Talk:Alizée/Review

Lead
Typically, the lead:
 * L1: is from two to three paragraphs long;
 * L2: covers all of the major aspects of the subject, and might include content related to all of the primary sections of the article body, including biographical information, musical style, legacy, influences, sales, and other achievements;
 * L3: indicates some or all of the ways in which the performers are notable, and should document the ways in which the performers satisfy one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria; and
 * L4: includes a free-use image on the right-hand side that is representative of the topic.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it is of appropriate length and summarizes the article contents, which includes establishing the most notable aspects of the topic.

Review

 * Well, at least L4 is done. :-) -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Notability (L3) is asserted already, isn't it? -- soum সৌমো yasch  18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
Typically, an article:
 * C1: has a focus that is appropriate to its title;
 * C2: succinctly summarizes the performers' lives, without going into unnecessary trivia (an article on a group may focus on the group's career together, rather than on the lives of the individual members; an article on band members may focus on their lives and their contributions to the band's career);
 * C3: contains appropriate coverage of the performers' musical style, influences and legacy (an article may cover musical style by including, where necessary, information on instrumentation, vocalization and production, and comparing and contrasting the performers with their peers; it may cover influences by including appropriately sourced information on the performers' stylistic development and relation to other performers; and it may cover legacy by including appropriately sourced information on performers that have been influenced by the topic of the article); and
 * C4: includes the appropriately cited opinions of people such as music critics and scholars; these opinions may be both positive and negative.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it covers the topic's entire history and contains adequate information on all aspects of the topic.

Review

 * C1, yes the article sticks to the subject and doesn't deviate wildly. And for C2, it does summarize her life. Still the article does feel a little short on quality prose, and as such there is a good bit of scope for expansion for the Career section, I believe. We may start by including more detailed prose about her songs individually, at least the released singles. Then may be a few paragraphs about her live stage performances, at least her tour, with a general overview of the performances, attendance and public enthusiasm. But, as I had said earlier, care should be taken not to turn it into a never-ending list nor should it be filled up with barely-necessary info like which costume she wore. And her charity work deserves more mention than just a single line.


 * The Early life and Personal Life sections looks fine to me, but may be including the Personal Life section after the Career section would be a better idea.


 * For C3, Mylene Farmer and Laurent Boutonnat's influences have been covered enough. But it lacks comparison with peers. May be that a few publications referred to her as "France's answer to the teen queen phenomenon" may be included, not sure though. And about comparing with her contemporaries, I feel it better be avoided (ven articles like Celine Dion, Kylie Minogue refrain from direct mention of it). Such things tend to get very biased.


 * I also feel more attention needs to be given in describing her Image, as potrayed, and how the media and the public received (or rejected :-) ) it (See Celine Dion).

-- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The page is currently sized at around 19 KB. Other WP:FMP featured articles are generally much longer.
 * Celine Dion - 45 KB.
 * Mariah Carey - 57 KB.
 * Kylie Minogue - 57 KB.
 * The Beatles - 53 KB.
 * Pink Floyd - 65 KB.
 * Genesis (band) - 42 KB.


 * All these articles include a lot of detailed text around the career of the respective subjects. We also need a considerable detail in this article. Considering Alizée has been in the music business for a much smaller span than these artists, it is quite comprehensible that any article on her will be much smaller. But 18.2 KB is way too small. I feel, it should at least be between 30-35 KB.

-- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with your analysis ;) jaco ♫ plane  11:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Over the next few days, I will be compiling info regarding her tour and try expanding the article. Feel free to comment anytime you deem necessary. Or anytime you want to :-) -- soum সৌমো yasch  19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sales
Typically, an article:
 * S1: contains information on sales (if sales are largely or entirely irrelevant, make it clear why);
 * S2: contains information on if, when, where and to what degree the performers have appeared on a music chart (if the performers have charted in many countries, consider splitting off more detailed information to an appropriate subarticle; the main article should include data relevant to the home country and a few countries of special importance to the performers, generally including at least the US and the UK);
 * S3: includes information on digital downloading, concert sales and any other verifiable method of measuring popularity, where appropriate; and
 * S4: is written in summary style, unless there is insufficient material for one or more subarticles.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it contains coverage of sales appropriate to the topic, in that the reader can easily come to a conclusion regarding the topic's relative popularity.

Review

 * Sales and chart information are covered, in the career section, and the discography section. Still a few more statistics can be thrown in. But concert sales info, actually any detailed info, regarding her concerts is largely absent. Also I dont think there should be a separate section for sales (unless the Career section gets long and unruly). -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * S1 sales are relevant since she was one of the best-selling artists in Europe.
 * S2: I don't think splitting off chart information into a seperate article is a good idea. I think the table we've included is clear and concise. jaco ♫ plane  11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * S3: I don't think we have any sources that cover this. Is there any public information available for example for iTunes?
 * S4: insufficient material for one or more subarticles, so not an issue. jaco ♫ plane  11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * S3, none of her songs are available on MSN Music or MTV URGE for download. But don't know about other download stores. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  07:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

 * P1: The article should have several freely usable images, all of which must be clearly tagged with appropriate documentation on each info page.
 * P2: The article should have few or no fair-use images, which, if used, must include rationales on their info pages for the specific use on the article in question.
 * P3: Images should document notable aspects of the topic.
 * P4: Images should have captions that provide useful information.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it has several pictures with appropriate captions, all of them appropriately tagged and with fair use rationales as needed.

