Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1

Demi Lovato

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Demi_Lovato/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept' Sourcing concerns looks to have been sorted. Just a few notes on sources to anyone watching this. Sources aren't automatically unreliable (even the daily mail despite some reports). It all depends on context and what information they are used to support. For example an official tweet is perfectly reliable for the content of that tweet. Whether this is important enough for us to mention is another issue and something that may need stronger secondary sources to help decide. AIR corn (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting this up for community GAR because I've tried to improve this article in the past, but it seems to have deteriorated over time, and I'm not so sure it's worthy of being a GA anymore. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are some issues I find:


 * Prose: I've seen better. For example, "cracked" in "cracked the top 40" might not be the best tone. Also, the 2011–2012 section just jumps into "That month, Lovato also announced her departure from Sonny with a Chance" without any context. "The song also Lovato's highest-peaked single" seems like it's missing the word "because". For, "his fourth studio album, entitled 'Up'", the album should be italicized. On the other hand, tour names shouldn't be italicized. Additionally, the sentence "The entertainer has agreed to write a memoir, which is expected to be published in 2014" is clearly outdated when it's now 2017.
 * Referencing: There's a bunch of dead links, and many subpar sources such as Twitter, YouTube, "HealthyCeleb.com", Fox News, Refinery29, "Ocean Up", MySpace, Zap2It, TMZ, Daily Mail, Us Weekly, Gossip Cop, and "Crushable". Not so sure about things like "OVGuide", "Disney Dreaming", "Sugar Slam" "Family History Insider", Cambio, or "Family Tree Maker". The article is missing citations for "The album's second and final single, 'Remember December' failed to match the success of its predecessor, but it peaked at number 80 on the UK Singles Chart" as well as the entire "Awards and nominations" section.
 * Coverage: Another major concern. There's nothing on the lyrical themes of her albums within "Artistry" or any general comments on her songwriting (whether from critics or Demi herself). Furthermore, aside from the Camp Rock movies, this article doesn't say much about her films; the only other production she appears in that's even mentioned within article prose is the documentary Demi Lovato: Stay Strong. I also am surprised this doesn't go into tour earnings, and that the "voice" section doesn't have any criticisms when she's not overall held in globally high regard.
 * Neutrality: Given the above note on (lack of) criticisms, it's probably undue weight to solely have "voice" contain positive comments.
 * Stability: Seems OK to me.
 * Media: No copyright concerns as far as I can tell, though File:Demi Lovato crop.jpg and File:DemiLovatoSep10 4.jpg aren't really ideal when they somewhat block her face.

Overall, this article doesn't seem up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The references really are a mess - 11 are dead, #42 redirects to something completely different (I guess absolute punk.net doesn't exist any more?...), #54 is unknown, #13 is absolutely not a reliable source and it doesn't back up the statement it is attached to. For a WP:BLP, I find the state of the referencng in this article to be very troubling. Also, re: the lead section/MOS issues - is it necessary to list all those awards? Shearonink (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Update. All the dead URLs have been fixed, I think. The questionable source remains.  danny music editor  Speak up! 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing dead links, and yes; there are still many subpar sources. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some guideline which allows Twitter and YouTube to be used as sources? I see them on many GAs, and they seem acceptable. Read a GA review at one point which mentioned a WP Policy statement regarding this type of media, but I forget the subject which was being reviewed and I don't remember the shortcut. This instance may well fail that guideline anyway.  danny music editor  Speak up! 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCIALMEDIA says things like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr can be used in limited circumstances (i.e. non-contentious claims) while WP:YOUTUBE says to take caution for copyright concerns. Overall, both sites are discouraged as citations, especially when credible third-party sources can be used in place. In any case, I wouldn't recommend using them here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced one Daily Mail citation with a cite to Variety. There still remains another cite to Daily Mail which is trickier. The quote was apparently published in Latina magazine but I can find no reliable source with that online. I would think one could cite directly to the magazine, but as I have not seen the actual magazine, I am hesitant to do so.
 * I'll continue to try and improve the sourcing because I do think the issues with this article are fixable and it's always a good idea to try and fix problems with Good Articles. Some of the source may not be that bad. My understanding is that some sources should be evaluated on a case by case basis whereas the Daily Mail has been disallowed totally. Also, I think it might be worthwhile to post directly to the article talk page with some of the ideas that need to be expanded upon the the article. I know it's not required, but given that the article has over 800 watchers, an extra nudge or two might be helpful. Knope7 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Another question: Perhaps it's because I've never tried this, but do you have a reason why Fox News is not RS?  danny music editor  Speak up! 12:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they're known to often distort things with their bias (particularly political subjects). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 12:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this for your left political standpoint, or would you say so with other more liberal publications as well? I don't see many of either side. I mean, yes, you're right, sometimes FOX does distort things, but maybe first we should see if any of the material in that calls for a reasonable amount of doubt. It is a major news feed. Perhaps you could refer me to another discussion on this matter rather than this GAR, if one exists? Is said instance a political article cited in a musician's article on Wikipedia? That sounds bizarre at first thought, but I'll read up on it later.  danny music editor  Speak up! 14:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say other liberal publications (particularly things like MSNBC and Huffington Post) also often distort things with their biases. It has nothing to do with my personal affiliations (though for the record, I'm more central ground than right wing or left wing). Anyway, I'm not sure I'd quite call it Daily Mail-level bad (which is notorious for fabrication as noted on RSN), but it's far from the strongest publication available and not something I'd recommend either way. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree if this were an article about politicians, but for an article about a singer/actress, I'm less concerned about Fox's typical bias. Maybe if the topic is her political views I would be more critical, but for example footnote 213 links to a Fox News article quoting Lovato's own words about being bipolar. With reliability, we are supposed to look at the likelihood that something is fact checked and accurate. I think this is an example where we can rely on Fox. That generally goes along with what I am finding when checking some of the sources in this article, that even if the website wouldn't be an appropriate source at all times, it's reliable for it's use. Knope7 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Twitter
Okay, so I've looked around to try and eliminate Twitter first as long as there are other sources which are deemed reliable. Replaced one already. About the one in Kenya: I have found several sources, but I don't know which ones would be acceptable. I have brought them here. The reason I'm unsure is because I've never heard of these sources before, but look legit. What say you guys? If this won't do, it looks like it might meet WP:SOCIALMEDIA, but I'd rather replace it.  danny music editor  Speak up! 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Can't comment on Borgen Magazine since I'm not familiar with that, but MTV is definitely viable here and what I'd recommend the most from those three. PR Newswire is a press release site that might be fine for non-contentious claims, but secondary sources are preferable when available. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)