Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna/archive1


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:26, 8 June 2010.

Madonna (entertainer)

 * Nominator(s): --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FFA, has not been on main page

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it deserves to have the bronze star back. Prior to this the article was promoted to Featured article when WP:FA itself was not worthy of anything. From that time, it was demoted and was then promoted as a GA. It has gone through numerous Peer reviews (4) and the article has been modelled keeping in mind WP:BIOGRAPHY, referring to present FAs like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson. Hence, by the consensus of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this article to FA. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment—no dab links, but external link to http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/19/movies/review-film-a-movie-within-a-movie-with-a-demure-madonna.html doesn't seem to be working. Ucucha 10:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its redirected. Replaced with redirect link. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick comment While copy-editing (which I hope to finish within a week from now) I found a bit of recentism. While in for the early part of her, you use just a year to indicate release date ("Madonna's third album, True Blue (1986)"), for later years you go the whole nine yards even for minor releases ("She released her third live album, Sticky & Sweet Tour, on March 30, 2010"). I suggest you go through the text once more, and review every date you used for level of detail you think is best.
 * I think her infobox genre should only be "Pop, dance"; dance-pop is a pop subgenre and hence redundant to it. She's not an electronic musician, but merely used electronics on her songs (the article it links to, EDM, is a dance subgenre). Rock is hardly a major style for her; being the focus of just one album or so.
 * I suggest changing the infobox pic; she hardly looks her best in the current one.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Indopug, however for your point no. 3, I'm afraid this is the recent most best picture that we have for her. Others like those from the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards are poor in quality. You can check Commons:Madonna and may be point out if there are any better images than the one present. I will look to the other points. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of the other concerns. Places like for eg — the date on which the Malawi adoption was finalized, or the divorce, or her R&R Hall of Fame induction — there the full dates have been kept, elsewhere its ambiguous like the rest of the article. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your comments. Take a looky? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Comments resolved, links checked, meets FA criteria. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, I ran into an edit conflict with the above comments, so hopefully I don't repeat too many concerns.
 * Comments from — ξ xplicit
 * Per Template:Infobox musical artist, parenthetical dates should be omitted.
 * If I'm not mistaken, the term "sophomore album" isn't a term that is widely recognized outside of the United States (and maybe the UK?). This should be changed to "second studio album" or "second album".
 * The title track "Like a Virgin" reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for six consecutive weeks. "reached number one... for six consecutive weeks". That sounds a bit odd. Maybe "topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart for six consecutive weeks"?
 * ...adorned with the infamous "Boy Toy" belt buckle, and veil. Infamous how? As a reader not too familiar with Madonna in the 1980s, I have no idea what's infamous about it and there's no explanation as to why the belt buckle was infamous.
 * What about characteristic? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. — ξ xplicit  19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of instances of "The same year...", "Same year...", "Later that year...". I tried switching it up a bit, but it still comes off as repetitive.
 * Now there's only one  --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * She debuted her new song...' I don't think "new" should be included in this sentence, considering the song was released 20 years ago. The fact that it was debuted that year should be sufficient enough information to imply it was a new song at the time.
 * Repetitive use of "U.S. number-X single" prevails here.
 * In total four now remains. That should be fine? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better. — ξ xplicit  19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...as well as appearing on the Jay Leno show. Would this be referring to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno?
 * The latter's music video depicted Madonna committing murders and involved in accidents with cars... Would that be car accidents?
 * I notice that in one section, there's information of Madonna's pregnancy with Carlos Leon, while in the next, Guy Ritchie, but there's no information what happened in between with Leon and Madonna.
 * Yup, it was present, but was hidden
 * This page is categorized under, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this in the article. — ξ xplicit  06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Removed that category. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A very well written article, with a well-balanced amount of information and nothing overly detailed. Good work! — ξ xplicit  19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * In the references list, "Press release" should be written thus, not as "Release, Press" as though it was a person (refs 1 and 3) Other strange inversions include "Press, Associated", "Reporter, Staff", and lots of "Reporter, BBC"
 * For well-known newspapers and journals it is not necessary to add the name of the publisher (e.g. "The New York Times Company" etc.) The convention is only to include publisher details for relatively obscure publications.
 * I would suggest you remove unnecessary publisher details from many more of the newspapers and journals - Time, The Daily Telegraph, Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, Daily Mail, The Times. The Japan Times, etc. Maybe others. Nor is it necessary to give the "publisher" of broadcasting services such as CNN. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Brian for your comments, I have corrected them. Take a look please? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed publisher info for many of them, though the major ventures like Nielsen and Jann Wenner are kept as they demand mention if they are cited. (It's present in their website). --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is sourced by reliable sources, it is comprehensive, neutral, and well written. Good job Legolas! Crystal Clear x3 05:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I suggest you to add more info about her highly publicized relationship with Sean Penn, about his abuse and violent habit which caused their divorce. Also, there is no information about her controversy during American Life era regarding the war/political theme of her work. I think it is the same important as her controversy with religious group. Baratayuda (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added the line They filed under irreconciable differences, with Madonna's lawyer citing Penn's drinking problems and abusive nature as the primary case for the divorce paper filing.. Will that do? Also, the American Life video controversy has been addressed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No image review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Everything else looks good. I look forward to supporting when these comments are addressed.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 13:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Madonna embarked on her first concert tour in North America, titled The Virgin Tour, with the Beastie Boys as opening acts." - Is it possible to state around this part what months the tour began and ended?
 * "By fall 1987, she embarked on the Who's That Girl World Tour." - Can you change 'by' to 'in', and change 'fall' (which varies depending on country) to the month the tour began?
 * "It was complimented for Madonna's innovative dresses"? - Could you change this to something like "It finished in September 1987 and was complimented for Madonna's innovative dresses"?
