Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashlee Simpson/archive1

Ashlee Simpson

Another Everyking-driven article on Ashlee Simpson, although this one I spent a lot of time on. Its a very good article on a pop star :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - contains too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• RN, please see the comment I made about your other current FAC, I think the same issues apply here as well. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you mean the album your comment is exactly the same as here.... please ignore your dispute with Everyking and try to help me out here and give me an example or something to work with :-) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• World, are your objections the same as raised by Johnleemk? You're falling silent on the issue which is kind of troubling (your objection veers on being too broad to act upon) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Big surprise. Hey, at least you're not actively warring over it anymore. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At one stage you were banned from editing this article for a year because of your behaviour - I have never remotely been 'actively warring'. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some detailed objections here, but I also strongly advise looking through the extensive talk archives in which numerous editors raised strong objections to the style of the article. In general it reads like a magazine article or a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia article.

• highly rated MTV reality series - who rated it highly?
• ...used a pre-recorded vocal track...This led to accusations that she had lip synced... - what is using a pre-recorded vocal track if not lip synching?
• The U.K.-sourced "La La" single - what does that mean?
• Simpson cut her hair shorter... - trivial, only of interest to hard core fans.
• Frequent use of 'Ashlee' instead of 'Simpson'
• Simpson often wears shirts with "punk"-style designs and typically has her fingernails and toenails painted black - trivia, not notable.
• are sometimes described (positively or negatively) as raspy - defensive tone here
• Ashlee got a tattoo of a star on her left wrist after the release of her album, and another tattoo of two cherries was seen on her ankle in 2005. [13] As of August 2005 Simpson has a new tattoo, of the word "love", located on her right wrist.[14] - trivia, only of interest to die-hard fans.
• Criticisms and controversy should be woven into the narrative rather than given a separate section.
• Due to some of her actions and performances... - which ones? Why? This is extremely speculative and vague
• a more popular theory - by what reckoning?
• "completely [lost] [her] voice" - what is she actually saying here? Either quote directly or paraphrase and drop the speech marks.
• the incident was made apparent when her drummer hit the wrong button - why 'was made apparent' instead of 'was caused' or something like that?
• Various explanations for the booing have been suggested - why not just cut this altogether? It has an extremely defensive tone and seems to be pure speculation.
• which was originally said to be called In Another Life - said by whom?
• although "L.O.V.E." was originally said to be the first single - said by whom?
• although there have been rumors that Simpson stole Valderrama from Lohan - according to whom?

Worldtraveller 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'm working on these and others at the moment - please check back in a few days :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks again World - those helped out a lot.... I'm pretty sure I addressed those and some more, sans a couple cases. Namely the tattoo/punk-style thing - instead of just removing it I tried to highlight its notability. Anyway, thanks again, and even if this doesn't pass I think your comments really helped me tone down the NPOV in the article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It has improved and I commend you on the work you've put in, but I think there's still an awful lot here that's superficial and unencyclopaedic. Why is the fact that she's apparently going to appear on Oprah notable at all, let alone notable enough to appear in the intro? used a pre-recorded vocal track...led to accusations that she had lip synced: the former is the latter - this clearly seeks to tone down what happened. Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005 - reads like promo material. The whole section offering opinions about why she got booed makes me cringe - as I said before, not our place to speculate, and it reads like a defensive fan article. Around the time of the petition looks like an attempt to belittle the negative point about the petition. Set list from tour dates is not encyclopaedic in my opinion. A point of writing style - there's a paragraph that contains stuff about her voice and then her worst-dressed accolade - a jarring non sequitur. "I decided that I didn't want to talk about that because it's super personal," she said of the situation - that's extraneous, you can just give the reference to support the fact, and generally there are too many quotes from Simpson, they make it read like promo material.

