Talk:Chely Wright/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Good article" nomination, passed
This article has passed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:
 * The article has excellent prose (I did some extremely light copyediting, it is of very high quality nevertheless). The issue I have with this is that the structure is a bit disjointed. For instance, when I read her biography, "2004–present: Independent albums and musical transition" merges into "2000–2010: Early activism". Now I don't have a problem with the two sections - it could well be that this is a good structure - however, the section largely glosses over her acceptance of her lesbianism, which I'd have to argue is part and parcel of Wright's musical career. At the very least, it needs to explain this more clearly. As it stands, it currently reads that she only ever alludes to her homosexuality and never formally announced she was gay. This is clearly wrong, as the it shows further on in the article.
 * Personally, I feel that the activism section should be just a summary of her activism and renamed to "Activism" (it's somewhat inaccurate to say that her activism is only her "career", btw), the personal life section should be migrated into the biographical section, and that the musical career section should be removed, and the subsections become actual sections, like in many other biographical articles. "Musical styles" is also not really part of her biography, but a summary of her... well... musical styles.


 * I see your point related to make a clearly-focused description in the "2004-present" section. I added in a quote and made it clearer in the first paragraph, second sentence. I also added some more connections to her sexuality in that section, since that is the time frame for when she came out. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can understand that the word "activist career" sounds strange. Activism makes more sense. I also removed that sentence where you put "citation needed". I am not sure where I got that from and could not find the original source. Thanks for checking that! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * However, I do not think it would be appropriate to merge activism section with the music section. First, it would interrupt the focus of that section. A significant part of her music career had nothing to do with activism or her coming out (Meaning prior to her coming out in 2010). Second, Wright has made activism a career outside of her music. With the establishment of her role in GLAAD, the Like Me Lighthouse, and the autobiography, it was necessary to make it a different section. I especially feel strongly about this because there is a whole generation of LGBT youth who purely know Wright for her activist work. Readers who are curious/need information related to activism may find it difficult and disorganized if I was to merge it with her music career. The same makes sense for her "personal life" section. Hope that makes sense. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that the heading has been changed, this makes more sense. And your reasoning seems sound, that does sound like it might confuse things to merge the two together after all. I also think the additional sentences you have added are quite relevant and help with the flow. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also added a citation needed, along with a comment on the talk page.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * It is hard for me to comment on whether enough was written about her musical style.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass

Overall, this is an excellent, excellent article. The prose is some of the clearest I've read. The accuracy and sourcing seems impeccable. Though I am not a domain expert, it seems to me that it is quite thorough. The images are tasteful, well chosen and high quality. If not for the structure concerns, I'd be happy to pass this as a GA, although I might actually ask someone with more musical knowledge than I have to see if the musical styles section is thorough enough, so I might need to ask for a second opinion. However, I would like to thank the authors of this article, you have done a wonderful job and even though I have failed this, it was a fascinating and enjoyable article, and a pleasure to read such clear, crisp prose that has been so excellently references. Well done! — Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I cleaned up, re-wrote and nominated this article. Thank you for reviewing this article. However, with all due respect, I disagree with the fail you have stamped on this GA nomination. I do not see why an entire article needs to be failed because one sub-heading layout disagrees with the way you believe it should be organized. Instead, you can simply put the article on "hold", allowing me seven days maximum to make necessary changes. I will make sure it is re-assessed by someone who has a better grasp on this article's structure. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an unfair failure. There is only one problem presented, and you did not give any time to try and resolve it. Every other GAN I've been involved in, the reviewer has given me ample time to resolve any issues. And the problems you presented do not seem pressing enough to warrant a quick-fail. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I am new to GA review. What template should I use to hold the article? I am happy to do so, it’s probably my inexperience at GA review that has caused this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't formally failed the GAN yet (you didn't remove the template or anything), so you're still good. Just leave a note asking for ChrisTofu11961 to make the improvements you've called for and give him a week or so to fix any issues that arise. (See Talk:Eddy_Raven/GA1 -- this process sometimes involves a lot of back and forth.) Once you feel like he's gotten everything fixed, then you can promote it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have reread the instructions more carefully, and placed it on hold. I genuinely would like to promote this article, the contributors have clearly put a lot of time and cate into referencing and the prose is engaging and of high quality! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I went back in and made some changes (see comments above). As an FYI, I will be out of town for a week, starting tomorrow. So I may be slow to responding after tomorrow evening. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * congrats, this has now passed and is a GA! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping to pass this article onto GA status! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)