Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna/2

Madonna (entertainer)

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: kept There are still some minor nigglings, and I encourage indopug to keep working with the article's editors if he wishes to, but general consensus here is that it's back up to GA standards. giggy (O) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The length of this page (59kb) was getting slightly ridiculous, so I've restarted it. Find everything so far here. I'll ping everyone involved. giggy (O) 11:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Restart a GAR? Is this even legal? :) indopug (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If FAC can, I figure we can. I mean, worst comes to worst, pages load faster. Dang. :) giggy (O) 12:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one of FAC's weaker procedures, and there are indications that a more appropriate archiving procedure will be used in the future. GAR discussions can be closed as "No consensus" and then a new discussion can be started. This is what I will do. Please bear with me. Geometry guy 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now done. Please adjust your watchlists accordingly. Geometry guy 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, glad to have that other LONG nightmare off my watchlist lol. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A restart? Nice. The preceding one would generate no concensus. --Efe (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The references are still in desperate need of consistent formatting. It doesn't much matter which format you use, as long as the references include the pertinent information (last access date, publisher, author, etc.) and are written in the same manner. --Kakofonous (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out which ones need formatting? We closed this issue in last GAR. Further, most web sources here don't mention any author and dates vary per the cite templates being used (accessdates are used only if a url is present, not for the books or DVDs.) Ultra! 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a requirement; it could only be a suggetion in the context of GA. Maybe you want to check the reliability of the sources used to conform GA's second criterion? --Efe (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist The article is huge and goes into unnecessary detail. No need to even mention lists of singles (""Live to Tell", "Papa Don't Preach", "Open Your Heart" and "True Blue""); that's what a discography is for. Only mention a single if it is to be significantly discussed. For example: "Like a Prayer" and the Vatican. To further cut down the size, replace the Billboard refs with the Allmusic one; although come to think of it, we should not really be dealing with chart positions so much (remember discographies?). Too much recentism in the article too, sadly: "Madonna opposes United States President George W. Bush" indopug (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the first GAR again. These are successful single in one album, so they get a line. All Music is not suitable for a BLP as it collects info from any registered Tom, Dick and Harry. Check its policy pages. And is there excess of charting stated? Just Top 10 numbers! Finally recentism isn't even a GA criterion. All your points are invalid. Ultra! 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 200+ FAs use Allmusic (plenty BLPs too; no objections are raised ever about it at FAC either), re-add the studio album list as its mandatory and standard, summary style is a GA criterion (so it shouldn't go into too much detail in some periods of her life), Wikipedia hates the United World chart now (AfD and all), and stop shouting. indopug (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Madonna has so many top ten singles that mentioning them all becomes excessive. indopug (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People cannot put size complaints and refraing from going to the navs for her discog. And I don't get it: Should size be allowed to affect comprehensiveness of a VA? And Wikipedia does not aim at hating anything, even if UWC gets deleted it's a record anyway. Ultra! 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The singles, I trimmed some. Ultra! 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No size is not a consideration, excessive detail is. A biography is supposed to critically discuss her career, chart position after chart position (esp for a consistent chart topper like Madonna) will affect the readability of the prose and the interest of the reader. By "hate" I was being figurative; anyway, including her "record" on the UWC is about as notable as her being the top-selling artist on "indopug's list of fantastic record sales". The UWC has been deemed completely unrecognised and their system of charting has been found to be rather arbitrary. Their opinion/statistics on anything doesn't matter one bit; just like mine doesn't. indopug (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, find a source for "Indopug's list of fantastic record sales"! Let'sa just leave it aside (! line won't harm anything). And I am removing non-notable singles. Ultra! 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done till Ray of light. Ultra! 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) OK. find a reliable source for the UWC thing. That mediatraffic thing is not reliable by the way. I can't understand why you would want to go against community consensus regarding the UWC and include the chart; there are plenty of non-notable publications out there, each with their own ""Best. Artist. Ever", some apparently even backed up by "statistics". indopug (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They're both the same. See this search. Ultra! 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to American charts, they are 16 (not counting country, soul, other genres and multiple Billboards here) They don't contain her as any top record holder. Ultra! 