Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive1


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

The article was kept by Marskell 22:22, 20 September 2009.

Kylie Minogue

 * Notified: User talk:Rossrs, User talk:Eagle Owl, User talk:Getcrunk, User talk:MariAna Mimi, User talk:Plek, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Australian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kylie Minogue, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies.

FA from 2005, a few referencing/1c issues - particularly in a couple spots after quotes from individuals, WP:LEAD is a bit short. A few short one or two-sentence paragraphs, and small subsections. Image File:Dr who christmas 07.jpg could be standardized using Non-free media rationale. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to give this what time I am able to give. I agree with the comments above, and have a few observations myself.


 * Short sections like "Fashion" serve no purpose and need to go.
 * I have strong doubts about the "Personal life" section as it only focusses on high profile "romances". "Personal life" should rightly contain more than that - a personal life is actually a very complex thing and includes a range of relationships, not solely those that are sexual :  parents, siblings, friends and interests outside of performing.   I don't want to go into any of those things, but a section that is headed "Personal life" that deals only with those men Minogue has been in domestic relationships with, makes the header wrong.   To me, it looks like a potted history of Kylie's boyfriends, though it is selective in not mentioning her first high profile relationship with Jason Donovan.   The Donovan relationship is covered in the article as part of her chronology, and I think the others should be too.  Hutchence and Sednauoi influenced her career, and that's where they should be discussed, not in isolation.   Janet Jackson is a good example, in my opinion, of how the personal life can be integrated into discussion of the career.   Will anyone seriously object if the relevant aspects of this section are merged into the article, and we dispense with the "Personal life" header?
 * Film and television work - Should it have a seperate section as it currently does?  In my opinion it utterly fails to make any connection between her hugely successful singing career, and her considerably less successful acting career.   Her acting career has been almost entirely dependent on the goodwill she's generated as a singer/celebrity.   It could be integrated and the article would benefit from these points being given some context.  After all, if we only want to know what she's been in, we have a filmography.    In my opinion, the article would make more sense if presented with a continous time flow.   It currently jumps - we get to the end of her singing career, and talk of an album that she hasn't even released yet, and suddenly we jump back 22 years to 1987 with her making her first film.   Everything that she did before 1987, including her career as a child actor, and her considerable impact in Neighbours isn't mentioned.   (Also there's too much detail about Dr. Who.  Now that it's done, the lead-up isn't needed).   So - do we keep it seperate or merge it?
 * Breast cancer section - another jump in time line.  At the end of "1999–2005: Light Years, Fever and Body Language" she receives her breast cancer diagnosis and the next paragraph tells about her returning to work.   It's very awkward, and to find out what happened to her, you have to scroll down to the personal life section, read about her boyfriends and her cancer, and then scroll back up to see her resume her career.

