Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courtney Love/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2016.

Courtney Love

 * Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about singer/songwriter Courtney Love, and covers her life comprehensively. I have researched and edited this article over several years, and got it to GA status prior. I am seeking FA status because I feel it has developed significantly over the past year and qualifies. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: My concerns from the last FAC have been addressed, so thank you for that. There is a "Citation needed" tag in the "2012−present" section, but otherwise it looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Praemonitus: I addressed the citation needed; anything else needed? Drown Soda (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You have my support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you much Praemonitus—it's been a long time coming with this article. I'm not entirely familiar with how the FA process works from here, as I've never really gotten a nomination to this point—does the article require multiple approvals, and if so, how does that happen from here? Is it arbitrary? I'd like to do all I can to get this promoted/featured. –Drown Soda (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- We do need to see more commentary and clear declarations of support for promotion, as well as image licensing and source reviews. I have to admit I'm a little surprised there's been so little take-up here, as my own quick scan of the article didn't indicate obvious structural or referencing issues, for instance. Normally we'd have archived a nomination that'd been open this long without much commentary but I'm always reluctant to do that when an article's already had a few tries. You might try leaving neutrally worded messages seeking reviews at relevant wikiproject talk pages. Also, getting out and reviewing others' articles can over the long term get you better known in the community and perhaps more likely to attract interest for your nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, for starters I'd suggest notifying the WP:WOMENART, WP:WPMU, WP:ALM, and WP:PRM projects. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a bit surprised that it's been in limbo this long as well, especially given how high-traffic an article it is. I am still new to the whole FA nomination process; how can I go about notifying these projects (such as WP:WOMENART and whatnot? I've visited the pages, but how can I go about notifying potential reviewers? I don't believe I have the credentials to participate in FA reviews. Like I said though, I'm not totally familiar with this--there are still many facets of the process that I am completely unacquainted with. I've gone to painstaking lengths to get the article to where it is today (especially with doing a complete overhaul on citations and bibliography, integrating SFN references, etc.) and have worked on it over a course of years now. Getting it to GA status was a victory, but I feel like it has been developed enough to warrant FA status at this point. Drown Soda (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Ian suggested above, just post a neutrally-worded message to the talk page of the wikiprojects. Active members will likely have it on their watch list, so they will see it. You may or may not get a reply. As for reviewing other articles, any editor can do it. I don't have any established credentials here, for example; just the weight of whatever small insight I can credibly provide. Reviewing other articles, as well as reading other reviews, is a useful means for learning what you need to do to get your own article through the FAC process. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comments  - taking a look now - and will jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I still feel unsure of using the word "moniker" in the article - comes across as a little colloquial to my ears.


 * ...was an employee at the UC San Francisco Hospital - this could be anything from ambulance driver to orderly to neurosurgeon - I'd say "was employed as an 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital" or was a "was a 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital"


 * "convinced" the members to let her join as a singer. - why is convinced in quote marks?


 * t was remarked in an October 1991 Spin review of Hole's first album that Love's layering of harsh and abrasive riffs... - clumsy, why not just state who said it and convert to active?


 * There are several duplicate links in the article that should be delinked.

Other than that, looks ok from prose and comprehensiveness perspective. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I addressed these for the most part, though I cannot come up with a way to fix your second point about her mother's occupation–there is no elaboration in her autobiography other than that she 'worked in a children's hospital,' so I'm not sure how to go about clarifying that. She was not a doctor or nurse, as she worked there directly after graduating high school. It was presumably clerical work, but there is no documentation of that specific work she did. Thank you for the pointers. Drown Soda (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine - we can only go with what sources say, so it's a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) Comments from Sparklism: I'll add more when I get the chance - hopefully these help! Thanks:) — sparklism hey! 10:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "the adolescent." (search throughout for ." and ,"): See WP:LQ. The period/full stop goes on the outside regardless of how the source wrote it when you're quoting a short phrase. For longer quoted text, the punctuation goes inside the quote marks only when the punctuation occurs there in the original.
 * "subsequently" (search throughout): Doesn't work for me, because it seems to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean, at least on Wikipedia: soon, later, consequently, etc. Usually, it can be deleted without harm to the meaning.
 * In 1981–1987: Early projects and elsewhere: Use "she" instead of "Love" if "she" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after paragraph breaks, or similar breaks in the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I've been reading through this and find it very comprehensively researched and well-written, though there are a couple of things I might tweak a bit (stylistic differences and all ;) ). Overall, an excellent article. Kafka Liz (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The script at User:Ucucha/duplinks shows quite a few bluelinks that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK
 * When mentioning Pitchfork Media, we have it as both Pitchfork and 'Pitchfork' - this should be one or the other style, for consistency (Personally, I prefer italics, since that's what the Pitchfork article itself uses)
 * "..and later took stint jobs doing erotic dancing in Taiwan and Japan." This feels a little too informal, how about "..and later found work as an erotic dancer in Taiwan and Japan."? (We could also link erotic dancing if we wanted)
 * "..according to Roddy Bottum" - should we describe who he is? (also Joe Strummer, Grace Jones, Andy Warhol, Robbie Nevil are not 'introduced' to the casual reader, although some of these are pretty well-known)
 * Stylistically, I think "Q magazine" scans better as "Q magazine", and the same for Spin
 * We could link UK Indie Chart
 * Whisky A Go Go redirects to Whisky a Go Go, so we should probably use that
 * Should we link flyers?
 * We go from "Love began dating Kurt Cobain" to "Love and husband Kurt Cobain" in the space of four sentences without mentioning the marriage. I'd argue that their marriage is a pretty important thing to include in an article about Love (edit: I see there's a lot about it later on in the article, but I still think the marriage itself is worthy of a mention here)
 * "Love also performed electric versions of two of Hole's new songs" → "Love also performed electric versions of two new Hole songs"?