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my head hurts. Back to square one. Ill look through the article AGAIN and collect my list of complaints together. :-( — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist - Sources still need formatting, not pleased with the lead it really doesnt sum up who Madonna is very well, not happy that a lot of worthwhile material was deleted instead of sourced (a lot of it seemed geninuely worthy), pros are poor in some areas. Many sources dont watch up with what the article actually says (as you will see, I investigated this on the previous page... to my alarm). Oh and I removed that United world chart source, its been denounced as unreliable, the site should probably be added to the spam list to stop people using it. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Current refs need retrieve dates #19,20,58,93,107 & 108. #37 & 128 have retrieve errors. #23 should be MTV, not Mtv. #42 looks really bare and simplistic. For #48, you cant use 50 pages from a book. It is impossible for someone to check that. You either need to be more specific/find another source/remove. Also looking at the refs, a lot of them have extra sentances tagged on giving extra details, I dont think its needed and makes the article longer and the sources messy. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dates, spell, pg nos., ref quotes done. Note - #42 is the way to cite a book whose full detail is already in earlier refs. Ultra! 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the refs are good now (you could trim #204 a little), ive crossed out that as one of my concerns although others might disagree. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trimmed 204 further, But how to improve lead? I added a Catholic church line. Ultra! 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For a 90K article the lead should be four paragraphs, with each paragraph at least as long (on average) as the current three. Please read WP:LEAD and expand the lead while concentrating on the most significant aspects discussed in the body of the article. Geometry guy 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I will add that currently the lead doesnt touch on the latter parts of the article. The lead should be an overview of the article in some respects. —  Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What latter parts? One line on her two marriages, (one on adoption?), Kabbalah, Politics... Which one gets the most importance so as to be in lead? Ultra! 21:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Politics definately not important. Marriage/children/adoption should be included (she is a human being not just a singer remember :-)). The kabbalah thing might be worth including as its her religion and is important to who she is, however only 1 line on that. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Family and adoption done. What next? Ultra! 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Add some stuff about kabbalah, then its best to wait and see wat others thing of the lead. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that formatting references are not a requirement in the context of GA. --Efe (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep formatting of sources is an FAC issue. Here the standard as 2(a) reads is that information be sourced.  not sourced consistently.  In terms of the WP:LEAD, her performing career is adequately represented in the lead. What is missing in my opinion is her role as a fashion/style icon and trendsetter.  In this regard, people like Joanne Gair should be linked to the article.  Joanne who? you ask.  That you have to ask is why it is not sufficiently deficient to be knocked down from WP:GA.  Many a good GA has substantive omissions that are not adequately sourced.  For a biography that is sufficiently complex that it could exceed the limits of WP:SIZE if fully chronicled to WP:FA standards, there will always be omitted substance at a GA level.  The way to read this restarted article is to ignore deleted material from prio GAR discussion and look at the article as it stands.  I am not going to investigate deleted material.  If it is looks good now, I don't care what has been deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right not EVERYTHING needs a source, but I at least expect to see whats in the source match the claims the article makes.— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist Far too much unnecessary detail. There is no critical analysis of her musical or vocal talent. A huge chunk of the article, including her personal life section could be moved to a separate article- Madonna in popular culture -as long as it conforms to guidelines presented by WikiProject Popular Culture. Jayne Mansfield in popular culture and Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II are examples. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what pop culture is? Personal life isn't even culture! These things aren't unnecessary. Ultra! 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And what makes you say there is no critical analysis? Lots of critic words are in already. Ultra! 07:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of going on for three section about the details of the personal life, which no professional biography would do, you can use that space to gather critical analysis of her voice, register, vocal range, musical genres and themes, and choreography. Most of the "critical analysis" in the article only mentions if critics gave an overall pass or fail, without mentioning her voice, production, arrangement, etc. Her personal relationships are all mentioned within the body of the article, they shouldn't be repeated in a separate section. her work at the kabbalah center is fancruft at best. its not a notable aspect of her career as an entertainer and typically only gathers media coverage when people attempt to mock her for it (hence pop culture). The adoption controversy is basically the same thing. The media only cared cause it involved Madonna, it had no impact on her overall career. