already been written regarding her confrontation of writers for misrepresentation. I will include something like "M.I.A. and others raised issues of misrepresentation again in 2010 after a controversial piece on the musician and her activism was written by Lynn Hirschberg for the New York Times." That is as far as I can take it and compromise without violating policy, covering what was notable about this particular incident and what reliable citations on the matter say. Regarding "palimpsest," it is an interesting word, isn't it? I think it conveys as briefly as possible that her music style doesn't stay completely the same from album to album. A different mix with each. Lifebonzza (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me, what do you think Atlantictire? Cavie78 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes M.I.A. sound like a victim and I disagree that posting the reporter's private cell phone number to her Twitter feed was M.I.A. heroically "raising issues" about Times malfeasance. She told this reporter "Give war a chance", and she bares some responsibility for the controversy that surrounds her. 2.) The characterization of the Times article as a hit piece commissioned by the Times is a conspiratorial, fringe opinion.
At this point, in spite of all the hard work Lifebonzza has done, I still believe the article is too POV. It is about M.I.A., a pop star, so the I'm not sure how much the fact that it's POV is really matters. I expect most articles about pop star are written by their fans. But as celebrities go M.I.A. is fairly controversial. Since I started reviewing the article, the page has been vandalized several times by people upset by her political statements and harsh criticism of other pop starts (Lady Gaga, for one). For the article to be acceptably neutral it needs to reflect how polarizing she is.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you anyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M.I.A._(artist)/GA1&action=edit§ion=1 other reliable sources besides the Times article that include criticism of MIA Atlantictire? I agree with you that there isn't enough criticism of MIA in the article in general and also that the view that the Hirschberg's article was commissioned as a "hit piece" is wide of the mark but I am still not convinced that the controversy around this article needs to be discussed in depth here as the article is about the life and work of MIA not one small episode she was involved in. Cavie78 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other reliable sources that discuss controversial things M.I.A. has said and done.
I agree, and I think maybe a section called "Controversy" would be appropriate. M.I.A. is feuding with other pop stars, such as Lady Gaga. Spin MagazineHot Beef: M.I.A. Disses Lady Gaga. That's at least another hour or so of googling.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that your agenda has finally been laid to bare, we have something to work with. Yeah, she said "a part of me is like, Give War A Chance" before, in Paper magazine, [1] which is probably where it was taken from to begin with. Was she defending the Afghanistan war? Who knows. Exactly what is your point?? The article has mentioned her exposure of Hirschberg as a fake in some disinterested degree, though it doesnt go into details (posting the audio recordings etc). That it's a hit piece happens to be stated in many reliable sources, fringe opinions to the contrary do not interest me, and certainly don't belong here. The village voice article is already cited. YouTube is not a reliable source. The issue about the tiger in her artwork and its interpretations is covered in the section "Artwork" on the Wikipedia featured article Arular. Doesn't belong here. A "controversy section" brings undue weight, but then if you had read any wiki policy such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV you'd already know that. So seeing as your attempt to rewrite history with regards to her 505 didnt get the Hirschberg article on, and neither will anything else because it's a questionable source, what else exactly would you like to include that isn't already there? That "she mixes her art with issues of war, violence, terrorism etc is lauded and criticized" is mentioned. Bear in mind, we look at prominence and list it accordingly. Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity.Wikipedia policy does not state we give equal validity to minority fringe views. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims' per WP:ASSERT and WP:VALID. How do we not fail these policies. I will say, this article isn't about how you see her, this is about what happens and how it is covered in reliable sources. We're not a gossip repository. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over this issue with someone who would rather see the artist portrayed in a particular light because of their disdain for them, what an IP vandal might have added during the "review process" and because of their interest in salvaging some reputation for the NYT on M.I.A.'s article rather than dealing with facts objectively. This issue should really not be decided by a biased reviewer, but someone with GAR experience and some semblance of objectivity. Lifebonzza (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
→Can we all try to relax a bit please? In my opinion you're both acting in good faith here - I don't think that Atlantictire is doing anything more than trying to ensure the article is balanced and contains some criticism (which I agree with) and I think that Lifebonzza is just trying to ensure that undue weight is not given to a rather dodgy interview (which I also agree with) As an outsider I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup to be honest. MIA is a controversial artist so I see no reason why a few sentences about some specific criticism she has received and her reaction to should not be included. I do not, however, think that a 'controversy' section is required at this stage, nor do I think that it is necessary to discuss particular criticism in depth. Cavie78 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so bearing in mind the article says "her attempts to provoke are both lauded and questioned", and her "mixing of art and issues of war and violence are heralded and criticized", bearing in mind WP:NPOV, WP:ASSERT, and WP:VALID, what do you suggest also needs to be included? Lifebonzza (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we take the last part of the paragraph in "Fashion" as an example:
“
M.I.A.'s artistic efforts to connect this "extreme eclecticism" with issues of exile, war, violence and terrorism are both commended and criticized. Commentators laud M.I.A.'s use and subversion of her refugee and migrant experiences, through the weaving of musical creativity, artwork and fashion with her personal life as having dispelled stereotypical notions of the immigrant experience; affording her a unique place in popular music, while demanding new responses within popular music, media and fashion culture.