These points in my opinion prevent the article from flowing well. Rossrs (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with merging the information into chronological order. I'm not degrading the importance of having breast cancer, but it is odd that the "personal life" section is overwhelmed by that information and only gives passing mention to a few boyfriends. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also do not want to degrade the importance of the breast cancer section.  I think it should still be a subsection, but located chronologically. Rossrs (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Importance" may not be the right word (I doubt anyone would consider it "important" to have) but rather "significant" in a sense of a life or death struggle in one's life should it unfortunately occur. Nonetheless, that should not be the primary focus of her entire "personal" life. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rossrs above, the Personal life section is choppy and patchy in coverage, and might be better threaded through the chronology - the Jason Donovan romance rumours paralleled neighbours and afterwards, and the characters and actors almost enmeshed in their description in tabloids. The Hutchence affair was also closely linked with a change in style and public persona, and disposal of 'girl-next-door' image. The Martinez relationship was notable in the frequency of its appearance in magazines, linked with paparazzi etc. Also there is little of her relationship with Dannii at all in the article. If others agree, we should make a start on threading I think. Yes, and some referencing needs fixing. The prose isn't too bad really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, this is what I've done here
 * 1. "Fashion" section - gone. It's a minor point that was so out of context as to make it trivial.
 * 2. "Breast cancer" subsection, I've now merged into the chronology intact with a header "2005–2006: Breast cancer". It is a crucial part of her story, and was the subject of extensive publicity.  It is as important to her story as any of her albums, especially considering that it came at a time that her career was "peaking".  It deserves its due.
 * 3. "Personal life", removed section, and merged the relevant aspects.  Michael Hutchence was important to her change of style in 1990, and that's where he should be discussed, around the release of Rhythm of Love.  Stephane Sednaoui is mentioned in a few sentences in the 1997 part of the article.  That's enough.  His appearance in the "Personal life" section was redundant, given that nothing of additional importance was said about him.  Olivier Martinez was a notable relationship.   I have added a sentence in the 2003 section to note when they met.  It could probably do with more, but I don't know what.  I added a few sentences to the 2007 section where they announced seperation.  Minogue's tribute to Martinez in the wake of media criticism of him says more about her character, his character and their relationship, than the silly gossip about them maybe planning a baby over lunch.   So I've added Minogue's supportive comment, and deleted the baby rumour nonsense.  I removed Andrés Velencoso entirely.  Our mention of him was as someone "with whom she has been seen several times" and I think this sounds very weak.   If this is an important relationship, or if it becomes important, it can be added back.  Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done. ok, now the boring stuff...housekeeping...I did one alt image note, and some references need formatting. Anything else comprehensiveness-wise? Nothing is jumping out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a toolbox to this review page. The toolbox indicates housekeeping problems with disambig links, external links, and alt text. Thanks for starting with the alt text. Some suggestions for the alt text added for File:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg: it should not say "Kylie" or "I Should Be So Lucky" or "video" or "singing", as none of these details are immediately verifiable from the image alone by a typical Wikipedia reader (most readers don't know what Minogue looks like). Also, the alt text shouldn't say "screenshot" (see WP:ALT , example 2. (The "smiling" is good, though. :-) Ideally the alt text should say what's immediately obvious from the visual appearance of this image, and what distinguishes this visual appearance of Minogue from the other images in the article (youth, hairstyle, etc.). Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a crack at the alt text, and I have to say it looked very easy until I tried to do it. Not so easy, but I guess it's just a different way of thinking.  I don't know if what I've done is good or bad, but I think it's a start.  I read through WP:ALT and it used Greta Garbo as an example and said basically that for the first mention it's not enough to just say it's Greta because the reader won't necessarily know what she looked like, but for subsequent images, where the basic appearance has already been described, it's ok.   I hope I've interpreted that correctly.  I used the name "Kylie" but I also described her.   I have no idea how to do the "Wild Roses" images as they are in a table, and I assume that the infobox image can't be done either.  I need some help please, if you could.  Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on. Your first cut is quite good, though a bit of work is still needed. Some comments:
 * Template:Infobox Musical artist does support alt text; please see its documentation. I assume the first image's alt text will be written assuming the reader doesn't know what Kylie looks like.
 * Two other images lack alt text. You can easily see which ones by visiting "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right hand corner of this subpage.
 * The phrase "19 year old" is too precise to be easily verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image, and should be reworded to be vaguer.
 * This point is minor, but it's briefer if you use simple present tense, e.g., "are standing" → "stand"; "Kylie, wearing" → "Kylie wears", "She is holding" → "She holds".
 * Again, thanks for taking this on, and the work is mostly done. Eubulides (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I will fix the points you mention but you mention that there are still two images without text.  I realize this, but as per my previous comment, I can't work out how to add the alt text because one image is in the infobox, and the other is actually two images in a table. (The "Wild Rose" dead-body-in-the-water images)  I've tried to add alt text, but it doesn't work.  Can you please tell me how to add to these.   Thanks Rossrs (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Images in a table are just like images anywhere else, and you add the alt text in the same way. Template:Infobox Musical artist/doc describes how to do it in the infobox. To help out I added placeholders that you can fill in. Eubulides (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help.  There is now alt text for each image. Rossrs (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thx for that - I think this FA is readily saveable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The image for "Spinning Around" used in the Light Years section is unjustified and is getting undue weight for usage in the biography article. I'm sure some image from the commons is available for that era. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to look at all images and see what is available on Commons. I don't think four unfree images is too much, but I'm also mindful we should use them with purpose and not merely as decoration.  To clarify, because I was the one who added the "Spinning Around" image, it was never intended to simply represent that era.   It was intended to demonstrate the particular care that Minogue and Baker took in modeling her appearance on the 1940s Varga Girl. It originally linked to a Varga Girl image from the 1940s, that showed a girl in an identical pose. Unfortunately that website is no longer active, so that link is gone, and the image becomes less relevant. That particular image, including the costume she is wearing, restarted her career, and I think it's stronger than a more generic image. I understand that not everyone would see the same importance in the unfree images that I see. If there was a suitable image in Commons, I'd be happy to see it  replaced, but this period of her career is her "career height" and Commons doesn't represent this period. If we have images from other times in her career, but not this period, I think we are not providing the right balance.  On the other hand, are any unfree images really essential in any article?  (Just a side note : when the article was promoted in Feb 2005, there were 14 unfree images and 0 free images.  Standards have certainly improved since then!) Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, FA standards have become too strict and orthodox. I understand your justification but in no way the FA promoters will accept a non-free image, and that too one that is purely demostrating her image only, for the FA status. Hence I believe its better that either we replace it with a free image, or its better to have no image at all. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I understand your concern, but I think each image serves a purpose and each one supports text in the article, and has a specific fair use rationale.   There are other unfree images in featured articles, including more recent promotions, so I'm not convinced that they wouldn't be accepted, and I'd rather not anticipate how people may or may not consider the image.   It would depend on who commented - some would say yes, and some would say no.  I would prefer to leave the images and see if anyone else comments, but after 4 years... nobody else has and it's a relatively high-traffic article.  I find your comment contradictory - on the one hand you're saying the standards are "too strict and orthodox" and then on the other hand you're saying to remove an image in order to comply with the standards.   As for the image itself - it is "iconic" in the UK and Australia - the two territories where she is most notable, and I think the image is used with a much more specific purpose than many images.   I'm copyediting and sourcing the article, and there are a few points, including this one, that need to be reworded, so I'll keep your comments in mind and try to address them.  Rossrs (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: My original reply to this nomination was that I would give some time to fixing this, but since then I've decided I will give it my best effort, but I would just like to note that my time is limited. I have looked at, and agree with User:Cirt's comments. It may appear that not much happening to address the problems, but I have decided to go through each of the cites to ensure there is standardisation in the way they are formatted, that the information in the article is accurately supported by the cite, (which basically means reading the external source pages), that weak sources are replaced with something "stronger", and that unsourced information is either cited or removed. As I go through, I am finding that the sources are generally good and reliable, but checking is proving to be more time consuming that I expected. I am doing some of the basic updating in a sandbox rather than making numerous small edits to the article, and then copying into the article. I am worried that someone may decide to close this while I am still working on it, because it may look like it's stagnating - it's not. I am busier with this than it may appear, so I would like to just ask that some leeway is given time-wise. User:Cirt also commented that the WP:LEAD is short - true. I think the article needs to be fixed first and then the lead worked as a summary of the article. For that reason I haven't touched the lead, but I agree it needs updating. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Checklist
 * 1) Merge personal life and film and television sections into article - completed.
 * 2) Add alt text for each image - completed
 * 3) Fix disamb links - completed
 * 4) Check all sources - about half way to completed. completed
 * 5) General copyedit - about half way to completed. completed
 * 6) Fix lead - leaving until article is fixed.  Have not started.  Rossrs (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Integrated material from the 3 sources suggested below by User:YellowMonkey Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment As long as work is ongoing or can be started in a reasonable period from now, the FAR will stay open. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is ongoing, and I will make a note here when the points above have each been addressed. Rossrs (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still ongoing. In line with discussion on Talk:Madonna (entertainer), I am going to remove the comments of Miki Berenyi and Ian Brown (one of which I originally added).   If they have an axe to grind we don't need to give them a platform.  Neither of them have anything to do with Minogue, neither of them are qualified to speak on behalf on the entire music industry, their comments do not help to balance criticism in the article as there is plenty of it given, in context throughout the article, and we don't need to add negative comments just for the sake of it.  We don't know if they're jealous and if given half the chance they'd like to swap places with Minogue.  They may be valid comments or they may be sour grapes.   They aren't placed into any context, and as such they just don't add anything of value.  Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Update Moved footnotes to immediately after punctuation with no source, standardised the book sources with ndash and all that.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are inconsistent in refs. Do we want italics or not? Do we want BBC or BBC News?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been going through from the beginning to standardise, so the first half uses one format and the second half another. I know it looks patchy but there are so many sources, it's taking time to update.  Regarding BBC or BBC News (and other pages cited), I'd be inclined to go with what is on the source page.  I'll go through and check. Thanks for your comments, by the way! :-)  Rossrs (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Scholarly analysis? I found this on google books. Analyses Minogue's style and impact. May be useful  YellowMonkey   ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Biog Although it might be a bit soapy. Not sure  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Case study in marketing/image textbook here  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These are very good. Will continue fixing the cites and then refer to these for additional information.  