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you have zero understanding of what a BLP is. It has to cover all about the person's life. And Kabbalah is fancruft? You're just wasting my time. Ultra! 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kabbalah, in and of itself is not fancruft- the media coverage of Madonna's practice is. Its not something she set out of be shoved into the public eye. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Asking for critical analysis of the singer's style is of FA requirement. Maybe a little touch on what music she sings and lyrics she write. --Efe (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can anyone provide specific examples of remaining citation-related issues - or has that been resolved? Overall I'm pleased with the improvements to the article. Majoreditor (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Half of them are missing details on their Auther and retrieve date. Some still arent formatted at all I believe. Ive seen one that had a retrieve date of 1984 lol. Even though that do have retrieved dates have inconsistancies (Retrieved April 23, 2006) & (Retrieved on 2008-02-09). Tke a look at some of the refs in the early-mid 130's as an example or poor ones. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 05:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the 100th time I say this: all sources listed don't have authors. And retrieve dates are meant for urls only. Ultra! 07:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct and I can see web sources with NO retrieve date.— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 08:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Retrieve dates are meant to online sources or offline sources with online links. --Efe (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. Are there specific citations which don't support corresponding statements in the article? In other words - are there citation issues other than format-related problems? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to personally finish checking the other half of the article (I guess no1 else will help) to answer that question. My gut instinct would say definately yes considering what I saw in the 1st half. Unfortunately it takes about 2 hours to check half the article for its accuracy. I can get it done later today hopefully. Sorry for miss understanding your original question. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments to refresh
These are comments to help refresh the page.

Generally, with these suggestions and minor fixes, the article is going to earn the GA quality. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs some minor fixes throughout like missing commas and tweak-need punctuations, improper format, and the like. I will try to fix some.
 * The lead does not substantially summarizes the article. Madonna is consistently mentioned throughout in the article her being “sexually oriented” is not mentioned in the lead. I mean the backlash from religious sectors, which really define what kind of music/lyric Madonna sings. It would really help; as a non-Madonna fan and as a mere reader, I summarizes the article as Sex. =) (Also, there is no mention of her relationships/personal life.)
 * I've begun mentions of it earlier. Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article lacks something: Madonna's "musical identity". Lyrics are no requirement anymore in this GAR because there are mentions of lyrics (like that of having sexual innuendos and the like); but with a whooping eleven albums, I believe Madonna has established a music that somewhat identifies her in the industry. I think it would be better to add a little (not very detailed, though; this is GA). You can probably merge this to the influences section, like "Influences and style". Writing this would provide her being identified as pop artist, as mentioned in the lead.
 * Influences already contains these things! Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, she is identified as songwriter and author but nothing could be found in the article. I think songwriting could be merged in the suggested section above? The author? What about her authorship? Author of books? I cannot find it. Maybe she is only an occasional author and would be better if not mentioned in the lead.
 * There are no mentions of her being a fashion designer? And using guitar and percussion? (As reflected in the infobox. But these requests are up to you. You can add or not. But in FAC, I believe this will be scrutinized).
 * The whole article, especially in the career section, seems to be suffering from proseline. Although paragraphs are not stubby, almost all begin with a date.
 * There are inconsistencies: "number one" and "# 1". I would prefer the former. Also, there are some MoS issues on numbers. 1 to 9 should be in words. Anyway, I’ll try fixing them. But please help me. =)
 * What happened to the commercial and/or critical performance of Madonna's debut album? Another instance of gap.
 * What is the relevance of this part to her recording and film career: "In 1988, city officials in the town of Pacentro began to construct a 13-foot (4 m) statue of Madonna in a bustier.[41] The statue commemorates the fact that her ancestors had lived in Pacentro.[42]" It could be transferred to related section below.
 * Down there, these 2 line would make a hopelessly stubby para! Any better suggestion. Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As suggested. This topic is just a mere addition in that part (the present) and not an additional idea. So it would be better to put it in the right place, and merge to related para under related section. --Efe (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some album releases that go nowhere. For instance, Bedtime Stories is only supported by released singles. How about the commercial performance?
 * And what is the relevance of the plagiarism?