The article looks well written, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic enough in content at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea: why don't you write your own version of the article in your user space, and then everyone can look at it and decide whether any of its changes are worth including? I think this would actually be very easy work because all you'd be doing is chopping it back to a few paragraphs. Everyking 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

When people take the time to offer extensive constructive criticism, it's astonishingly rude to respond with inane and snide remarks. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you can't do that I will have to file an RfC or RfA. Worldtraveller 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are threats any better than a sneering—but quite truthful—remark? In fact I think they're worse. But I encourage you to start an RfC or an RfAr or whatever else you like, and see how much support you have. Everyking 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking.... please understand that he's trying to give criticism on how to improve the article in HIS OPINION.... it doesn't neccesarily mean we have to do that exact thing to get his support. Often times we can just reword something rather than eliminating it. To clarify, many of the problems he points out are valid, but he's just giving what he thinks is the best solution (in some cases axing it completely) which could very well be wrong. The important thing is to look at the problem and try to work with it rather than doing what he suggests as a solution. Does that make sense? (Hopefully it does).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

EK, he's got some good points - although, I don't know if simply "chopping" them up is the best solution. Perhaps we should try to come to a comprimise on the talk page. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RN: Redundent double positives like "...through the success of her chart-topping..." sound POV/fannish; either one is sufficient--having both sounds like hype. Also, "...popular reality show..." is somewhat POV and ambiguous. Should be more fact-based, such as highly rated (if that was the case). Similar issues with "...successful two-month North American tour." Would be much better if "successful" was replaced with something more tangible, like something relating to profitability, or number of sold out shows, or if applicable lack of cancellations due to low ticket sales. Anything quantifiable is superior to generic adjectives. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Waterguy - I went ahead and tried to quantify all of those a bit.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for the moment at least, because I think it's generally good but doesn't really flow very well. Tuf-Kat 22:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough... I'll see what I can do:) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to support. Reads a bit better now. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I applaud the efforts to slim this article down, but it still has some issues. I won't object further if the following are fixed: 1) It's too positive and I'll give specific examples. The lead fails to mention she is generally panned heavily by the critics. The phrasing regarding the critics refers to it as mixed while pretty much giving examples of negative press. I've never seen honest positive press about her to balance the negative, so mixed is a stretch. Pretty much everyone outside her fanbase that buys her music in droves thinks she's horrible as a singer and artist. Yes that's my observation, but it's a lot more widespread than this article even attempts to address. Most artists are simply ignored by those that don't like them, but not her. The 'controversial incidents' aren't that at all, but very simply indications of how much she is disliked. There's not much controversial about them. You don't need to be negative about her everywhere, and it's not and won't be if these issues are adressed since it notes how well her albums have sold and all her fame. 2) The lead is too short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this size. Autobiography has basically the same problems. - Taxman ^Talk 03:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally have an idea of what to fix now :). BTW on the converse I really haven't too many serious reviews that universally pan the album either - could you live with it characterized as recieving "mediocre" reviews? Thanks again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think what I mean is the new intro I just did for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can live with whatever is the case, and yes that lead captures it fine as far as I can tell. "Critical reviews were mixed" sounds like some were negative and some positive. It does seem like most were just mediocre, so clarity on that would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 04:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Autobiography received a fair bit of critical praise—and even the critics who didn't praise it generally gave it so-so, not dismal reviews. Read our article on the album to see this. So to characterize her critical reception the way you want would be just plain inaccurate. I think "mixed" is fair and accurate in that regard. Everyking 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyking what he's saying is that in that section we don't any positive reviews to back it up though... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, well grab one from the album article then if you like. Also, as to critical reception, there was also the tour—I think I read pretty much every article published about it and the impression I got was that the reviews were mostly good, that people thought she put on a good show. There was some negative press as well, I'll grant, but it mainly consisted of lingering SNL barbs. Everyking 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing's going to change the fact that she is pretty much laughed at. Brushing it off as lingering SNL barbs is part of the problem. There's always going to be positive critics because their job depends on it and everyone knows that. So go back to mixed reviews and make it clear some were positive and some were negative, if it is the case that they were about even. The article doesn't need to move to a negative POV, but it can't be hagiographic and pretend in the lead that she is not viewed negatively by a large number of people. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • I changed the lead quite a bit to reflect the impact of the SNL incident - in your opinion what else needs to be done? Should I try to emphasize more in the intro that she's more of a mediocre/average singer, maybe point out more the differences of opinion between the negative and positive reviews? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Ok, it seems a lot more balanced now. Biggest problem left is there are just way too many short pragraphs that makes the prose choppy and flow poorly. A great article shouldn't need them. Either expand or merge with related material. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, thanks a lot for your help Taxman. I've crunched the paragraphs as much as I can and me (and possibly EK too) are out of ideas at this point.... do you think its good now, or...? Thanks again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. - Taxman ^Talk 14:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Seems NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

