Talk:Christina Aguilera/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. Please bear in mind I have a bit of a busy life, and the reason I want to GA review this is because I'd like to learn more about the article's subject as I go. So the review may take a while. Generally, I will list issues as I find them, and let you know when I've swept the whole article.


 * I see this is the second GA review, but the first was over four years ago and was failed due to the problems not being fixed in time, so I don't see that as being an issue for this one.
 * The article is very long. I see you've done some cleanup and removing things, but even so there's an awful lot to get through. While for a popular culture topic, I think large articles are less of an issue, I want to make sure that we're not just staring at a lot of unnecessary puffery.
 * There are a lot of references in the lead. Generally, the lead should summarise what else is in the article, so if you have information here that has to be backed up by references, it probably wants reworking.
 * As you probably noticed, has disagreed with this and reverted the edits, so I have invited him on here to expand on his reasons. There's no firm policy one way or the other about what sources need to go in the lead, but anything that's not really contentious and is mentioned again with sources in the main article is acceptable not to be cited again in the lead. I think just citing sales figures in the lead is probably okay, but I'm going to come back to this.
 * As you probably noticed, has disagreed with this and reverted the edits, so I have invited him on here to expand on his reasons. There's no firm policy one way or the other about what sources need to go in the lead, but anything that's not really contentious and is mentioned again with sources in the main article is acceptable not to be cited again in the lead. I think just citing sales figures in the lead is probably okay, but I'm going to come back to this.


 * From my experience with Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1, getting a neutral point of view in the article is really important, because there are enough fans and critics out there to call out anything that swings too much in one direction or the other.

More later! -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The reference to domestic violence is a dead link. Per WP:BLP this must be resourced or removed immediately. I cannot pass an article as GA with outstanding BLP issues.


 * "Since then, her mother has married a paramedic named Jim Kearns" - the reference for this is insufficient, it should be either a web link or have an ISBN number so verification is unambiguous. I'm not sure this sentence is particularly relevant - best leave it out, I think.


 * Can you confirm that the Yahoo Movies reference is a reliable source?
 * It has been used in several articles I've seen so not sure why it's not reliable in this article. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been used in several articles I've seen so not sure why it's not reliable in this article. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The information about which schools she attended is not sourced. The nearest source is the Pittsburgh Tribune Review which mentions her appearance at sports events, but nothing else.
 * The Yahoo Movies biography can be used to cite this.


 * The incident about slashing tires is cited to a gossip magazine. WP:BLPSOURCES states that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.". Contentious information (which this is) should be cited to multiple sources where possible.
 * This shouldn't be in issue, yes US Magazine does have some type of tabloid stories but I don't see how this is any different than People magazine. Christina herself has been on the cover and has given numerous interviews with this magazine. Nothing here should be changed. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an Ananova reference which appears to be a dead link, and is not formatted correctly per the cite news template guidelines.
 * This has since been removed DeadSend4 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has since been removed DeadSend4 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So far, I'm afraid this doesn't look good - there are a number of BLP issues that need to resolved quickly. I'll keep going with the rest of the article, though. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There appear to be 22 dead links according to the checklist tool. These will all need fixing and correcting. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference to "I'm OK" and "Oh Mother" being about her childhood needs to be sourced, otherwise it's original research


 * The Golden Stag Festival reference also says "she did not get the audience or the jury's attention". This might be worth including as a quote.
 * Why would that be neccessary?


 * The Pittsburgh Tribune reference is a dead link (see note above)
 * This has since been removed


 * This Pittsburgh Post Gazette article states Aguilera performed at the Lilith Fair in 1999, which puts this event out of sequence with the next sentence.
 * Removed link about Lilith Fair


 * The chart position of "Reflection" needs a source


 * Take out "It [her debut album] was well received by critics" - this is original research as the article only has a single review after it. Better to just leave what the review said.


 * The assertion that her debut album sold eight million copies in the US is not stated in the Christina Aguilera timeline reference that the fact is associated with.


 * The Coca-Coladome press release doesn't seem to work, which is required for verifying the debut album sold 17 million copies.


 * The RIAA reference, used to verify the debut album's appearance in their "Top 100 Albums of All Time" list, doesn't appear to work


 * Her debut single, "Genie in a Bottle", topped the Billboard Hot 100 and several countries worldwide. The chart position in the US only implicitly referenced in the nearby Billboard reference, and there is no citation given for any chart positions anywhere else.
 * Shouldn't this be a given that the single was succesful, if so then we're going to have to source every country? Wouldn't the wikilink provide all that additional information? Not sure why this is necessary. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * None of "She made a cameo appearance on an episode of Beverly Hills, 90210" through "accompanied only by a piano" is sourced.

-- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the other issues tomorrow... check if everything is ok. 11Jorn Time goes by so slowly 22:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I'm taking a break until tomorrow evening (had enough trawling through people.com references for one evening!) As long as somebody's on top of these issues, we'll hopefully make progress and improve the article. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'm also looking for what I could do for the cleanup. 11Jorn Time goes by so slowly 22:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Made a couple additional corrections. 68DANNY2 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick chat with DeadSend4 here and he's under the impression you've just been deleting information from the article where I've identified problems. I personally haven't had a chance to check yet, but the trouble is, if you do that, you'll remove vital information that keeps the balance, whereas you might just need to find an alternative source or reword stuff instead. Let me know if that's an issue. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

4th December
Issues for today.