”
Here you state that her efforts have been commended and criticised but then only discuss praise. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about - you are in danger of breaking the very Wiki policies you mention above. Does that make sense? Please try to remember that I am only interested in making sure that the article is as good as can be, that Atlantictire feels able to pass the article as GA and you can both walk away happy. Cavie78 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I just wanted to know any sentence you could suggest to add.
Also, Atlantictire has already stated his lack of experience in GAR meant she hoped the next reviewer "wouldn't be such a sticker" on my talk page. User:Atlantictire I notice has had a confrontation simultaneously with another user, User:Candyo32here due to her lack of knowledge in GAR. The My Chick Bad review was failed because of this, and has now been renominated. I don't think it's appropriate for her to continue reviewing this article anymore. That's my humblest opinion. Imposing personal criteria, ignoring wiki policy and giving problems not solutions is not something to place good faith in, never mind that it's not how you review Good articles, something Atlantictire herself admits she's not experienced in. I am only interested in making sure wiki policies are stuck to, that's all. Here is the article in its current revision/state. I think it's fine, and more than meets GA criteria. I appreciate your input, Atlantictire has asked for a new reviewer and I would like to change the reviewer, to either you Cavie or someone else with more experience. How do I withdraw the nomination if that's what it takes? :) Lifebonzza (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lifebonzza, I don't appreciate being told I have an "agenda". Cavie had just asked for other notable news outlets that had reported on M.I.A. being controversial, and I provided him with some examples. I tend to think she's a pop star, so whatever. But she calls the Sri Lankan government "genocidal" in non-artistic contexts. This is not mearly "mixing art with issues of war, violence and terrorism", and it makes a lot of people very angry. So I disagree. A controversy section is wholly warranted.
Here's my question (and maybe this does constitute having and agenda): Why is M.I.A. famous and why are people writing about her? How much of her fame is owed to her music and how much to her provocations? Cavie?--Atlantictire (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki talk pages are not for discussing fame, due to an artist's provocative music or any other reason, of anyone. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. First rule of the talk page Atlantictire. I don't think it's appropriate for you to continue reviewing this article anymore. That's my humblest opinion. Lifebonzza (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both - It seems to me that we've drifted into an unhelpful argument again so I've asked for advice from some other GA reviewers. Cavie78 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a really good job and have worked really hard on the article. I was just trying to help clear some of the nominations out of the GA backlog, and really didn't mean to start such a debate. Hopefully the next reviewer won't be such a sticker and M.I.A. will get her GA status! Sincere best wishes.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
”
and
“
Ok, I'll fail it if you like....Atlantictire (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
”
Go forth please, the quicker this is done, the better. Also as I previously asked, if a suggested sentence is made instead of simply listing a supposed problem, this would be more beneficial. I can work from there. Lifebonzza (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the wikipedia article in its present condition neutral? M.I.A. has many critics, both of her political statements and her music.--Atlantictire (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
This piece is an article that has a poor reputation for checking the facts and this is covered in this source (Miranda Sawyer's article in The Observer). It is an isolated, biased piece, a recognised hit piece/hatchet job by reliable sources [2][3] and also fails BLP criteria because it relies heavily on rumours and personal opinions [4], and neither do I see evidence that it is scholarly, as the author is not an expert in the field. The question here stems from whether we should change a well cited fact that Peaches introduced M.I.A. to a 505, because this one article says otherwise, disputing it. I don't think we should cover such WP:Fringe (false) points on this article, never mind that the very inclusion of the source here would violate GA criteria and wiki policy - WP:Questionable sources. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, but we cannot use this questionable source even on itself when it contains claims about a third party and there are reasonable doubts concerning its authenticity, in this case Frischmann attending Central St. Martin's, as per clauses of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Its criteria for exclusion, based on the criteria of questionable sources, ensure that the article will not fail WP:BLP unless anyone can explain why not. The article does not suffer without it.