Thanks ! Rossrs (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, balance and focus, lead, structure, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ref 17 is broken. There's a bit of overlinking of common terms (breast cancer, Latin America). Overall, though, this is looking loads better. Have YellowMonkey's sources been incorporated yet? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I've added one point from the first one listed, but I'm still working on fixing the citations/links.  Almost finished, but I've been short of time lately and it's come to a halt.  In the next couple of days, I hope that aspect is dealt with.  I think it's looking better too, and it's nice to read someone else saying so.   :-)  Rossrs (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, now I have. I've also updated the checklist above.  I'm having trouble with the lead but it'll eventuate. Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Sub-section titled 1968–1986: Early life and career beginnings tends to use Kylie for subject of article, whereas the rest of the article tends to use Minogue. Should this be resolved or is there a special reason for its use in that sub-section that I don't see?shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 11:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That section discusses the comparative careers of, and the relationship between Kylie and her sister, Dannii. They can only be distinguished by using their given names rather than "Minogue", which is used throughout the rest of the article to refer to Kylie.  In later parts of the article Dannii is mentioned infrequently as "Dannii Minogue".  I think it all fits per WP:MOSBIO.  Rossrs (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the point you're making, however consider Family members with the same surname sub-section of the WP:BIO page. I have two issues with the 1968–1986 sub-section in Kylie's article:
 * Should we have Dannii Minogue and Brendan Minogue on their first mentions? They can be Dannii and Brendan thereafter.
 * Kylie is referred to as Minogue in last sentence of first paragraph of this sub-section. This fits with WP:MOSBIO. The next paragraph could be slightly re-worded to start with "The two sisters began their careers as children on Australian television.[3] From the age of twelve, Minogue appeared in small" Subsequent appearances of Kylie in this sub-section can be Minogue and Dannii can stay Dannii. I believe this still differentiates the sisters sufficiently and fits WP:BIO better, however I can go with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would work. From MOSBIO - "Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately" (is correct).   Therefore I think "Kylie Ann Minogue was born.... her sister Dannii... her brother Brendan...." is correct.    It would be incorrect to say "Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan arrived seperately" because the second use of "Reagan" would be redundant.   I think if we said " "Kylie Ann Minogue was born.... her sister Dannii Minogue... her brother Brendan Minogue...." would also make the uses of "Minogue" redundant.   They each have the same parents, and if they didn't we would then make a distinction.   Just my opinion, but I think it reads better as it, and it does not conflict with MOSBIO.   Using Michael Jackson as an example, the article says, "Jackson had three sisters: Rebbie, La Toya, and Janet, and five brothers: Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, and Randy."   The alternative would be "Jackson had three sisters: Rebbie Jackson, La Toya Jackson, and Janet Jackson, and five brothers: Jackie Jackson, Tito Jackson, Jermaine Jackson, Marlon Jackson, and Randy Jackson."  I know there are only 3 "Minogues" but the principal is the same.
 * You're right about "Minogue" being used out of place in the first paragraph. Maybe "The Minogue children were raised..." would be better.   They grew up in the same house and attended the same school, so that would work.   I believe you are technically correct in saying that by MOSBIO we should be using "Minogue" first and then Dannii subsequently and that is exactly how the rest of the article is done, but in this section, where both are being discussed simulantaneously and in relation to each other, 'technically correct' would still be more confusing than it needs to be.   I think for simplicity of reading they should be "Kylie" and "Dannii" (and "Brendan") in this section only.   Michael Jackson (again) is referred to throughout the article as "Jackson" except in some areas where individual family members are discussed, Michael Jackson is referred to as "Michael".  It makes it easier to read.  There is also one instance in Janet Jackson where she is referred to as "Janet" so that it's clear which Jackson is being discussed.   I think in this section of the article, the Minogues are in a similar position.  Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, as I said i'm happy to go with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad you're OK with that.   I'm also glad that you've looked at the article while it is being reviewed.  The more people who look at it, the better.  Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead section. I think the article is now at the required standard, and I can't think of anything else to do with it. Rossrs (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect use of hyphens ( Showgirl - The Greatest Hits Tour ); unsure if the article prefers spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the ovelinking (lots of "chain" links, and "BBC News" linked in ref, where their site is the link target next to it?). Quick look through the prose: looks pretty good. "highest-selling" with hyphen (minor point). I've been bold and enlarged some of the pics: MoS does not impose the restrictions we thought it did, and if WP has free use of these, they should be viewable without squinting. See what you think and revert if there's a problem. Tony   (talk)  11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about the "other uses" and "see also" bit at the top of the article. I think it looks like clutter, and considering that she has an album called Kylie and two (!) cleverly titled Kylie Minogue albums, I don't think it's particularly useful, and that a single "for other uses" serves the purpose. I've removed it, but I put it back because I'm really not sure other people think of it. If I could see its usefulness, I wouldn't bother, but I can't see it. Rossrs (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't really going anywhere. What else needs fixing?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this was listed in July, there have been substantial changes, particularly in the updating and verification of sources, so it has definitely 'gone somewhere' and listing it for review was definitely a worthwhile thing. It seems to have stagnated now.  If there's nothing new to be said, when can this be closed? Rossrs (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll close it. Any last work can be taken up on article talk. Marskell (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.