 * "Following year, Madonna was signed to play a violin teacher in the film Music of the Heart but left the project.." - Missing a 'the' at the start of the sentence?
 * "The song reached number eight on the Billboard Hot 100 and was nominated both for a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song and a Golden Raspberry for Worst Song." - Could you link Golden Raspberry?
 * "In fall 2003, Madonna provided guest vocals on Spears' single "Me Against the Music"." - Another 'fall' that should be changed.
 * There are some $ with spaces between the amount, and others without the space. Could you pick one style and make them all consistent?
 * "Fall 2009, Madonna released Celebration, her third greatest hits album, and the closing release with Warner." - Another 'fall', and should there be an 'in' at the start of the sentence?
 * "Same year, she released her third live album, Sticky & Sweet Tour. It was her first release under Live Nation, but was distributed by Warner Bros." - Should there be a 'that' or an 'in the' at the start of this sentence?
 * "Madonna announced plans of directing her second film titled W.E., co-written it with Alek Keshishian, a biopic about the affair between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson." - Could you reword to something like "Madonna announced plans of directing her second film titled W.E., a biopic about the affair between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson. It was co-written by her and Alek Keshishian."?
 * "She later clarified that the film is about a woman's journey and that the duchess as her spiritual guide, but was not going to be about the duchess' life." - Could you reword this? I'm not too sure what is trying to be said.
 * Changed it to She later clarified that the film is about a woman's journey and was not going to be about the duchess' life. Instead, the duchess would act as the woman's spiritual guide. OK? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. Thanks.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed your concerns Pyrrhus16. Thank you for the comments. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Everything looks good now and I have supported the article. Good luck.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments beginning a read-through - notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Her recognition was augmented by the film.. - eeww, bit cumbersome-sounding...."Her profile was boosted/raised"? "The film further put her in the spotlight" something.
 * boosted felt a little to papery word to me as was profile, hence I changed it to Her recognition was further raised by the film Desperately Seeking Susan. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * She sang and played drums and guitar for the group, but soon left to form the band Emmy in 1980, with drummer and former boyfriend Stephen Bray. - this gives the impression that she had already separated from Bray when they formed the band. Is that right?
 * Yes, however to be on the safe side broke the sentence so that it is easier to understand. "She sang and played drums and guitar for the group. But in 1980 she left Breakfast Club and formed the band Emmy, with drummer and her former boyfriend Stephen Bray." --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * with artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and lived with him for a time in his loft - any idea how long? "for a time" can mean alot of things to alot of different people...
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Slowly, Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, became influential among young girls and women. - ungainly. I know what you mean and I am trying to think an alternative. "Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, began to influence among young girls and women." or ""Madonna's look and manner of dress, her performances and music videos, began making an impact on fashion." Actually, the more I look at it and the next sentence, the more I feel it is redundant. Remove the sentence and read. I feel the second sentence is sufficient in getting the point across.
 * If I had removed teh first sentence, the paragaph would have had a very abrupt beginning. Hence, kept the first sentence but tweaked it to read "Slowly, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and music videos, started influencing young girls and women." --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True that.'' Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I am reduced to minor nitpicks above. The second half is written better than the first half. I can see where Suomi Finland 2009 is coming from and agree that a less listy and more global structure is better, but concede that at the end of the day an most artist is famous for the material that they produce. I think if any less notable material from the diary-like top half it would make for a better article flow-wise but then would have issues with comprehensiveness if something too notable were left out. I'll have another look at the top half but we're nearly over the line I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, in part; Oppose, in part. This is an entertaining article.  However, it reads much like a diary.  When trying to find non-musical biographical information, it is exceedingly painful and difficult to do.  I would suggest putting all the musical and acting career information together in a separate section, which can be sub-divided into time periods.  Otherwise, the article is difficult to read.  Although it is important to meet technical requirements, such as citation format, there is much more to a quality article than meeting format requirements.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns Suomi Finland 2009, but I draw your attention to Talk:Madonna (entertainer), where Pyrrhus16 addressed your concern that it is better to have a single flow of the biography, rather than have section wise analysis. A consensus at Talk:Madonna (entertainer) was that the personal life sections and acting careers should be merged in to the main biography as "Personal Life" sections tend to be hot bed for gossips and fancruft. We do not need an exhaustive who's who list of whom the artist dated. Maybe people like Bray, Benitez and Beatty is notable as they come under her work and is related, but separate sections always have this concern of being a gossip bed. Also, the article was modelled on already existent FAs like Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Kylie Minogue who follow this rule too. I hope I clarified your doubts enough. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also understand the talk page comments where the diary style is defended. Wikipedia consensus does allow for this kind of writing.  Wikipedia consensus and FA status are different things.  I do not disagree with someone stating that the consensus is that or this version.  What my concerns are is that the article is simply not well written.  It is just a massive diary.  There are many ways to fix this.  Separating her music/film career is possible.  The remaining could be her humanitarian and personal life. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you state what you want to do exactly? Because separate personal life and and film career is a big no-no as per the previous consensus. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not change the articles style; a lot easier to read when it's all in one and not in different sub-sections.  Aaroncrick  TALK 10:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the fighting type so I have just made the suggestions for improvement. My feeling is if there was a Pulitzer Prize journalist writing this article, they would not write a massive diary style article.  WP FA's are supposed to be the best.  We can do it!  Possibly in 2 days.  I am willing to help but will not start the process because people might misunderstand and think that I am a troublemaker. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like seeing that bit about the "Madonna mic". Thanks for putting that in!
 * Comments from Binksternet
 * Why start a sentence with "Same year"? You have "The same year" twice, "That same year" twice, and "Same year" twice as the beginning of sentences. There must be a better way to provide variation than the clipped, staccato "Same year".
