Talk:Annie (singer)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

""I like a gum called Trident most of all. But since I can only get ahold of it when I'm in Greece or USA I chew Extra ...""

- Annie

It is always nice to see good-quality articles for Norwegian artists. I only have tangential familiarity with the subject, but I'll review it to the best of my ability in accordance with WP:WIAGA.

The article does not have serious issues that would warrant a quick-fail. However, the (almost) complete lack of citation formatting will have to be addressed. Detailed review coming soon. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
As long as there's at least some progress, I will not fail it, as I don't think it's that far from meeting the criteria. Feel free to ping me on my talk if I do not respond here in a timely manner. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Generally, the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. There's a few issues that I'll get back to, or correct myself.
 * b (MoS):
 * Citations are placed inconsistently (sometimes before, and sometimes after punctuation). A more major problem is the complete lack of source information for the citations. While citation templates or even consistent formatting is not required by WIAGA, I believe most reviewers expect at least source, date and author information, where available. The lack of this also made it much more difficult to assess the reliability of the sources.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * See above.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Seems okay. Use of blog posts meets WP:SELFPUB (somewhat), see below.
 * c (OR):
 * I couldn't find a direct source for the birth info in the article, but it shouldn't be hard to find.
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Considering the many colorful interviews available, the single-sentence "Personal life" section is a bit slim. Of course, this is not a tabloid, but I believe it is possible to add some relevant info to this section.
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article uses a self-published source to explain the delay of the Don't Stop release. However, other RSs state that the delay was due to "I Know UR Girlfriend Hates Me" performing poorly, the term "flopping" being used.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Removed punctuation.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold pending improvements.
 * Removed punctuation.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold pending improvements.
 * On hold pending improvements.

I have formatted all of the citations using citeweb template, and added/replaced some citations and outdated links. I moved all ref tags so that they're after punctuation throughout the article.

I added a few more details in the Personal Life section... not sure exactly what sorts of personal details I should be looking for to add to that section. I also removed the self-pub citations and replaced with reliable sources containing the same information.

Added birth citation, although please note that there is some confusion about Annie's birth year. Media sources have reported that Annie was born in 1977, but I talked to Annie after a concert and she told me that she was born in 1978. The dead link the references section that refers to this fact can be replaced with http://annie.thonky.com/blast-from-past.php but I'm not sure my site counts as a reliable source.

As for the issue with the reason behind Don't Stop being delayed, I couldn't find a reliable source that suggests that it was due to the flop of the I Know Your Girlfriend Hates Me single....-  carolyn 81  (user &bull; talk) 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've been silently following the progress you've made, and I'm very impressed. I'll respond in more detail tomorrow (UTC+2). I've been looking into the birth thing, and it's a bit unfortunate. I'll have to think about how to deal with that. Anyway, good work so far. decltype (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact about the delay can be found in this less than flattering article in Verdens Gang:. By the way, you can reinstate the citation to Annie's blog because it was only used to verify what Annie stated. But I haven't found other sources that give details either. About the birth date, are there any RS that give the birth date as '78? It was fun to read about your experience, but you're right that it doesn't count as an RS. And as you say, many RSs give her birth date as '77. I'll do some ce's in the meantime. Just revert me if my changes aren't improvements. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reinstated the blog citation. This source has a correction at the end that says that Annie misstated her age, and was 26 as of May 1, 2005, not 27.  With her September birthday, this means that she was born in 1978.  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/arts/music/01rose.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn81 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have updated the review to reflect the changes. I'm still unsure about the DOB. On one hand WP:V is crystal clear that '77 should be used. On the other hand it is unfortunate to have inaccurate information on Wikipedia. I think I'll have to seek the advice of someone more experienced in this matter. Regards, decltype (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the article should say 1977 for now, since there is more evidence to support that birth year? -  carolyn 81  (user &bull; talk) 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

<--I'm inclined to say "yes". While the NYT article does indicate that there's some uncertainty, I haven't found an RS that gives the exact date in '78, except for some that seem to take info from this article. What do you think? decltype (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article should say 1977. If someone finds some RSs that make it clear that it should definitely be 1978, then they can change it and add the citations supporting it.-  carolyn 81  (user &bull; talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I have no further issues. I removed the video links, per the external links guideline. If they are official and likely to remain live, they can be reinserted into the External links section. Thanks for all your great work. decltype (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review!-  carolyn 81  (user &bull; talk) 06:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)