Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady Gaga/archive2

Lady Gaga
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I firmly believe that this article is capable of being a featured article. A peer review will make sure that this article is Featured Article worthy and make it one of Wikipedia's Best Articles.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have followed this article for many months and indeed it is rather good, perhaps because of the massive amount of viewers and contributors.
 * One aspect I would consider changing is the rather dull 1986–2004, 2005–07, 2008–present section headings.
 * You have any suggestions?
 * Another is the combining of 'The Fame, The Fame Monster and Born This Way' together. The Fame/Fame monster was a period of the first studio album. Born This Way/current events is a new chapter and so a fourth section heading seems appropriate.
 * Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why Born This Way was imncluded in the TF/TFM section was because of a consesnsus on talk page, and also, its premature to have a 2011 section when the year in question is not arriving now. Also, splitting it up is a wide case of WP:RECENTISM.


 * Billboard link (currently reference 48) is dead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope my comments are helpful. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from Laser brain
 * If you are planning to put this up for FA status, you will surely face inquiries about why you haven't used the print sources. Since several books have been written in the subject, you surely would need to consult them and determine what information is missing from the online sources. Print sources about celebrities tend to have much more detailed information.
 * That was because none of the authros writing on her was reliable, it is better to wait for someone reliable like Taraborrelli or Lucy O'Brien to release a book on her, than include text from iiotic authors, who copy the wikipedia articles.
 * I think the lead will need to be expanded a bit more—for example, you skip from going to NYU to signing with Streamline. From reading the full narrative, it seems that there were some other significant events in there that should be represented in the lead.
 * Yeah sure.
 * Attention is needed to Manual of Style issues such as WP:LQ. For example, if you end a sentence in a song title, the period never goes inside the closing quotation mark. If you end a sentence in a quotation, the period only goes inside if it's part of the quoted material. These types of things will trip you up at Featured article candidates.
 * Good point.
 * It is overlinked at times. In general, you link the first mention of something (like Queen) and then not again. Also, linking common terms like "drugs" is normally unnecessary.
 * What is the source for the information in the "Just Dance" sample caption?
 * Overall it seems well-written. I like how you worked various pieces of criticism into the narrative without making an overt "criticism" section. Nice work.
 * Thanks Laser brtain. 122.167.177.209 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)