 * It caused a ban. Ultra! 07:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This part seems to be fitting in the related section below: "In January 2005, Madonna performed a cover version of the John Lennon song "Imagine" on the televised U.S. aid concert "Tsunami Aid", which raised money for the tsunami victims in Asia.[107] In July 2005, Madonna performed at the Live 8 benefit concert in London, run in support of the aims of the UK's Make Poverty History campaign and the Global Call for Action Against Poverty.[108] Her performances of "Like a Prayer", "Ray of Light" and "Music" were included in the Live 8 DVD.[109]"
 * Second para under the same sub-section: "In September 1994, while walking in Central Park, Madonna met fitness trainer Carlos Leon who became her personal trainer and lover.[179] On October 14, 1996, Madonna gave birth to Lourdes Maria Ciccone Leon in Los Angeles, California. Madonna then dated Andy Bird…." There is a gap. Madonna had relationship with Leon and then just gave birth and then date another man named Andy Bird.
 * "Singer and humanitarian activist, Bono, defended her by saying, "Madonna should be applauded for helping to take a child out of the worst poverty imaginable and giving him a better chance in life."[193] Her friend Gwyneth Paltrow also credited her as a inspiration for future adoption plans.[194]" Seems fancrufty?
 * Why? I've said the adoption is essentially reception. Right now, there isn't any detail about what words tabloids used (nor do I think it's needed). Blatant fancruft would have been the words of blogs on fansites or rather any third person who comments on all this in some interview (Eg. Angelina Jolie praising her act on people.com but still panning it as illegal). Bono and Paltrow are closely related. Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, its up to you. --Efe (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "If Scientology makes Tom Cruise happy," she said, "I don't care if he prays to turtles." This part is fancrufty/excessive. Others do not know who Cruise is and the quotation itself is very vague and disjointing (not to mention it not being so related).
 * Cleaned up Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Political views section is not well-established. It is a mere of a collection of political views. Seems not important.
 * Merged Ultra! 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done with all, except some of your cruft claims. Adoption is essentially a perception of other people/groups etc. Ultra! 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which comments you believe are crufty? We will discuss it. --Efe (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with many of Efe's suggestions. However, I wonder if this article is being held to standards which exceed GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you spot some of comments exceeding the GA criteria? Is so, please reflect it here. I'll be happy to remove them. --Efe (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly, GA is getting harder and harder - like it should. I just think its attracting a lot of people thus you get a lot more ideas/complaints. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 18:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I firmly disagree with both of of the first two statements: GA is not getting harder and harder; nor should it. It is the job of FA to push the quality envelope; the job of GA is to provide a minimum quality threshold. For instance the GA inline citation requirements are considerably weaker than they were a year ago.
 * Ideas for improving the article are great, but the list-delist consensus is based on the GA criteria, not on whether editors like the article or not, nor on how hard editors think GA should be. Geometry guy 19:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me correct myself, GA isnt getting harder but reviewers are getting better (for the most part lol). I dont think anyone here is saying delist because they dislike madonna/the article. That said in recent hours the main editer has made a lot of pleasing improvements and aside some concerns about the lead ..... — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note; Realist2 struck his comment here. I agree with Majoreditor, and am very tempted to just close this up... it's getting slightly ridiculous. giggy (O) 10:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Final update
Thanks to the contributions of many reviewers and editors, this article has been greatly improved. Some of the issues raised have gone beyond the GA requirements, but it is a good thing that the article has been improved accordingly. However, we need to get back to purely GA issues and close this discussion. I don't see a strong will to delist any more, in which case the article will remain a GA by default. However, it would be much better for GAR to endorse that it meets the criteria (up to a few subjective issues of interpretation) by making further fixes if necessary.
 * I also felt that my suggestion are beyond GA. But its only suggestions. The editor has the freedom to address them or not. But some of those are realy helpful. Like for instance, there are some passages that needs clarification (1a). --Efe (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize a few remaining issues raised, their relation to the GA criteria, and my view on whether they remain an issue.
 * Inconsistant formatting of references. This is not explicitly in the criteria, but it has been raised frequenty (as a combination of criterion 1 and footnote 2) that there should be some consistency in the references. In my view the current article is still imperfect in this respect, but not enough to delist it (and it has improved greatly). In particular, I don't consider access retrieve dates to be a GA issue.