 * Now there's only one instance. Is it fine? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good fix. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow, you have Madonna signing a $120 million contract in 2008 in the lead section, but in 2007 in the article body. The relevant source, a story in Billboard, does not have a visible year of publication. It has only a month and day: October 16. A related story at MSNBC establishes the year as 2007, giving the full date October 16, 2007. Your Billboard cite template gives this article the mistaken date of June 9, 2007, which must be fixed.
 * You are correct. I checked the physical publication, which gave the date as October 16th '07. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing that. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have "brought her to the attention of" in two succeeding sentences. Clunky.
 * Changed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At too many places in the article, smooth prose is broken up into clipped delivery, with the absence of the word 'the'.
 * I did not follow. Can you give instances? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be easier for me to do it than explain it. I will attempt this. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commas are unruly, with some unneeded ones sprinkled throughout.
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I blasted through and trimmed a bunch. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why spell out some numbers but not others? Why, for instance, does an album chart "in over 28 countries" but a "title song peaked at number thirty-seven on the Hot 100"?
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How many birthdays did have Madonna have in 1985? Apparently, she married Sean Penn on the thirty-seventh one that year.
 * LOL. That was embarassing. Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I re-added her birthday factoid rather than the bare "late 1985". Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did Madonna leave Boxing Helena? The reader is left wondering.
 * The article says that Madonna left the film, without citing any reason. I added that only. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not yet support this article as FA class. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed your comments. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still seeing some prose problems, one that others are bringing up. I will support when the prose becomes "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", per FA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it that you are exactly referring to? Because I'm trying my best to satisfy the "brilliant" criteria. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I get a chance, I will examine the article very closely for specific points. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good: I now support the article as FA. Binksternet (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * That first paragraph has six sentences that do not very flow very well at all. You move from her single to the recording of Madonna to Basquiat and then back to the album. I hope you can rip it up and rewrite the paragraph...
 * Rearranged. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * US and U.S.—use either, but not both.
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame listed the album as one of the "Definitive 200 Albums of All Time"" - that was much later right?? In that case give the year.
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "she released a remix album of past hits, entitled You Can Dance.[44] Madonna and Penn filed for divorce in December 1987" - the effect of abruptly going from the sentence about the remix album to one about her divorce is quite jarring. Could you split that second sentence off into a separate para, and add some more details about her relationship with Penn to fill that para out?
 * As much as I want to, but there is not enough info to fill out an entire para of similar body. Madonna's relationship with Penn was tabloid fodder, without most of the news I found as speculations as to Penn was doing "this and that" and MAdonna was "doing this and that". Basically, it all comes down to Madonna, who was non-compromising for her career, not tolerating Penn's abusive and drinking problems, and Penn continuing to disassociate himself from the marriage, living life as a batchelor (with all the girls and strippers etc). Only concrete matter I found was in the biography by Taraborrelli, who said that these problems were what led to the divorce, followed by some conversation. Hence I am not sure whether that material and tabloid fodder will be appropriate in Wikipedia. What do you say? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a more appropriate link for Vatican than 'Holy See'?
 * The disambiguation page for Vatican has a number of terms, and among them Holy See, seems more appropriate. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "released the album I'm Breathless" - it's a soundtrack album right? Better classify it as such.
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Pope encouraged the crowd" - heh, thought for a second that the Pope was on stage with her, encouraging the crowd :P
 * Good lord ! Tweaked. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the "1986–91" section - From "In December 1990, Madonna decided" onwards, the sentences aren't really related to each other at all. Especially the one about her quitting that film. Why did she quit? Seems like interesting info that should be there.—indopug (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply above for the film .05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Media copyright review: All items are OK. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments - prose is in need of further polishing, and there are some organization and neutrality issues. A few examples: *" After performing as a member of the pop musical groups ..." - overlinking, and "pop groups" is the usual term. *"Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and music videos, started influencing young girls and women." - clunky. Dubiously punctuated, and possibly another "her" is needed. *"Expanding on the use of religious imagery with Like a Prayer (1989)" - no mention has yet been made of religious imagery. *"The same year, she expanded the use of sexually explicit material in her work" - no mention has yet been made of sexually explicit material. *"Madonna had posed for the photographs as she needed money at the time, and was paid as little as $25 a session. But since she had signed the appropriate release forms, she could not take legal action to block them." - second sentence gives an unnecessary explanation, introducing bias by hinting at an unsupported implication that she was taken advantage of; first sentence already makes the facts clear. *"The photographs were ultimately sold for up to $100,000. She referred to this incident at the outdoor Live Aid charity concert and stated that she would not take her jacket off because "they [the media] might hold it against me ten years from now."' - unlikely that she was referring to the sale. Also, the word "incident" again introduces bias: she attended some sessions, for which she was paid $25 per session, and the other party then acted in accordance with what she had agreed. Events unfolded in consequence thereafter. It was not one incident. PL290 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article: it fizzles out at the end of the third paragraph with "The next year, she began her Sticky & Sweet Tour which went on to become the highest-grossing tour ever for a solo artist." This is followed by the usual final-paragraph sales and achievements summary, so we are left with no sense of her present status and creative focus, as detailed in the 2007–present section.