Review

 * We currently have one fair-use image and two screenshots, which are also fair-use image. But in my opinion, screenshots add little to the information disseminated by the article. So i feel use of screenshots be restricted to no more than two or at max three. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no free images of her available whatsoever, which is one of the conditions of permitting fair use. The screenshots are being used to demonstrate a part of her career, so there is not a problem there. Agree with you that we should limit the number of screenshots. jaco ♫ plane  11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio
Sound samples should:
 * A1: be in ogg format;
 * A2: be appropriately tagged, usually as fair use and with appropriate fair use rationales;
 * A3: represent the performers at significant points in their careers;
 * A4: have captions that provide useful information; and
 * A5: use the standard audio template (template:listen and/or template:multi-listen item).

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it has an appropriate number of sound samples uploaded and properly integrated into the article.

Review

 * How is appropriate number defined? -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should hold of with audio samples until we've expanded the career section as you've written about above. I don't really like having a seperate audio section. Perhaps it's a good idea to emulate the approach taken in the Mariah Carey article where they've added sound clips to captions in the images. Regarding what is an appropriate number, I don't think we should have more than two clips per album, so perhaps 4? jaco ♫ plane  11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea of merging song samples with pics seems very good. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Review

 * Citations are provided properly in the References section, and the articles has sufficient inline references. And, for R3, Farmer's influence has been aptly covered and cited. The only problem that I see is using sites like Amazon.com as a source, though only quotes have been taken from there. But the references are largely web references. Print sources, as required by R4 is what I dont see. But is it necessary? A web reference is more easily verifiable, imo. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Our references are quite thorough, although there are one or two in there that I'm not sure of. For example, I don't really think our Amazon reference is entirely appropriate, it would be good if we could find an alternative. jaco ♫ plane  11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discography
Typically:
 * D1: an article has a "Discography" section, consisting of a simple and clear list of recorded works;
 * D2: the discography uses appropriate annotation and in a format that meets with ordinary consensus;
 * D3: the discography includes all recorded works; frequently recorded performer(s) has a subarticle, with the main article containing only the normal studio albums and singles, with live albums, compilations and other works on the subarticle (performers who recorded very little may need a reduced or absent discography section); and
 * D4: the discography provides one to three relevant, useful facts about each recording, such as record label, chart data and/or year of release.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when the topic's discography is amply comprehensive in the main article in question.

Review

 * D1, D2, D3 and D4: Yes, this thing is amply covered, including the two studio albums as well as the one live album. Plus each has its own article as well. But I dont think it is long enough as of now to warrant a sub article. This is a section that need not be messed with, IMO. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. jaco ♫ plane  11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Format/Style

 * F1: The article should be concise and precise, and should explain everything necessary to understand the concepts presented. The article should not contain any violations of the neutral point of view policy, and should not use weasel words; opinions should be specifically cited to those who hold them.
 * F2: The article should contain an "External links" section and may include a "See also:, if appropriate. External links should include the performer(s) homepage, if such exists, and should not generally include fansites; however official or otherwise extremely and unusually important fanclubs and similar sites may be appropriate. External links to sites that do not contain useful information beyond that covered by the article should not be included.  "See also" sections should not exist, or should be very small.  No links that are (or could be placed) elsewhere in the article body should be included in the "See also" section.
 * F3: No section header should be totally empty, or have very little text, or contain a large section of lists or list-like material. Paragraphs should be of an appropriate length.
 * F4: The article should follow all general stylistic guidelines. See also: Wikipedia music standards
 * F4a: The article should not contain any unclear pronouns.
 * F4b: The article should not start sentences with "there is" or "there are".
 * F4c: The article should not use the passive voice except where necessary.
 * F4d: The article should not use vague, or dangling modifiers.
 * F4e: Titles should be placed appropriately in italics or quotes. Italics are for albums, symphonies and other long-form works.  Quotation marks are for songs and other short works.  The titles of albums, compositions and songs should be capitalized, except for prepositions, conjunctions and articles of five words or less and that do not appear at the beginning of the title.
 * F4f: The article should be appropriately wikified to all useful articles, and should not contain gratuitous links to irrelevant articles, including days of the year and years. Links to "years in music" should not be hidden as ordinary year links.

An article is generally considered to pass this category when it is written in generally coherent English, has an acceptable structure and an appropriately limited number of external links and see also links, and is wikified correctly, and has no "Trivia" or similarly inappropriate sections.

Review

 * F1: I think we've managed to get most NPOV out of the article and have attributed all citations with references. We've also included negative viewpoints such as the BBC Manchester review, so I don't think there is a problem here.
 * F2: This seems to contradict itself. It says See also is permitted and then it says it is not permitted. Also, the condition that no fansites can be included seems to contradict WP:EL, which states that it is ok to include a (very) small number of fansites. I think that having two fansites linked is fine.
 * F3: Empty sections have been removed, no problem here.
 * F4:
 * F4a: need to check
 * F4b: need to check
 * F4c: need to check
 * F4d: need to check
 * F4e: I think we're fine here.
 * F4f: Plenty of relevant wikilinks are present. If anything, we should remove som of them. jaco ♫ plane  11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For F2, we should probably go with WP:EL, and the two fansites are important enough in the context. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * F4a - its fine.
 * F4b - one sentence began with there has been. Fixed now. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * F4c - none that I could find. -- so U  m  y  a  S  ch  09:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * F4e yes all instances of song and album names are italicised. We are done with this. -- soum সৌমো yasch  22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * F4d, still needs to be checked. -- soum সৌমো yasch  19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)