Sorry Lifebonzza, you are talking out of your arse if you think that Miranda Sawyer is 'not an expert in the field'. She has been a music journalist for over almost 20 years; she writes predominantly music articles, presents music documentaries on the BBC, and is very highly thought of. Frankly, I find your dismissal of her piece is in itself POV. She researches her pieces thoroughly and writes for respected newspapers, not tabloids. Who, apart from you, says Sawyer's review was 'a recognised hit piece/hatchet job'? You strike me as a MIA fan who wants to keep bad or critical coverage out of her article. 86.143.69.92 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2) Concerning criticism of M.I.A., these issues have been further addressed. The Simon Reynolds Village voice article that User:Atlantictire cited on this page has been included as an example of criticism against M.I.A.. Where she has been criticised over an issue, be it music or statements, it is described that she has been. Lifebonzza (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More experience with GA review and the topic may be more beneficial with a new reviewer. Thank you anyway. Lifebonzza (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am having issues with user Lifebonzza about the content of the article. The editor does not wish to include undisputed facts from a New York Times article, and there has been much debate over pronouncements about M.I.A.'s artistic significance and a reluctance to acknowledge opinions from M.I.A.'s detractors. It is my opinion that the article presently reads like it was written by a fan rather than a balanced, objective treatment of the subject.
The following is source material that has caused controvery:
Since much work has gone into this article, I would rather give Lifebonzza the opportunity to work with another reviewer than to fail the piece.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have included undispted facts in the article, and cited them with third party reliable sources that are not contentious and been widely criticised like the first source has been. It is in my view that there are no undisputable facts in this source that cannot be found elsewhere, and due to its content and the reaction, its inclusion to cite is therefore unnecessary and the article does not suffer without it. Before this was written, I included the suggestion above to include the detractor opinion from the Simon Reynold's Village Voice article in 2005 in the article, as well as an opinion countering the article, and a change in Reynold's opinion in 2009. The article's objectivity is thoroughly upheld in my view, and issues which M.I.A. is commended and criticized for are described as such. I think User:Atlantictire copyedits well. Perhaps it would be beneficial to have another opinion.Lifebonzza (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to put facts about M.I.A.'s relationship with Justine Frischmann from the New York Times piece back in the article, since there is no valid reason not to include them. At present, the article is factually inaccurate as it states that Peaches introduced M.I.A. to the Roland MC-505--Atlantictire (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it factually inaccurate when it's stated here in the ref included that Peaches introduced her to the 505?
This information and source are used on the Arular article, a featured article on wikipedia. To deny this is inaccurate using a flawed source so it should be changed. Further, her visit to Bequia in the Carribran with Frischmann is mentioned in the reference below, and is also included
The NYT piece clearly states that Frishmann, not Peaches, introduced M.I.A. to the drum machine. M.I.A. has made many public comments about that article, and that is not one of the facts she disputes. Also, the NYT piece is more in depth and five years more recent that than Washington Post piece. It is a glaring inaccuracy to say that Frishmann and M.I.A. developed a relationship because of the artwork commission or that Peaches introduced M.I.A. to the drum machine. Frishmann and M.I.A. were friends from art school and M.I.A. used Frishmann's drum machine while on vaction.
Continuing to argue this point constitutes an edit war, which disqualifies the piece from GA status.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated on your talk page, the NYT piece has been ridiculed and criticised left right and centre in numerous sources for numerous reasons, and you can add one more to the list. Frischmann did not attend Central St. Martins. She is a UCL graduate in Architecture before studying in Colarado. They did share an apartment. I don't think M.I.A. can be bothered to go into everything that was wrong with the article, many did that for her, but in any case, I think this proves more than anything why it is pointless to cite anything with this particular piece. Why do you insist on using it? Using this flawed piece to cite false information violates the rules of WP:BLP and would therefore render this article as not meeting GA criteria. I would like another user's opinion on this issue. Lifebonzza (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:Atlantictire has been on wikipedia for less than a month, whilst I assume good faith, I think I agree with Atlantictire that it's better if I had the opportunity to work with another reviewer who may have more experience on GA criteria.Lifebonzza (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the facts of the article that caused controversy; it's the way in which the reporter used some of M.I.A.'s quotes. If you don't want to include information from that piece, I would leave out facts that directly contradict the facts in that article. Here is the NY Times correction
“
Editors' Note: June 3, 2010
The cover article in The Times Magazine on Sunday profiled the singer and political activist M.I.A. While discussing her efforts to draw attention to the civil war in her home country, Sri Lanka, she was quoted as saying: “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono. He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
While M.I.A. did make those remarks, she did not make the entire statement at the same point in the interview, or in the order in which it was presented.