 * The Yahoo Music story about the 2000 grammys doesn't mention anything about her being nominated for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, only for winning Best New Artist. Easiest thing to do here I think is to remove the reference to that nomination and focus on the win, also mentioning (which the source does) at her surprise at receiving it.


 * There was some debate about whether or not Mi Reflejo could generally be considered her second studio album. Has this been resolved?
 * This is her second studio album and from what I've been told (since I consider Stripped a sophmore album) it's her second album no matter if it's English or Spanish. Again this is what I was told years ago and have been specifically told it should not be changed.DeadSend4 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is her second studio album and from what I've been told (since I consider Stripped a sophmore album) it's her second album no matter if it's English or Spanish. Again this is what I was told years ago and have been specifically told it should not be changed.DeadSend4 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The two MTV references citing Mi Reflejo both date from when it was a work in progress. Therefore they cannot verify its chart positions and sales figures
 * Those MTV links were before the sentence that lists her sales and figures so that wouldn't be relevant. Regardless, I found multiple sources and added them into the article


 * The People Source, that attempts to cite information about her Christmas album in 2000, only goes back to 2002.
 * Someone else has done it.
 * Someone else has done it.


 * This Chart history source is used to cite The Christmas Song reaching platinum, but only contains sales figures instead.
 * ✅ removed.


 * [RIAA RIAA Gold and Platinum certifications This RIAA source] is used to cite My Reflection going gold, but doesn't appear to contain any data. The dates for the tour also need a citation.


 * The paragraph about Aguilera's relationships and feud with Eminem can probably move to a "Personal life" section elsewhere
 * ✅ removed


 * This source cites Aguilera dating Carson Daley but is a dead link. In my opinion, this is a contentious statement, which violates WP:BLP and must therefore be fixed ASAP.
 * ✅ removed


 * "[Nobody Wants To Be Lonely] reached number one on the World Chart and top ten in several countries" is not cited


 * Hurrah - something I recognise (my non-notable covers band plays this) - This source is used to cite the chart position of Lady Marmalade but only seems to confirm its existence on the Moulin Rouge soundtrack
 * ✅ removed


 * The comparison to Dee Snider I suspect is mildly disparaging. Not being American, I don't know if USA Today counts as a tabloid source and fails WP:BLPSOURCES. I'd leave this out.
 * ✅ removed


 * Regarding to Aguilera saying ""I guess the big hair paid off." - the source mentions this was in jest. Don't know if that's worth mentioning though.
 * ✅ removed


 * I don't suppose we could find a link for the Toronto Sun reference that cites the damage settlement from Warlock Records regarding Just Be Free

-- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   19:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

5 December

 * I'm not sure where exactly in this source is citing the intention for Stripped to have more musical and lyrical depth


 * The October 2000 fiduciary duty lawsuit is not cited


 * This source doesn't cite the chart position and sales figures of Stripped


 * This source, covering her change of image for Stripped and Rolling Stone appearance states that responses to this change were mixed
 * The second paragraph to this paragraph clearly states Aguilera recieved negative press for her image change, so it is already noted. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph to this paragraph clearly states Aguilera recieved negative press for her image change, so it is already noted. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This source is supposed to cite the quote "I'm also at the forefront. I'm in the power position, in complete command of everything around me", but doesn't
 * Actually it does, you just didn't bother to read the entire article. So no changes will be made here DeadSend4 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The chart positions for Dirrty and Beautiful are not cited


 * This reference seems to be a dead link
 * ✅ removed


 * The overhead lighting grid incident is not sighted


 * Which source is citing the quote "we had fun working with certain clothes, or the lack thereof."?
 * ✅ It's there, corrected the link to make the quote accesible, but it is in this article DeadSend4 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The mid 2004 tour is not cited to any source


 * "The change [to a Marilyn Monroe influenced image] was met with a positive response" is only cited to a single source - Elle magazine. To cite a trend, you probably want multiple sources; for a single source, refer it to the specific publication
 * ✅ removed


 * Too much stuff in the paragraph containing the above line is unsourced -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential quickfail due to stability
Guys,

This article is changing all the time, people are reverting stuff back and forth, and there's no real consensus on content. I don't think this is ready for GA, to be honest. I'm going to request a second opinion on the GA noticeboard, but for now can everyone just hold off changing things until I've finished running down the article. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   22:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I really think it was nominated by a user who didn't know the criteria. And I agree it is changing, people reverting edits, etc. I hope it meets the criteria in the future for a new GA nomination. <font face="" color="#000066">11Jorn <font face="Calibri" color="black">Time goes by so slowly 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, following this discussion I concur. It certainly has the potential to be a good article in the long term future, but I think there's just too much going on the article for it to settle down into a stable state. Hopefully once all the dead links and sourcing has been checked over, we can revisit this in the new year. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)