 * I would argue that major points are always summarised in the lead. Whatever Madonna did after 2008 barely reflects a major point and there is nothing concrete to represent in it. Hence the bio stops at the 09-09 Sticky & Sweet Tour. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Binksternet corrected it. I introduced another her before music videos, I believe it doesnot look clunky now. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still clunky. "Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and her music videos, started influencing young girls and women." Given your choice of sentence structure, what is the final comma doing there? It's a trivial point, but it's an example of why the prose is not quite there. PL290 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Utilizing the use of..." --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You had me worried there, but thankfully, you didn't put that (you actually put "Utilizing ... ") :) PL290 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to incorporated ..." --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to events as you say. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support — Comprehensive, well-written article. Her mother, Madonna Louise (née Fortin), was of French Canadian descent, and her father, Silvio Anthony Ciccone, was a first-generation Italian American whose family originated from Pacentro in Italy; he worked as a design engineer for Chrysler and General Motors." Is perhaps a bit long-winded.  Aaroncrick  TALK 08:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. I went ahead and separated the sentence in two parts. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Leaning to oppose The responses to my points above have brought some improvement, although some concerns remain, including that of the lead coverage. The above comments were only from a quick scan of the article; scanning again, I find further examples of unpolished prose and other potential issues:
 * A tendency towards proseline. "In 1999, this happened. In 2000, that happened." Does not make for engaging prose.
 * I did use other formats, but editors, who have supported above opposed to such additions of "Same year" or other variations of it.
 * That you are able to reply in these terms forces one to question the depth of consideration given to the charge that the article has a tendency to exhibit proseline. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can actually make other changes, but what would you suggest in scenarios like these? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For such sentences, work the prose into a narrative thread, engaging the reader with sentences that connect with each other, rather than presenting a list of unrelated statements. (See also Indopug's early comment about one part, "the sentences aren't really related to each other at all".) Sometimes, "In 2000, such-and-such happened" is fine, but when it happens too much it's a sign of problems and makes for boring prose. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried another way. Please see. The total number of sentences beginning with "In ...." is now 6. Does it look fine? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those specific changes are certainly improvements. Please see below for general ongoing thoughts about the proseline/diary effect and how it relates to Suomi Finland 2009's point about structure. I will leave this unstruck for now. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'achieved notoriety for her "unusual" behavior' - there are surely more encyclopedic ways of putting this than using scare quotes.
 * Erratic?
 * That means something quite different. Decide what you're trying to say! The use of scare quotes was the issue, but "unusual" didn't say much; perhaps "unconventional", "uninhibited", or whatever you think is the main point (that sources say is the case). PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe unconventional sounds better. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "particularly for her underwear fetish" - does Taraborrelli say she had/has an underwear fetish? Do a broad range of reliable sources also state this, and has she said as much herself, or is it the opinion of observers? Do they (and she) say her sexual attention seeking in class was because of her underwear fetish? That she had/has such a fetish is quite an extreme statement to make in a WP:BLP. Even if true, it appears to be used in a synthesis here, unless the sources do support its connection with her antics as a girl wanting boys to notice her.
 * There is a direct quote in Taraborrelli's article about Madonna saying "I used to like all kinds of underwear! Mine was these big red bloopers which were quite ugly, I wanted to have those lace thingies that others wore and had a fetish for different types of panties. [...] I used to be naughty, hanging from those monkey bar thingies, cartwheels and handstands were my favourite for showing in the hallways between classes, hell I even showed them boy my bloopers. I had them in my pockets! " This should explain you. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * People are wont to use words like "fetish" colloquially; unless reliable sources use that word, I believe we should limit ourselves to quoting the passage you have just cited (if there is a place in the article where it would be appropriate), and not make statements that treat "fetish" as an established fact, such as "achieved notoriety for her erratic behavior—particularly for her underwear fetish." PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But instead of using such a large quote, I used what she said in a passive voice while removing the word fetish. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds appropriate (but currently it still says the same). PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 'She recorded the film's theme song "This Used to Be My Playground"' - unless the film has more than one theme song, there's a missing comma.
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The deal was a joint venture with Time Warner as part of $60 million worth of recordings and businesses." - I think you mean "business"
 * Changed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it says, "$60 million worth of business recordings." What are business recordings? PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually source says "Madonna, who is 33 years old, will be advanced as much $60 million," I think it is better if I replaced with that. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever is accurate. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added the missing word advance. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it still says, "$60 million worth of business recordings." PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good lord, I could have sworn that I added. Sorry. Added now. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "It gave Madonna twenty percent royalties from the music proceedings, equal at that time to Michael Jackson's royalty agreement." - royalties are equal to a royalty agreement? Seems like apples and oranges are being compared, or wrong part of speech.
 * I did not make the change, but Binksternet, revert to the former one. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see why Binksternet changed it: what you've changed it back to is worse, because it equates her and Jackson's royalty values instead of percentages. Please consider and resolve the issue comprehensively, rather than reverting to another problem version. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this version? "The deal was a seven year joint venture with Time Warner and gave Madonna an advance of $60 million. It also gave her 20 percent royalties from the music proceedings, equal at that time to Michael Jackson's royalty rate." ? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you added something different, which omits your vital phrase "Jackson's royalty rate". What you had above is accurate. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops again. I think I was drunk :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

*"Madonna ended her relationship with Leon in December 1998, with Madonna citing that they were "better off as best friends."" - clunky. Vague linking word "with", and needless repetition of "Madonna".
