Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Adam Levine/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crisco comments[edit]

  • Oppose for now. This needs a good copyedit (when one of the first sentences I read does not have a period, that gets pretty obvious), and there are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Check the order of your references, we shouldn't see [4][2] (for example), but [2][4]. Referencing format also needs some work (People (magazine) should be People, references like Kara's Flowers need fuller information). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Straightened out all the refs. Did a bit of copyediting too, is there more to be done? As for one-sentence paragraphs, the article only has two - the first line and the bit in Personal life about yoga. I don't think anything can be added to either of these to make them bigger, except maybe add The Voice coach stuff to the first. The same goes for the 4 two-sentence paras that the article has. All of them are too important to be deleted, but only have enough (significant) details for 2 sentences. GinaJay (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of the references still need formatting. Current FN51, 66, 89 etc. (BTW, what makes "Critic of Music" a reliable source)? Personal life still looks choppy... curious as to why we need to know all the detail about his yoga practice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted 51, changed ref 89, but what can be added to 66? It's a metacritic page, and I checked a featured article and its metacritic ref is the same. Also, think you were right about the yoga bit, so I cut it. About the entire section being "choppy" ... the only other details I can find on the engagement is random stuff about the ring, which seems unnecessary to me, and how Prinsloo "changed his views on marriage", which i guess could be added. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call on the ring, and I'd keep away from "changed his views on marriage" as that's usually hype along the lines "see how much he loves her" or vice versa. Still some serious work to do with the references: for web sources, you should have (at the very least) the URL, the title of the page, the date the page was published (if available), the publisher/website (each uses a different parameter in the template, so make sure to check), and the date the page was accessed. This information allows us to try and track down the information if a website goes dead (more detail at Link rot if you are interested). Personally, I backup all of my online references with http://www.webcitation.org, but that isn't a requirement.
Now, specific examples from the first ten citations:
  1. Needs the date the page was accessed
  2. Needs the date of publication (I think it's March 6, 2013, but you should double check)
  3. Needs the date of publication (October 17, 2012)
  4. Needs the date the page was accessed
  5. Needs the date the page was accessed
  6. Needs the date of publication (June 2012); Details (magazine) should be in the "work=" field as Details
  7. The Jewish Chronicle should be in the "work=" field
  8. Needs the date of publication (I think it's April 2, 2013)
  9. Needs the date of publication (August 28, 2002)
  10. Needs the publisher/work (Frenchwoods... what makes this reliable anyways) and date of publication (December 2011)'
That's a lot of fine-tuning (136 references, right?), but consistency and appropriate information are necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless article history is viewed to see when the reference was added, isn't it pretty much impossible to know the date it was accessed? That could take weeks, and neither WP:LR nor WP:CITEHOW seem to find an accessdate necessary. I like consistency and appropriate information as much as you do, trust me, but it doesn't seem to be a requisite, even for an FA.
Also, putting refs aside for the moment, what else on this article do you think needs work? GinaJay (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the information/page is still accessible today, there's no reason that you couldn't just add today's date as the accessdate... J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. One of the main reasons for including the accessdate is to show a date when the site was known to still be in operation/available. Doesn't matter too much (for most pages) if this is the actual accessdate, so long as the site was still available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added all the access and publishing dates as per your command. Well, almost all, the chart refs don't have much in the way of info and so I didn't change them. So, are we done with references? GinaJay (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly. FN131 still needs a title, FN107 is not formatted as the rest, and some references have just a month for the access date. There's also the issue with mixed date formatting, but I took care of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting the date formats right. So ... gave 131 a title, replaced 107, but I didn't notice any access dates with only a month. Which ref is that? GinaJay (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 108. I also just noticed that three references do not seem to use the same format (i.e. they use "accessed..." instead of "retrieved..."; please double check to ensure that all references are formatted similarly. Citation templates like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} will help greatly). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding WP:CITEHOW: it states explicitly "the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)" for webpages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done. So are references OK now? GinaJay (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough for me to strike the oppose (but that wasn't meant as a detailed source review, so there may be more issues). I'll try and check the images after supper, and if those are in order go to a prose review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Overall there are a few issues, but none of them deal breakers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Adam Levine.JPG can be replaced with this, this or this after cropping. As for File:Maroon 5 - This Love live.jpg, the only two images of him from around that time (that hasn't already been used in the article) is File:Adam Levine of Maroon 5.jpg and File:Maroon 5 1286796956.jpg. Neither of the two are going to win Pulitzers, but which one is preferable? GinaJay (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. So does the un-vignetted image. Will replace them in the article asap. GinaJay (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. How's this going? GinaJay (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried, not as good as I hoped for though. It's ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have nothing against the image in the article (doesn't look all that blurry in the thumbnail). If all else fails, there are always images of Maroon 5 performing. I think this one's your call. Whichever one it is, I don't mind as long as it's 2007/08. GinaJay (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is the 2007 image in the article staying? GinaJay (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that image is fine.