*Object. Perhaps after many incidents whether good or bad surely will have more info than this. Furthermore, it seems like Ashlee is receiving only kids awards and no major awards have been said. Maybe if they focus on the history of Ashlee Simpaon a bit further. Also, like other popstars, each album should be explained and analysed in detail. It's too little so far. I however congratulate you on this nomination." *Support: It is now better. Keep up the good work! I have now seen that she has won a substantial award. (Which is a Billboard award). Well Done!

• • Sadly, the article used to be fairly rich in detail, but has been trimmed back a good bit since January or so due to deletionist criticism. (On the other hand, I think it still has a reasonable length, and it's been growing recently.) So I don't think an objection is actionable if implementing it would mean a flare-up of massive conflict. Anyway, you need to sign. Everyking 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly is your objection? What specific parts need to be added/removed for your support :)? The album itself is described in excrutiating detail in its own article... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, well I added another (substantial) award Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (seeing how James doesn't really like me), but I'll weigh in anyhow. The article struck me as being "almost there"; not bad enough to object to, but nowhere near good enough to support. The captioning isn't in line with Wikipedia:Captions. I think the article is a bit fancruft-heavy; does it matter what/how many tattoos Ashlee has? The list of various minor performances is something I'm unsure about; on the one hand, most of them seem irrelevant to me, but on the other, take them out, and there's not much of an article. Who is Mr. Blackwell? The personal life section implies Simpson and Cabrera are together, but the "current activities" section indicates Simpson stole Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama. I'm not sure we need a detailed description of how Ashlee got Punk'd, either. Nevertheless, I remain neutral; let's see what happens next. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments:
  1. As for the tattoos etc., they are relevant because they are widely reported by the media (maybe unfortunately but that's a POV), so it would seem to me a bit intellectually dishonest not to record them, in fact what's in the article right now is mostly just the media has widely reported - sans some stuff about her doing commercials earlier there isn't a whole lot of fancruft in there (and yes, the hair is even more relevant whether anyone likes it or not). Maybe the importance of image could be expanded upon though.
  2. You may be right about the captions - I'll fix that today :)
  3. You're definately right on the boyfriend thing, it is confusing and I'll rework it
  4. About the punk'd part though you may be right that it verges on fancruft... I'll think about that one
• Thanks again for the comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • OK John we took care of the captions, removed the Punk'd mention, clarified the boyfriend thing and more.... let me know what you think :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified and linked Mr. Blackwell. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Got a couple of problems here — the criticism of Ashlee appears to be rather weaselly; might we cite one or two editorials or columns slamming her for these actions? Second problem is that that paragraph does not segue well into the SNL incident. The Valderrama incident isn't too clear — shouldn't there be a slight mention of that in the personal life section? Also, the references/notes are whispered, but I could have sworn that somewhere in policy, it is advised not to whisper them because readers with deteriorating eyesight (i.e. aging academics) may have trouble reading them. Like Worldtraveller, I am still a bit concerned about the pro-Simpson POV of this article. I ignored it before, but now that there's a paragraph on criticism, it seems to me that the article is rather imbalanced (especially as much of what I've heard about Simpson is indeed negative); might the criticism be expanded to cover an extra paragraph or two? I'm not objecting yet, just having a lot of trouble with supporting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You want something added to the article? Well, this is certainly a change of heart. Problematically it only pertains to criticism, criticism which is already explained in adequate detail. Everyking 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Damnit, I knew it was only a matter of time. Oh, well. "Adequate" you say? Perhaps 80% to 90% of comments I have heard about Ashlee are negative, and either refer to her lip syncing or being an artificially produced pop star. The former is covered well by the article; the latter is not. Since arguably more print is devoted to criticising Ashlee than discussing the colour of her finger- and toenails, the least we could do is have a couple of paragraphs about her other negative press. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, as mentioned to taxman and WT I've done everything I can think of to balance this, in addition footnotes like this are standard in FA as far as I know.... your comments have been very helpful, thank you. If you have any more please don't hesitate to share them :).
• Object. It is great that this article has been slimmed down. It is much better than it was when there was only one editor, a policy which was thankfully tackled by the arbitration committee. The input from a second editor has toned down the kind of excess still on display at Pieces of Me, where we learn that Ashlee's single "debuted [in Denmark] at 5 and peaked at 4, after which it fell off the chart; in Sweden, it reached a peak of number 31 on the singles chart, while in Norway it stayed on the top 20 singles chart for 12 weeks, peaking at 3 in its fifth week". And it is nice to see that subsequent editors have added negative criticisms of the much-maligned Ashlee. But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely. The fact that this lady's parents cannot spell my good name, and dare to impugne my muscular masculinity by naming their daughter after me, has no bearing on my decision. (Subsequent edit: to be fair, some of the later objects - the process of pop rather than my name - are addressed in the article on Autobiography, her album, although it still reads like a massaged press effusion).-Ashley Pomeroy 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can talk about "manufacturing" Ashlee. For one thing, that would be POV; for another, the only side of the story we have access to, if you even believe there is another side, is the official side. So how can this be addressed? Everyking 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd already reworked the controversy section many times before and just now reworked it again for factual accuracy, and I really don't see any more spin in it. What are the remaining spin problems in your opinion? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Every serious (ie, not just a press release) media account I've read about this woman puts her in the same category as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. They were, according to these accounts, celebrities first, and then were signed to record deals as a way to 'cash in' by stamping their names on a formulaic product. Ashlee Simpson is depicted as a spin-off of the already successful Jessica Simpson franchise. An encyclopedia article about Ashlee Simpson cannot just ignore this. Her career, after all, follows a pattern established by child stars like Rick Nelson, Patty Duke, and Alyssa Milano (to name just three), and people shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure that out.67.67.120.228 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I put this into the critcism section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As mentioned I've got several editorials slamming her now and all the cricism I can think of... thanks for your comments :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, you just can't object without a reason - it has to be actionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

General comment- Everyone, please stop taking things so personal around here. There is a difference between constructive criticism and a personal attack, and everyone here is taking everything as a personal attack. Also, these edit wars and arbitration cases were MONTHS ago - there may be some lingering stuff left, but as you can see the article is improving rapidly and will hopefully be featured article quality before this FAC is over.... so please keep your comment strictly to the article at hand. Thank you and thanks to everyone for their criticism, help and comments Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Format of numbers inconsistent -- numbers that can be expressed in one or two words should be written out, other numbers are given numerically. Exploding Boy 06:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I reworked the prose mercilessly and I believe I have addressed this objection... if not could you please give me an example of the flow/style? Thanks for your comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is much improved, but there's still work to be done:

• In the "Awards and More Controversy" section, we offer speculation as to the reasons for the Orange Bowl booing (off key singing, halftime show "too MTV"), but no inline citations for those opinions.
• In the "Early 2005" mention of the "Stop Ashlee" petition, we provde a link to a story about the petition but not the petition itself.
• In "Style and Personal Life", it's noteworthy that she has tattoos, it's even worth mentioning that she has 3 of them. But I don't believe the specifics about what the images are and where they're located on her body are of interest to a general reader seeking information about Ashlee Simpson.
• In "Criticism" : Assuming she is a manufactured artist, much of the media speculate that Simpson was pushed to fame through the aggressive management style and contacts of her father, Joe Simpson, who is her manager and was the executive producer of her reality show on MTV. I don't think we should be attributing assumptions to anyone in the media, let alone "much of the media" collectively.
• The "Astroturfing" text in the same section should mention the Wired Magazine "Jargon Watch" entry for "Ashleeturfing".
• External links are not balanced, and sites with any negativity have been repeatedly removed. Of the 7 present links, 3 are unarguably "pro" (the official site, the official online team, and the unofficial fan site), three are neutral (TV.COM, IMDB, Notable Names), and one has a mild "pro" pov IMO, but is neutral at best (wikicities). Skyraider 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. True
2. Petition is www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/ of course
3. Fair enough..... I guess the references can take care of that
4. As mentioned below that's a tough one
5. I guess so
6. Again, WP:NOT a link farm and there should only be a minimal set of links, although maybe the fan site could be taken out (it really doesn't make sense to have an "anti" ashlee link as there are several references for that and besides the WP:NOT rule it opens up the externals links to silly edit wars (on any article)) basically from what I understand you're just supposed to have the imdb links etc. and then the official sites, including an official fan site. However, since there is no official fan site we have an unofficial one here instead. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, it looks like Johnleemk took care of some of the criticism part. I removed one of the pro links anyway since there was a pro since, and took care of the rest of your problems Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well I'm not sure what to do here except attribute them specifically to the editorials. As for the sentence flow I've tried my best, and I guess its up to someone else at this point I'll take one more shot at it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I took one last shot at the prose and backed up the orange bowl claims. As for the criticism the references do back them up (I believe) and I couldn't find any good sources for any other claims (and I don't really know of any others...) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another criticism I forgot to mention: description of future events is not encyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 15:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • Saying "scheduled" isn't enough :)? Ryan Norton ^{;T | @ | C} 16:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the article does not begin with the fact that she has no talent at all and would not be notable or have an article at all but for her sister, then it is extremely unbalanced and this subject should never be a FAC. I mean, name me one thing she is notable for except for being a sibling and screwing up the opportunities she got? --Noitall 19:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, saying that and an edit summary "forget it", its no wonder people get defensive when putting a lot of effort into these. Anyway, if you have a specific objection I'd like to hear it, but that is completely unactionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have not edited one thing on this article even though I think it is wildly out of balance. I figure it is your article and the subject is too unimportant that I would leave it alone. But as for FAC, forget it. The article states, "Ashlee Simpson eventually rose to prominence in her own right", which is ridiculous. Ashlee has had constant and total media exposure with the world's best media companies on all forms, movie, records, cable, etc. Yet she is only truly notable "in her own right" for Saturday Night Live and the Orange Bowl incidents. Actually, now that I type this, I would probably support FAC if this article was entirely re-written to show what a no-talent person could accomplish when married to a talented and popular sister and having a media savvy father dedicated to making his daughters famous. But the article has none of that flavor. --Noitall 19:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Paris Hilton (vacant whore). Exploding Boy 19:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • This seems rediculous... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site. --Noitall 20:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • If I change the intro a bit to note the varying opinions on why she is successful (assuming I can find a credible reference(s)) and expand the criticism to note this would that address your objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of changes, including changing the flavor of the article, rather than just tweeking. I will reconsider anything. --Noitall 06:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* I've searched through over 1000 links on google in an effort to come up with credible sources for anti-ashlee claims such as these, with basically just coming up with just [1] (which ends up being pro-ashlee in an odd way). I guess if you want something overly critical you could see the talk page, lol (I still don't have any sources to back up the riding coattails of sister claim though...). That what's makes this subject hard is the lack of sources. Anyway, I'll see what I can mash together with what I've got :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am beginning to think I will support this article, but only after some minor issues I have are clarified. For example, certain pieces of information don't fit into some sections, such as the paragraph about her backing band in her biography, or the sentence about her vocal range in the middle of her personal life section. Also, I won't support until we clear up that commented out paragraph near the end of the article; either we reference it, or we get rid of it. By the way, I don't think iMDB lists Ashlee as having starred in Raise Your Voice any more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ryan, you are buried way too deep in the issues to see the big picture. Here is a true measure of notability, 2,220 google references for "Ashlee Simpson sucks". [2] and 574 for the huge sentence "Ashlee Simpson has no talent"[3]. I mean, really, she is notable for having no talent. --Noitall 14:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Not that I want to knock James or anything, but you honestly can't say that until you look back at what he (Everyking) inadvertently caused because of the huge misunderstanding we had about Ashlee Simpson and her related articles. Ryan is being extremely reasonable, if you ask me, especially considering some of your statements seem to imply you'd prefer us to distort the article with POVed assertions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think if you vote in a way that would require the article to be reworked in a manner that would dissatisfy everyone but yourself, your vote is inactionable. Opposing votes need to be at least vaguely compatible with majority sentiment in order to be actionable. Everyking 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Come on now EK, I think I've even seen you present a better understanding of "actionable" than that. Actionable means literally able to be acted upon, and certainly working the article so it would be entirely anti-Ashlee is possible, therefore actionable. But it is also possible to be actionable, but not help an article follow the policies and get closer to meeting the criteria. In that case we just think the objection is improper or whatever word you want, but it is actionable. We can still get a consensus for ignoring the objection. - 18:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that Raul removed this from FAC so it failed. Anyway, I digged through about 100 links on both the search queries Noitall mentions - but they are almost all message board posts, blogs, or student newspapers without references to back it up. Ergo, not credible enough for here. I also searched for '"Ashlee Simpson" criticism' '"Ashlee Simpson" critique' '"Ashlee Simpson" coattails' and much more. It's not that I disagree at all its just that credible sources for claims like that are nearly impossible to find (and pretty much all the ones we have now are opinion columns from reputable papers which have wild speculation). Its not like Paris Hilton where there's an actual porno to back it up, and if we just put that kind of criticism in without references to back it up it will be massacred on the next FAC. Anyway, Carnildo mentioned a spokesman review column that might be useful which I'll see if I can get ahold of. In the mean time we've got a month till we can put this on FAC again, so we should try to do what we can until then. Plus with another album coming out lengthening the article should be slightly easier to do by then. Noitall, remember next time you comment on FAC you need to make it clear what needs to be done, and not say you "might" support, otherwise Raul is probably just going to ignore it when he filters the FACs. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, Raul just put it back... so the show is still going on.... I'll update the talk page again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, there is no "expert" opinion or research to decide such issues. The references are valid only to what the general public generally thinks of her. And they generally think that she has no talent. That said, I have not edited on this article and don't intend to. My only true and "actionable" statement is that, as it stands now, this article comes nowhere close, even in the universe, of FAC status. You and others are welcome to ignore my comments and continue building an "I love Ashlee" fan site, and that will be fine with me. It just does not qualify for FAC. --Noitall 23:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, at least the FAs here I've seen about celebs here have little to no criticism of the person - this one at least has somewhat of an in-depth NPOVing of the controversies and a brief overview of the criticisms. Also, believe me when I say that I'd get more specific and critical if I could (you can see the stuff on the talk page that is over-the-top criticism of her father etc.), and you may vote support - but many others here will oppose if I do it without credible references, and probably some others who arn't here will jump in just to oppose on that note. Of course, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong :). In the mean time, I'll try to rework the intro and criticisms as much as I can - also, I do agree with johnleemc's comments about the structure - but I'm not sure what to do about it - I'll try to think of something about that :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)