 * Changed to Madonna's relationship with Leon ended in December 1998; she declared that they were "better off as best friends." --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

*"She followed the success of Ray of Light with the single, "Beautiful Stranger", recorded for the 1999 film Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me's soundtrack." - clunky. The comma after "single" is extraneous, and the unnecessarily complicated possessive at the end is a distraction. Sorry, but these are again only examples from a quick scan, and I feel thorough copyediting and polishing is required before the article wil be ready for FA status. PL290 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Corredted. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The unnecessarily complicated possessive at the end is a distraction: "recorded for the 1999 film Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me's soundtrack" - why not simply "recorded for the 1999 film Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me"? PL290 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, addressed your concern. I won't say that I am very good in English, but this is a huge article and your inputs are extremely welcome, if somewhere I might have slipped. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, can I request you to move your commets in a box as resolved comments? Actually it is getting very difficult to read through with all the comments and everything. A humble request. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know some reviewers adopt that practice, but my preference is not to do so except in unusual circumstances, since I consider review comments are relevant to all while the review is ongoing. You have addressed some of my concerns, but not all, and my general impression is, as I said, that a thorough copyedit and polish is needed before this article is ready for FA status. Sorry to have to say that; I know it's disappointing if a nomination doesn't succeed straight away, but it's not the end of the world to take a couple of weeks polishing an article and bring it back for another nomination. (I've been there too.) I have struck resolved comments. PL290 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know PL290, that nominations may not pass in the first attempt. That's why I'm taking all the points you guys are making as constructive criticism. I will give the article a thorough copy edit and make sure that its FAC brilliance, I promise. What I meant was that can you move your resolved comments in a comment box? Then it will be easy to go through the unresolved ones. Just a request. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound too pessimistic; the nom is listed at FAC urgents, so I assumed it was much closer to the bottom of the list than I now see it actually is. If you hope to fix things during this candidacy, you may be advised to try and get an independent copyeditor, particularly since you say you have trouble with some aspects of English. (I see that at an early stage Indopug mentioned the need for copyediting.) I also feel Suomi Finland 2009 has a point about structure, and that the proseline/diary effect may be reduced if you bring some of the detail out of the chronological Biography section into topic sections; any reorganization would probably need to precede a final copyedit. On resolved comments, I understand what you requested, and I hope you can accept that for the reason I gave, some reviewers prefer not to do that. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I understand your point completely. Of course I approve these points with the hope that I can better the article. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Point. Suomi Finland feels now that having a same structure is fine. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by that. As far as I can see, this is the latest thing Suomi Finland 2009 has said on the subject: "My feeling is if there was a Pulitzer Prize journalist writing this article, they would not write a massive diary style article. WP FA's are supposed to be the best.  We can do it!  Possibly in 2 days.  I am willing to help but will not start the process because people might misunderstand and think that I am a troublemaker." Anyway, my current position is as follows. You've been updating, and I've been striking, all my very picky points above, but as I said, those were only examples from a quick scan, seemingly indicative of general prose issues. I now have an opportunity to devote time to reading the whole article, which I will do over the next few hours. I will then comment further here. PL290 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will wait for your prose-related further review before I do my own similar review. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Conditional Support with comments ''EDIT: On further reflection, I think I may be off the mark with my comment about the need for the article to emphasize the artist's current status. I've looked at a few other articles of active artists and they don't seem to do it. I'm therefore striking that as a condition&mdash;I'll leave it up to other reviewers to comment further if necessary. My support is now unconditional; the remaining points below are for incorporation if possible. PL290 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)'' This is a very comprehensive, detailed, and well sourced article. As several reviewers have noted, it does exhibit something of the proseline nature of a list of events or diary, making the prose less engaging than it might otherwise be. However, it's difficult to see how that can be avoided for the topic in question. I've now been right through the article, making some copyedits as I went. As I did so, I gave further consideration to Suomi Finland 2009's suggestion about restructuring: my conclusion is that there are no obvious main topics that could be assembled by extracting detail from the chronological Biography section in order to reduce the latter's size and list-like nature. So I no longer entertain the notion that any reorganization would be beneficial. I am listing some specific comments below; my support is not conditional upon these, though they can hopefully be incorporated without difficulty. I will start with one which is an example of unrelated sentences strung together in a list, in this case to humorous effect: There are still areas where the prose could benefit from further polishing, but I think it's not a deal-breaker and the article meets the criteria so I am happy to support. PL290 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Life with My Sister Madonna, a book by Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone, debuted at number two on The New York Times Bestseller List. It was not authorized by Madonna, and led to a rift between them. She filed for divorce from Ritchie, finalized in December 2008."
 * LOL. I see what you mean. REphrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "GPA" needs wikifying (perhaps more commonly known in U.S.)
 * There is still some overlinking
 * REmoved all. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The adoption raised strong public reaction, because Malawian law requires would-be parents to reside in Malawi for one year before adopting, which Madonna did not do.[129] She refuted the allegations on The Oprah Winfrey Show, saying that there were no written adoption laws in Malawi that regulated foreign adoption." - there's a conflict between these two sentences. The first states what the law is; the second then refers to "allegations" (which is not an appropriate word if the public reaction was simply to her defiance of Malawi law). Further, "refuted" is probably overstating it, if she simply claimed there was no such law. Please straighten out both sentences to make all these facts clear.
 * REphrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no indication&mdash;either in the lead or the 2007–present section&mdash;of Madonna's current status and creative focus. It doesn't need much, probably just a sentence in the lead and one or two in 2007–present, but at the moment we are left hanging in both places with no clue about it.