Coordinator note -, will you be getting to/acknowledging these comments? , do you have other comments? -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * & : I just looked over them and made changes—let me know what you think. Thanks again! —Drown Soda (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys, I only got halfway through the article so far. I'll add the rest of my comments as soon as I have the chance. I still think my very first comment about WP:REPEATLINKs has not yet been addressed, though. Thanks :) — sparklism hey! 11:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

More comments from Sparklism (starting from the subheading '1996–2000: Acting and mainstream success' onward..):
 * Can Basquiat and Feeling Minnesota be expanded upon? (like The People vs. Larry Flynt is)
 * Best Actress has a page, so could be linked (here)
 * Roger Ebert could be described to the reader (simply as a 'critic' would suffice)
 * Did she actually "become involved" in fashion (which implies she was active in the fashion industry), or was she simply cited as a fashion icon? I realise she did some modelling
 * '''Clarified this as well by suggesting her modelling campaigns, which is clearer than "involved in fashion"
 * "Hole released a compilation album, My Body, the Hand Grenade, as well as an EP titled The First Session which consisted of the band's earliest recordings." I think "as well as" can be simply "and", and I think My Body, the Hand Grenade should be briefly described, if we are going to describe The First Session. Currently, this sounds as though they both 'consisted of the band's earliest recordings', which isn't the case
 * Link The Village Voice
 * I'd prefer to see "No. 1" as "number one" or "number 1"
 * We could link MTV here
 * What is 'Mercury' referring to here?
 * "solidbodies and had a single-coil and a humbucker pickup" - there are three terms there that need linking or clarifying
 * "landed a role opposite" - was this an acting role?
 * We've got both "The Smashing Pumpkins" and "the Smashing Pumpkins" in the article
 * We should introduce Linda Perry to the reader
 * Link the first instance of Billy Corgan, and de-link the second. We should also say who he is
 * "collaborating again with Perry and Billy Corgan" - had she collaborated with Corgan before?
 * "Former Hole guitarist Erlandson" - my view is that we should use his full name here
 * Link the first instance of Billboard
 * The paragraph that begins "On June 17, 2009..." could with a bit of work for the following reasons:
 * Nobody's Daughter is thrust upon the reader without a proper description that this is the album under discussion
 * "..featured a great deal of material..." - what constitutes 'a great deal' exactly?
 * "Love's aborted solo album, How Dirty Girls Get Clean" - it's implied, though not explained, that this was aborted, so this needs some clarification. Or, it could be argued that 'aborted solo album' is redundant, since the album was only just mentioned in the previous paragraph. So maybe just "material from How Dirty Girls Get Clean" would suffice

I'm stopping here as I'm out of time. I'll probably have more comments from the 'musical style' section onwards - I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Hopefully, these help. Thanks! — sparklism hey! 09:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "re-produced" or re-recorded?
 * '''I clarified this a bit, but they were re-produced by Beinhorn and Larkin, not completely re-recorded
 * The subject matter of the album might be better in the previous paragraph, which talks about writing & recording etc, and I think it certainly belongs before talking about the album's reception
 * What does "acoustic work" mean to the casual reader?
 * The Son of Rogues Gallery link should actually point here
 * "had initially been conceived to promote Love's new album; however, due to the impending release of new material.." doesn't make sense to me
 * "In an interview with BBC" → the BBC
 * Throughout the article, it is mentioned that Love "landed" a role, including twice in two sentences here. Is there a different way of saying this? "Landed" feels too informal for FA
 * It was Alexis Petridis who praised the track, not The Guardian (and I notice that the Guardian link is a simple redirect)
 * "eight show performances" doesn't sound right to me. Eight shows?


 * , status here? This nomination has been open for a very long time. While there are no strict deadlines at FAC, we like to see forward progress and I'd prefer not to have to keep pinging you to have you respond to comments. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , : Sorry for the late response—I didn't get a notification so I assumed Sparklism hadn't given further suggestion. I've addressed Sparklism's above notes, and made alterations to concede. Any other comments or suggestions, I'm happy to work on. Let me know. —Drown Soda (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More often than not, you won't get notifications for your own FAC. It's best to watchlist it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that we're still waiting for TonyTheTiger's comments to be addressed, and it looks like we still have image and source reviews outstanding as well -- this probably has the record for longest-running FAC nom and I'd hate to archive it when we have some reasonably solid support for promotion, but nor do I want to see it stretch into another month... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from TonyTheTiger
 * When you say "Bjelland would transpose Love's musical ideas on guitar", do you mean this type of transposition?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you add critical reviews for as many of her movie roles as you can find critical commentary in WP:RS (especially major roles such as Straight to Hell (film), Man on the Moon, and Beat, to name a few).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, was aspects of her life were covered in Dirty Blonde: The Diaries of Courtney Love and what did the critics say about the book?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should also seek critical commentary regarding those 2014 TV roles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Was she critiqued for The Long Home?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider expanding the WP:LEAD to mention her daughter, her legal issues, advocacy, and spokesmanship, among other subjects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignore this point about WP:MOSTENSE. I may be a bit confused on its meaning.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point given the lack of response, I am going to have to oppose for now. You can ping me when you have considered my concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.