The part that begins, “The whole point of going to the Grammys,” up to the end of the quotation, actually came first. The part that begins, “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” and ends, “Give war a chance,” came later in the same interview. The article should have made clear that the two quotations came from different parts of the interview.
Not only were the fabrications, misquotes and recontextualisations in this NYT hit piece described and criticized in numerous third party reliable sources, it is not wikipedia policy to omit facts from a wiki article that are verifiable and well cited in numerous reliable sources because one highly questionable source states something different. You're new to wikipedia so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems your entire argument revolves around trying to use this one source. It violates WP:BLP of two subjects, M.I.A. and Frischmann, by being used in this way. Facts do not contradict each other. The point that she was commisioned by Fricshmann to design the front cover of her album, and was introduced to a 505 through Peaches while on tour. Fact. The lie that Frischman and M.I.A. went to Central St. Martins together and that's how they became friends. Just that. False. I repeat my request above. Since User:Atlantictire has been on wikipedia for less than a month, whilst I have assumed good faith, I think I agree with Atlantictire that it's better if I had the opportunity to work with another reviewer who may have more experience on GA criteria.Lifebonzza (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miscontentualizations of a quote? Yes. Outright fabrications? I haven't seen anything that indicates this. I may only have been on Wikipedia for a short time, but I am a graduate student and I do know something about verifying facts. This is the strongest rebuttal of the piece you were able to produce, and it contains weasel words like "as far as we can tell":
if you are a big M.I.A. fan, your objectivity may be clouded here. In any case, I am not going to continue editing the article, but I think you ought to be more open to suggestions from people who are not invested portraying M.I.A. in a particular light. Best of luck!--Atlantictire (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely because of your last point that this questionable NYT source is not used to cite points on the article. Just trying to stick to policy. Thank you all the same. Lifebonzza (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section =
Defines topic without being overly specific =Y
If known, gives full name of subject =Y
Establishes reason for notability early in lead=Y Facts in a lead should not be ordered chronologically, but from most to least notable. While notable, the visual artist fact should be moved elsewhere in the lead.
tweaking the lead some, so it should be fine now.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that was you, my mistake. I tweaked it a bit more. Hope you don't mind....Lifebonzza (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info about individual singles is too much detail for lead. Mention of "Paper Planes" and album successes is enough. Otherwise, your sentences become too cluttered with embedded clauses and commas. Not stuff you want in a lead.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, good point, although I've moved the info about her rise to prominence with Galang and Sunshowers to the top, as this is too notable to be at the bottom I guess. :)Lifebonzza (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly summarizes article’s important points =
Topic placed in context familiar to readers =Y
Avoids specialized terminology and symbols =Y
Information in lead also covered by article =
Appropriate length =Y
Fewer than 15,000 characters = one or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters = two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters = three or four paragraphs
Layout =
Disambiguation links (dablinks) =Y
Just to clarify, does this refer to whether there are any red links or not? I'm not sure how to address this yet....Lifebonzza (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there are multiple entities on wikipedia called "M.I.A.". I went ahead and fixed this.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No maintenance tags =Y
Infoboxes =Y
Images =Y
Navigational boxes (navigational templates) =Y
Introductory text =Y
Table of contents =Y
Appropriate use of lists =Y
Style and mechanics =
Prose is clear and concise =N this is something I clean up as I read. nonetheless, you might want to:
chillax with the "-ing" participle and start fewer sentences with relative clauses. With sentences always starting in this fashion, it makes for a very stilted read. When writing this way, your topic becomes less interesting, frustrating readers so they click on another article. Because I'm sure you're getting my point, I think I can stop now.
Point taken. I've tidied up the prose where it could be written better.Lifebonzza (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
decide if you're referring to her as Arulpragasam or M.I.A. inconsistent. in my edits I've been calling her M.I.A., so make up your minds and change this fast if it's not what you want.
I've changed instances where M.I.A. should be used, and left Arulpragasam where it needs to be defined, such as her full name, her sister's surname, and book/other citations. Hope that's ok.Lifebonzza (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M.I.A. (artist) "Considered to be highly influential within contemporary music and a style icon". sorry to be an ogre, but this is editorializing. "Considered" by whom? You can say Vogue magazine called her a style icon or Vibe listed her has as one of the most influential artists of the last decade, but otherwise it's "some people say..."
Ok, I'll try and reword this. I looked up WP:EDITORIAL to see how this could be changed, and found while there is no use of adverbs to highlight this fact in the lead, attribution can be included here for clarity.Lifebonzza (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"household name" is editorializing. Madonna is a household name. in 2004 my mother had definitely never heard of M.I.A.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that description was in the source cited too, but article won't suffer without it. Lifebonzza (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling and grammar are correct =N I usually clean this up as I read. Couple things I've noticed:
careful with deixis. this is something that must be edited for when multiple people collaborate on a piece. overuse of pronouns "she" and "her". you have to call her "M.IA." from time to time.