 * I'm confused. It is present that she is currently doing her film W.E, and I don't think that is exactly necessary for the lead. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay; as I said, I think I was off the mark. I see the latest film is not mentioned in the lead, but in fact that's probably correct, as it's a very specific thing and it would constitute recentism to have it in the lead. Thanks for addressing all the other points. PL290 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot PL. Really appreciated. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I'm gradually looking through the article, and I'll say right off that although I'm willing to spend some time looking and commenting, I don't always have a lot of time on any given day. If there's anything that I think needs some rewording or that is easy enough to deal with, I'll do so, and I've already made a couple of edits. I'll just comment here on issues that I think relate more to content. *Barbra Streisand is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere else. As the lead is supposed to summarize the article and should be made up of the main points, Streisand needs to be either mentioned in the article or removed from the lead. I'd choose the first option. *"There, she was known for her high GPA" - "GPA" is probably not immediately understood by non- Americans (such as myself), so I think it should be linked to something explanatory. I'm not sure what. *"After her mother died of breast cancer at age 30 on December 1, 1963,[6] her father married the family's housekeeper Joan Gustafson" - I think linking the two in one sentence is not the right approach. Literally, the second marriage could have taken place anytime from later in the day, December 1, 1963 so to give the date for one but not the other, is confusing. I think the points should be dealt with seperately. Also, there's a quote about her treatment of her step-mother which I think is appropriate, but given the impact her mother's death had on her, and how it shaped her determination to succeed, a quote about her mother's death would be a great addition. It would also help separate the death and the second marriage. *Regarding "Like a Prayer" - "Since the commercial and music video were nearly identical, Pepsi was unable to convince the public that their commercial was unrelated to the video." I know the FOX article says the two are similar but the commercial is on You Tube. The only similarity I can see is that Madonna is in both. I suggest looking at other sources to see if another point of view is given. I also question that Pepsi was "unable to convince the public" (which is not covered by the FOX source). By my own recollection of the reporting of this episode, they didn't try to convince the public of anything and dropped Madonna like a hot potato. Again, I suggest looking at other sources. If you've already done so, and this is what the consensus opinion is, that's fine, but I have my doubts. *"Madonna tried to tone down the provocative image, by releasing the ballad single "I'll Remember" (1993) which she recorded for Alek Keshishian's film With Honors.[75] She made a tame appearance with Letterman at an awards show as well as appearing on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Is this all sourced to J. Randy Taraborrelli? (I don't have his book.)  I only question the "tone down the provocative" bit, because "Erotica" was the only "provocative" single from Erotica. "I'll Remember" is fairly similar to, for example, "Rain" which had already been released as a single, so I don't understand how "I'll Remember" could be used as a kind of damage control. Also the word "tame" - if this is a quote it needs to be attributed otherwise it reads as original research. "Tame" is not a neutral word and in Madonna's case there is more than one possible connotation. If it's attributed to someone, that's ok, but otherwise it should be made neutral. "Continuing to tone down her image, Madonna released Something to Remember, a collection of her ballads, in May 1995." - repeating the phrase that she's trying to tone down her image so soon after it's first mentioned, is redundant, and because there's no source given, I'm not sure if this is still Taraborrelli talking. Rossrs (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) *"Throughout her career Madonna, like David Bowie, has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas." - I'm puzzled by this. This is the only mention of David Bowie and it comes out of the blue, with no discussion of comparison and nothing to suggest she was influenced by him. Is this a theme you wish to build upon, or could we lose "like David Bowie"? It would then read "Throughout her career Madonna has repeatedly reinvented herself through a series of visual and musical personas." I think that would suffice. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Support - Legolas, thank you for the prompt manner in which you've dealt with the issues I've raised. Happy to support this now. Rossrs (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it as part of the LEgacy section. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Linked to Grade. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That works. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like what your are saying and made some changes accordingly. Would that work? I looked it up again and it felt really sad. She was a poor kid :( --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a huge improvement - thanks. I've reworded it a little.  We don't need to mention Andrew Morton.   That makes it seems that she made the comment specifically for him, and that's probably not the case.  I think it's stronger to leave it with just her comment, and Morton cited as the source.  I'm sure I've read her quoted as saying that her mother's death fuelled her will to stand out and her ambition to succeed, and if I can find it, I'll add it.  It's not crucial, but it would expand the personal reaction, which I think is highly suitable, to place it into the context of her career.  Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked in Andrew Morton's biography of Madonna, there he reports that the commercial was similar to the song, not the video and he did not comment on Pepsi trying to convince the public. Hence removed, and substituted with the fact that religious groups were boycotting their product which made them drop Madonna. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another improvement. I think "caught in the crossfire" is a bit dramatic, but otherwise, I think it's good. Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, although "I'll Remember" was released after "Rain", it was a bigger hit that the latter, which made the public sit up and notice Madonna the artist once more. "Rain" was simply lost in the Erotica controversy and it did not help that Madonna made the appearance on LEtterman before that. Hence Taraborrelli commented that Madonna had to tone down the provocation, and her last chance was "I'll Remember", a simple love song, and distancing herself as much as possible from the Erotica era. The second part about Something to Remember being used for toning down her image is misleading, hence removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better, but I'm not sure it's there yet. I think "restrained" would be a better word than "tame".  Maybe even "subdued".   "Tame" could mean "limp", "lifeless" etc.   It has a somewhat negative connotation that is at odds with the discussion about her changing direction in a positive way.  We're talking about a proactive Madonna seizing control of her career direction, and triumphing, and I don't think there's anything "tame" in that.   I would change this sentence - "She realized that her music career needed some dramatic changes in order to sustain herself in the long run."  Something like "She realized that she needed to change her musical direction in order to sustain her popularity."  I think that would lead more smoothly into the Bedroom Stories section.  What do you think?  Rossrs (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think subdued would be a better word, since she technically did not restrain herself, but banked on the negative feedback ("Human Natuer?"). So subdued works fine as it gives the reader the feel that she softened herself and her raunchy image for her musical career. It would also, as you point out, work better for the Bedtime Stories line, which was the time that she turned away from Erotica, nevertheless, remaining as defiant as before. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "restrained"? "Subdued" is pretty good, but "restrained" has more of an implication of self-control, I think. Binksternet (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the opposite. Restrain gives the implication of self-control + the feeling that the subject itself is accepting the change. Whereas subdue can be ambiguous. Madonna did not really felt humbled or anything, just that it was sheer calculation to tone the image. Both can be used, just that I feel restrained gives a little POV type smell. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see either "subdued" or "restrained" as acceptable, so whatever is used is fine with me. Anything but "tame".  ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I already used subdued. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and support Rossrs. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

media Ideally images should alternate left right to balance the article (this is not always possible, but I feel should be attempted). Images with faces should look into the text (or outward), this is particularly true of the info box image. licensing acceptable. I find the preceding table unhelpful this is not a vote Fasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I have rearranged the images wherever applicable. Care to look once again? The prior table was done because it was getting very difficult to navigate through as the comments filled up the whole page. This is not done for voting, just to show the consensus. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Update, leaning support- I got lost trying to go through my old comments again. Right now, my biggest sticking point is the image of Madonna's mother, which I'm unconvinced is actually PD. I left a message with User:Jappalang, who is also on a semi-wikibreak. Perhaps you could also leave a message on the Commons village pump? There are a lot more people over there who understand the intricacies of what is PD and what is not. Once the image status is ironed out I'll strike my oppose and support. Thanks for all your hard work!! Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone pls ping me when this is resolved? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this point Support, subject to the footnote addition mentioned in my last point below, and presuming the additions in response to Karanacs pts have not introduced any probs requiring copyediting ('cos i did find a couple in the additions re Evita :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with some of Karanacs' pts (though i have less of an issue than does she), particularly about the lack of a sense of motivation at times. My main concerns are:
 * It needs more about Evita. Here we have arguably the most influential solo artist of her generation in her most infuential non-recording moment. But it whizzes by. No quotes of critics; no quotes of Madonna discussing her appearance. I think it deserves a paragraph of its own.