 * I noted on the above discussions that there concerns are beyond GA. There is a concern raised above if the sources are verifiable; none checked about it. Additionally, no one checked if those sources are reliable. Therefore, there "delist" is invalid. --Efe (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Too long, unnecessary detail, recentism. Length is not a GA criterion (and 88K is reasonable anyway), so the relevant issue is broadness and focus (criterion 3). I agree that the article could be improved by a more authoritative approach to the history, and less focus on recent events, but it seems pretty broad to me, and does not digress too much.
 * Agree. What now if its long? The question is if (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). --Efe (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't sum up who Madonna is very well. The lead needs both to introduce the subject and summarize the article. This is a GA requirement. The current lead focuses too much on whether Madonna is critically acclaimed or not. In my view it needs a complete rewrite.
 * I pointed out in my above suggestion to add something in the lead. --Efe (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I also remain unsure about the proseline aspect of the "relationships" section (aka List of people dated by Madonna). If this and the lead were fixed, I'd be inclined to endorse the article's GA status. If other editors summarize their view below purely in terms of GA criteria, this would be helpful in closing this discussion. Geometry guy 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did promise myself that I would stay out of this, but I'm going to make my opinion clear, now that I have had time to reflect on the article, besides I started this mess. Delisting should'nt occur. Lets pretend that the article was always in this (good) condition, I would never dream of seeking a reassessment. No its not the best GA around but delisting really isn't the best option. The LEAD still hits me as weak but its not terrible. It would be better to work on a LEAD, as a group (maybe on the talk page) and let this go. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 23:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right Mr. --Efe (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its about the only clever thing Ive said all week. :-) — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead?
Ok What does it exactly need? I think we must decide this finally. Ultra! 10:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you include her music and her lyrics that are sexually-oriented. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Ultra! 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to fix the lead myself. My fix indicates the approximate length of a reasonable lead for this article, and also an appropriate structure per WP:MOSBIO and WP:LEAD. I've tried to pick out the most important points from the article, but since I'm completely ignorant about all things Madonna related, I may have got it wrong. Please fix, and also add citations where they seem necessary. If my restructuring is a disaster, revert and try something else. Geometry guy 21:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its good, i will just add... When she was doing SEX and Erotica, not only was it her critical low point but it was also a commercial low point (some people say that "America Life" was her commerical low point, there are mixed opinions on that). Needless to say, the period of SEX, Erotica and Bedtime story was a significant decline commercially. Hopefully you/someone can get that point across, I cant accurately do it myself. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention, but it may need cites. Geometry guy 22:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty crap source. Can you do better? Geometry guy 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I just reused one from the relevant part of the article, it only took 3 seconds but I dont mind digging up something stronger. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that might amuse you :-) Geometry guy 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE, ive written it so that it shows that the first half of the 90's (extending to Bedtime Stories) was a low point. Billboard is the source. It balances back nicely with her return to form in the late 1990's. Lol, I actually thing the early 90's was some of her best work.. oops! — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for the most unsuccessful work to be the best! If I ever try to appreciate Madonna, I think I will start there! :-) Geometry guy 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Okay, so my intention is to close this discussion as "keep with minor reservations". I think the progress on the article deserves much better than a "no consensus" keep-by-default result: it deserves a result which clearly states that the article at this date was basically sound, so that if it deteriorates and is challenged, editors can, as a last resort, revert. I will be away over the weekend, and will be happy to close the reassessment on Monday if there are no significant developments. However, any editor is welcome to close it based on the information here and responses to this comment. Geometry guy 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as Keep - I have no reservations, its a good article. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also believe, after much work, and many dedicated contributions from reviewers and editors, that this article meets the criteria, Geometry guy 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my Keep from above if this section is a reset of some sort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead is quite awful; not sure why her husbands need to be mentioned nor that long diatribe about how sexually themed her work is. That paragraph which dishes out statistic after statistic to describe how successful she's been can be cut by a sentence or two too. I'll try rewriting the lead the lead to more accurately summarise her entire career and legacy later today. indopug (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MOSBIO (e.g. #5), and reevaluate your comments in that light. Geometry guy 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indopug doesn't like stats in the lead, its not perfect, but this is GA not FA. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 01:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's much improved now and meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-improved per GA criteria, and even some of FA's. --Efe (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)