Changed
Content =
Addresses main aspects of topic =
Stays focused on topic without going into unnecessary detail =
M.I.A. (artist)#Early career: 2000–2004took out some details about Elastic that disrupted the flow of the article. don't need to know Menace was their second album since the article is not about them.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M.I.A. (artist)#Arular: 2004–2007“This marked the first time favela funk was played on mainstream Brazilian radio and music television.” this fact is specific to Brazil and therefore totally random. unless it can be better contextualized, leave out.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included, it fits in to the section covering a time period in her career (Arular 2004-2007). The single is also from her debut album. That a fact maybe specific to a region does not negate its notability and one of the song's genres comes from Brazil. It was notable enough to be mentioned in the article so I thought it should be inculded here.Lifebonzza (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've addressed this by noting the origin of the style of favela funk being Brazil to give it context....Lifebonzza (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She appeared on the track "Bad Man" on Missy Elliott’s 2005 album The Cookbook." random fact that doesn't fit in with any of the other facts in this section. many band pages have subsections called "Other musical contributions" where info about collaborations is discussed. you may want to create one of these.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've given it better context, it was recorded after Arular's release, I've stated this. Also it is with one of her influences, who she cites in the album. It could belong in another section such as the one you've suggested although for now, i don't see a problem in including it in 2004-2007 section. What do you say?Lifebonzza (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate exposition of topics and facts =N
M.I.A. (artist)#Early life and family: unclear why meaning of M.I.A.'s stage name mentioned here. connection to father's political activities needs to be explained.
Fix this then re-add to M.I.A. (artist)#Art and film In [year] M.I.A. was approached by director John Singleton to work on a film in Los Angeles after he had read a script she had written. [What happened after that?][1]
M.I.A. (artist)#Early career: 2000–2004"Working with a simple set-up (a second-hand 4-tracktape machine, a 505, and a radio microphone) back in London, M.I.A. composed and recorded a six song demo tape that included the "Lady Killa", "M.I.A.", and "Galang" and soon aroused interest.[2]" Aroused whose interest? Djs? Label owners? the aroused interest part can come out since this fact is conveyed in the next paragraph.
"Commentators heralded her as one of the first successful examples of doing so—someone who could be used to study and reexamine the impact of the Internet on the way that listeners listened to and were exposed to new music." this isn't true. Justice had a hit in 2003 with "We Are Your Friends" before ever performing live. I'm sure there are other examples. rethink and reword this before putting it back in the article. I kinda get what you're trying to say, but it's a doozey of a thing to articulate without editorializing. the article won't suffer without it.
It's not editorializing if it's attributed, and this information comes straight from the source. Therefore, I think this should be included, it does say "one of the first examples of doing so" but if you desire, it can be attributed to the source in the text.Lifebonzza (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the source maybe stressing the fact these specific channels (college radio, internet, dance clubs, fashion runway shows etc.) got her hits before performing live, and/or was one of the first examples of doing so. In any case, I've included this in the next part of the sentence and it has hopefully been made clearer, and has been attributed. :)Lifebonzza (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok better. i took out the modifier "leading" since that's editorializing and I don't want this article to start having issues with neutrality. it takes a while for the clouds of hype to disperse and an artist's significance to be understood. for example Suicide who M.I.A. samples in "Born Free"--they only ever played small club shows in the 70s, and their impact is only now coming to be appreciated.
so while it's ok to talk about M.I.A. being successful, popular and respected by certain critics and musicians, you have to be extremely careful with statements about her overall artistic significance, because that often isn't really understood until 15, 20, 30 years after the fact.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not if this artist's significance is already described in multiple reliable sources that are included. We deal with facts, not hazy opinions from certain people who admit to knowing little of the topic or otherwise.Lifebonzza (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
college radio, file-sharing, clubs and word of mouth still constitute the musical underground. major labels (though not always these days), mainstream radio play, Jay Leno, MTV, giant tours: this is the big time.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's what is in the source, tried to address thisLifebonzza (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing =
Provides reliable references to all sources of information =
Follows the scientific citation guidelines (science-based article only) =
Contains no original research =
Neutral:Represents viewpoints fairly and without bias =
Stable:Does not change significantly because of edit war, content dispute =
Illustrations =
Images tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationales for non-free content =
Images relevant to the topic and have suitable captions =