 * I have expanded the section much, regarding Evita, its reception etc. I believe this suffices enough, without going into WP:UNDUE. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK that's good - almost too much material! I have copyedited. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "After Lourdes' birth, Madonna became involved in Eastern mysticism and Kabbalah." The biography cannot get away with such a passing remark about something so significant. How did she become involved? How did this influence her personally? Professionally? etc etc.
 * Yes. It is explained later in the part about her influences. In the bio, it just reflects on the timeline and the albums, but the influences has a detailed approach. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * fair pt, i missed some of that. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On a more minor note, we do not need to be told the time of her birth, nor does it appear to be in either of the cited sources. Further, one of the sources quotes her as saying of her mother "she was French Canadian but she was born in Bay City." Well, here's the thing. If you're born in Bay City, you're American. Her mother died when Madonna was five, so Madonna must have a limited direct knowledge of her. How do we know her mother was French Canadian: because Madonna tells us that, when it is contradicted in the same sentence? We need a properly researched biography to vouch for this kind of claim. People have all sorts of fallacious understandings about their own ancestry, which is why we try and rely on biographers to sort through these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the time. But the French Canadian descent thing was confirmed by Taraborrelli in the Madonna biography, where he quotes, "Fortin was of French Canadian descent with her family moving from Quebec..." Do you suggest to reword it in any way? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is in Taraborrelli, then pls add a footnote to it at the end of the relevant sentence. Other than that, fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hamilton. I have added the citation. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

*Comments by Gongshow. Overall this is a well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive article. I'm leaning to support but would like to first offer these suggestions:
 * "Six singles were released from the album, including 'Like a Prayer', and 'Express Yourself' and 'Cherish' both peaking at number two." - The wording of this sentence is awkward, and while it's not necessary to note every song's chart peak, I would prefer knowing that "Like a Prayer" reached number one if it's to be listed with the other singles.
 * Included Like a prayer peak

The reference provided does not indicate the song was "top five worldwide."
 * Included the Hung Medien reference. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While I assume all the action takes place in 1992, it would be helpful to clarify this somewhere, especially since the paragraph contains phrases like "equaled at that time" and "at the same time".
 * Tricky one. What I did was introduce the year in whihc A League of Their Own was released, making the paragraph happening in the same time. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- I'm a little confused by the wording. Returning from what? I think the sentence could also use a citation stating the album catered to her gay audience.
 * Actually the reference is present at the end of the block, but nevertheless rephrasd and moved it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, the "1992-96" section ends with the birth of Madonna's daughter and the next section begins with "After Lourdes' birth". The end of the "1958–81" section also does a decent job of linking to the beginning of the "1982–85" section. A smooth flow makes for a better read.
 * Tweaked. Fine? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- I don't think "extended play" needs to be in quotes, and it appears the EP was released in November, not Christmas.
 * How about the new version? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- The wording makes it sound like Madonna was the publisher. I would change this to something like, "Madonna also signed a contract with Callaway Arts & Entertainment to write five (children's?) books. The first of these books, entitled The English Roses, was published in (date) and reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list."
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- The first sentence suggests multiple reinventions; the second says "this" reinvention. I assume Fouz-Hernández is referring to the "repeated" reinventions, but this should be clarified.
 * Absolutely right, corrected the singular-plural of the sentence. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

- What is meant by "such"?