  • Address the "when" tag
Done. GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get you. He got each of them on separate occasions, as a part of Maroon 5, is what I meant by that sentence. So, yeah, as a group. Should that be added? GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go "As part of Maroon 5, Levine..." as "with Maroon 5" could be read as during the time he was with the group (but not necessarily as a part of the group). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall the lede is a bit too oriented towards recent events. It should provide a general overview (born where, etc. etc.)
Added birthplace and all the albums. GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too many "also"s
Not more than one "also" in every paragraph now. That reasonable? GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too heavy on the quotes.
Reduced a quote in early life ('I felt as though ...') and cut out one in Kara's Flowers. GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in New York, he worked a two-week stint as a waiter at Johnny Rockets. - Not really relevant to his career
Removed that.GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underlinking: some of these genres should be linked, as "country" (for instance) may not be recognised outside the US
Linked country and folk.GinaJay (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • offered his vocals - that doesn't sound encyclopedic
Changed.
  • Levine has made four notable comic appearances on television. - overall how many has he had? I don't think "notable" should be included here, as it does not impart information
It does restrict "comic appearances" though. The Voice is mildly funny, but it wouldn't be notable, so it's not mentioned. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levine is a contestant judge/coach on the reality talent TV show, - since when?
Added. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • inked a first-look deal what is this saying? They drafted a legal agreement?
Pretty much. changed "inked" to "entered" and linked first-look deal. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August that year, NBC picked up a script for a semi-autobiographical single-camera sitcom, based on a younger Levine and his roommate, Korean-American writer Gene Hong, who will pen the pilot. The entry will be produced by Universal Television and 222 Productions, and was slated to go into production in late 2013. - Mixing tenses here.
Corrected. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rozzi Crane - who's this?
Added some background. GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel that this article is too quote heavy.
Deleted two in business ventures. shortened one in personal life. That's probably not enough. Any particular sections you think the quotes are overused? GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the when tags, can't find info for the how tag ("...confirmed that fans would be able to take part in the design process.") The fans just participate, period. Should it be removed, then? GinaJay (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final batch
  • He aspired to be in a band since an young age. - isn't this redundant to the "age 10" bit above?
Removed GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also incorporates The Police and Prince into his music. - I'm quite certain he is unable to play a Sting#. Might want to be clearer that it is elements from their music he plays/incorporates into his own work, rather than the bands themselves.
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the question of numbers of quotes, try copying the article into word and then removing the quotes. Right now the article is at 26498 characters (4465 words). Try seeing how much it is without quotes. If it is near 30 or 40%, as I think it is now, that's almost certainly too much.
Taking the total number of words as 4465, the quotes make up 23%. Removed some. GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the band's most successful single to date, - to date is unclear. Most successful single as of (2013?)
Since they won't be releasing a new album anytime soon, I've changed it to "as of 2014" GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their guitarist Valentine also noted that his vocals were a central aspect around which their music revolved. - that "also" has no purpose here
Removed. GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • hot mic - non-encyclopedic
See below.
  • The entire "I hate this country" paragraph reeks of WP:RECENTISM. It has not had a serious impact on Levine's career, and was basically a blip. Nobody will recall it even in a year. I'd nuke the paragraph.
Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will search, soon. GinaJay (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything conclusive. GinaJay (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Adam_Levine/archive1&oldid=590809926"