 * Better? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also made several minor edits to the article. Feel free to revert anything you feel necessary. Again, other than some small nitpicks here and there, I feel this is a very, very strong article overall.  Gongshow  Talk 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC) w
 * Thank you for the wonderful comments Gongshow. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work. I'm happy to give the article my support.  Gongshow  Talk 04:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sentences should not start with numbers: "1996 saw Madonna play the starring role in the film Evita ... "
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm noticing a lack of citation and weasle words: "The performance is noted as one of the most iconic in MTV history." " she ended the relationship because of his drug use and late hours." Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The references are present at the end of the sentences. Corrected the weasel words. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Conditional oppose: I left all my comments on the talk page...enough to cause ClueBot to PMS and suggest it be overturned. I think this article is very close to FA. Legolas and I are in different time zones, so I don't know if he has seen my comments and suggestions. The crux of my commentary is basic stuff, easy reorganization and slight clarifications. It should be simple to do if Legolas agrees. I would like to see his reply to my commentary before this FAC is archived or promoted (Hint Karanacs and Sandy). --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments in the talk page itself. Thanks Moni for your comments, they brought out some new light. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm changing to support. For an article of this size, it's still a bit flawed and awkward in some areas, but for the most part I can appreciate it for being a comprehensive article on one of the most accessed topics on the site. I think there is room for discussion still about streamlining the prose into sections because I think some information is hidden--and I have suspicions this is done more to protect Madonna than it is to present information on Wikipedia--but this seems to be a style issue that is not insurmountable at this time. If articles like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson also have this structure, it might be worth having a discussion on how to make this more uniform. I'm always willing to give my opinion on improving it. Read this as good job, but you know...better you than me for having to maintain Madonna's article. Jiminy. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary, and not encouraged, to maintain these types of lists. Sandy and I don't rely on them because we can't tell if they are up-to-date, and because FAC is not a vote; a "support" comment may still contain information that backs up an "opppose" and a thoughtful "comment" without a declaration either way can be very useful in helping determine consensus. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderful point. I have removed the table. Wasn't my idea anyway. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed comments. I haven't read further, but I suspect there will be issues scattered throughout. Tony  (talk)  08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The length and duration of this nomination page suggest that the article was underprepared. Please note that this is not social welfare, doled out on request. Reviewing resources are being sucked in by such nominations.
 * Disagree completely. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This process is not a vote, as is suggested by the league table above. And when Karanacs says "Oppose", why is this transformed into a "Withholding full support"?
 * Nobody here is voting, its just a table that gives a consensus overview. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I had a look through the lead. Towards the top, this is a long snake: "Utilizing religious imagery in her fourth studio album Like a Prayer (1989), Madonna was praised by critics for her diverse musical productions while at the same time religious conservatives and the Vatican criticized her." – "Utilizing" is one of the ugliest words in English, and can so easily be replaced by "Using". "critics" and "criticized" within two seconds. The contrastive here suggests that the Vatican (not religiously conservative, it suggests) criticized the diversity of her musical productions. Is that right? Later, we are told that her sexually explicit material caused negative reaction in "conservatives and liberals" (what does "alike" add?). So why are elements of the political spectrum mentioned at all if it didn't matter where you stood on it? I'm confused.
 * I believe religious groups is better suited here. The contrastive did suggest which political spectrum is making a statement on her work.
 * 1) "Madonna played the starring role in the film "—"starred in the film"?
 * Different than starring role, which is generally the top-billed role in a film.
 * 1) "Madonna is known for continually reinventing both her music and image, and for retaining a standard of autonomy within the recording industry.
 * I don't see anything wrong in it.
 * 1) "New York, New York"—It's like a stammer. "New York City" for an international readership, please, unlinked. Why were such obscure terms as "vocals" and "drums" linked? Why was US$ linked? And MOSNUM says US dollars are the default, so just $, please.
 * Only the first instance of $ is linked to United States dollar, this gives the reader a first-hand knowledge that the dollar signs throughout the article is of US origin.
 * 1) Ellipsis points—where there's a period in the original, as here, insert the three points unspaced after the period: "confusion. [...] I saw my mother," -> "confusion.... I saw my mother,". I see more of this further down.
 * 2) "Gradually, Madonna's look and manner of dressing, her performances and her music videos started influencing young girls and women."—Both "Gradually" and "started to" are overkill, aren't they?
 * It's just started in the sentence. Also, Gradually here denotes the present imperfect tense of the situation.
 * 1) The dash is odd here: "Mainly created by stylist and jewelry designer Maripol, Madonna's lace tops, skirts over capri pants, fishnet stockings, jewelry bearing the crucifix, multiple bracelets, and bleached hair—became a female fashion trend of the 1980s." I'd just remove it and have a space.
 * Right.
 * 1) Here's another termporal oddity: "She eventually achieved global recognition after the release of her second studio album: Like a Virgin (1984)." So we were waiting a looooong time for this to happen by 1984, yes?
 * Lol. no.
 * Thank you for your comments. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor comments (only read small bits) Thank you for your comments Randomblue. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Her second album, Like a Virgin (1984), foreshadowed several trends in Madonna's later works, including references to classical works (the pizzicato synthesizer line that opens the song "Angel"); potential negative reaction from social groups ("Dress You Up" which was blacklisted by the Parents Music Resource Center); and retro styles ("Shoo-Bee-Doo", Madonna's homage to Motown)." is way too long and convoluted.
 * Thank you. I have rephrased it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the sentence "The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) number of the species is 711164." really necessary?
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oxford comma is not consistent throughout
 * Link Robert M. Grant?
 * Linked. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * why is the [c] in "[c]ertainly" in brackets?
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "On her 1983 debut album, Madonna's vocal abilities and personal artistry were not yet fully formed." is "yet" really necessary?
 * Removed yet. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "other pop stars of that period, namely Paula Abdul, Debbie Gibson and Taylor Dayne." are all other pop stars of that period really just 3 names?
 * Definitely not, hence rephrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Papa Don't Preach" from this album -> I don't like starting a sentence with "
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * is the comma after "album" in "In March, she released her third live album, Sticky & Sweet Tour" really necessary?
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * is "US$five million" standard notation?
 * No, only for numerics, changed to word.
 * "and resulted in the Pepsi commercial withdrawal" -> out-of-the-blue appearance of "the Pepsi commercial"
 * This has already been discussed before in the main biography, its not out-of-blue I believe. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * should DJ really be linked?
 * Its not linked anywhere. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very long FAC; where does Moni3 stand? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moni3 has supported as well as Karanacs as the image issue is resolved. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.