Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)[edit]

Originally nominated as Autobiography (album), now a disambig page

All right, it's been a month since I last nominated this, and I've worked on it extensively. A great deal of information has been added—particularly on international chart positions; the info had been too U.S.-centric before—and I've worked hard to try to eliminate the positive slant that some people believed existed in the text, in addition to placing the album in better cultural context. Self-critically, I've decided that in November it probably wasn't quite up to featured standard, but now I think it's more or less there. The only information I'd like to have in the article that isn't already there is information that seems to be impossible to find in any of the available sources. Everyking 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The coverage is improved, but the prose is still terrible. Ambi 12:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe it is. I don't really think so...which parts are bad? The whole thing? I asked you to discuss this before, but you dropped it after a while, so I figured that meant you didn't have any more objections. Everyking 12:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I hate getting into spats with people, so I dropped it. That doesn't mean my objections have changed any. Ambi 23:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Slight object. I don't see a problem with the prose, but I think the article is a bit too big and contains some fancruft. For example, do we need to know the album's position for every week it was on the charts? Do we need all that trivial information on promotion? The SNL incident could use some fleshing out too. It's not clear what the nature of the backing track was — a reader might think it was instrumental and wonder how people could accuse her of lip synching. That the article says she was accused of it seems a bit POV to me. I mean, suddenly vocals come on, and she's just holding the microphone at waist-level. There's no hard evidence she lip-synched, but that's almost certainly damning, and should be clarified. Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not damning, because what she was doing was singing with a backing track—there's a distinction there, and we shouldn't blur our definitions. Anyway, the SNL incident isn't worth much space in an article about the album. It could have its own article—I'd rather it didn't, but OK—but it ought to be treated briefly here. The article does say vocal backing track, so I don't see why anybody would think it was instrumental. Anyway, I don't see how there's any fancruft in the article. The article is long, but I don't see how that can be avoided; there aren't many logical division points to break out content, aside from the singles. I tried doing so anyway with an article called "Autobiography album design" and it was unfavorably received on VfD. So I guess it will just have to be long. Everyking 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps what the exact problem with the track was could be elaborated. Either we tell the user what it was or provide some way for them to figure out what it was, or we don't. I think much of the promotion section should be trimmed. I'm sure Simpson's done a lot of things to promote the album; should we cover them all? Much of the stuff about the singles should be moved elsewhere, too. For example, their chart positions and promotion information. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • All that stuff is already summarized, and more detailed in the singles articles. I think it's important to give an overview of the promotion and chart info in this article. Everyking 17:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • A separate article on music promotion, covering people like Don Kirshner, Joe Simpson and so on, would be a good place for that kind of material. There have been many successful pop albums over the years that were essentially soundtracks to popular TV shows, this is not new or notable in the instance of Autobiography. Reiterating, some of the Autobiography promotion information could be useful, but right now it's in the wrong place. (also, on the guide vocal thing, the distinction between that and lip syncing disappears once the performer's live voice is not included in the mix. That happened in both performances on the SNL episode in question, and this has been verified through analysis of the show and album recordings. I'm not on the bandwagon saying this event was unique or criminal, but there is no question that it was notable.) iMeowbot~Mw 18:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • We can't put that kind of detailed info in a general article on music promotion; are you kidding? The info is necessary in this article and integral to it. Where else am I going to explain that in September, as "Pieces of Me" was reaching its peak and being replaced by "Shadow" in the U.S., it was just getting its start in Europe? That kind of information is very important, and it fits perfectly in the "promotion" section. Anyway, Ashlee says she was singing with a backing track, not lip synching, and that was my point. Everyking 18:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Understood, that's why I wrote that some of that information could be used in another article. A great deal of it wouldn't make the cut, though perhaps it might find a good home in wikisource for a future article on the subject. Please understand that I'm not objecting to that level of detail being published anywhere, only to having so much raw data in an encyclopedia article. iMeowbot~Mw 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (adding an example: the data could be used in a graph showing chart positions over time, with the timing of promotional events highlighted. That would make a nice illustration for an article on promotion. iMeowbot~Mw)
                • I'll continue thinking of ways to make the text more concise, but there is no question of removing valuable information. At the very least it would have to be available in another article. Everyking 22:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As before, there are too many quotes, too many minute details which obscure overall meaning, and the article is too long. This is not improved since its last nomination - it's simply bigger. Rhobite 07:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Every quote has been considered and all that remain are supposed to support and enhance the information given. Any that were considered superfluous have been removed. And you're telling me the article would be better if I removed notable detail? What sort of alternate dimension am I stuck in? No other featured candidate gets this kind of treatment; plainly it's the result of bias against the subject matter. The article is long, but I've seen longer articles get through FAC—what am I supposed to do when creating subarticles isn't an option? Didn't you yourself vote to delete the subarticle I did create? Everyking 07:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Please stop trying to make this personal. I could've said many of these concerns myself. You state that every quote has been considered, but as far as I recall, you've removed about two (out of, say, thirty?). I'm a fan of Ashlee Simpson, and I have nothing against you - but I'll say it again - the article, as it stands, is poor, and Rhobite has explained why. Ambi 10:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If I remove all the quotes, the article will be crap. The quotes serve to support and enhance the information given throughout. I myself wouldn't dare think this was featured quality if I removed them all, I'd oppose it myself in that instance. I've never seen such a demand during a FAC nomination before. It was my understanding that I was doing the right thing by citing by information whenever possible and trying to put it in NPOV terms. It seems like there's one expectation for other candidates—a nice, comprehensive degree of detail, thorough citing and quality English—and an entirely different expectation for Autobiography, which is supposed to be short and concise and lacking proper sourcing and attribution of claims and opinions. I don't know what you two want instead. Besides, I don't think the quotes are excessive at all. It's not a particularly quote-heavy article. If anything, I think it could use a few more at some of its weaker points. Everyking 11:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The fact is that a lot of the article is simply trivia. Fancruft. Will anyone care that Ashlee Simpson appeared on The So-and-So Show to promote this album a few years from now? Try to write generally instead of specifically. I'm not saying you should obscure everything by not mentioning anything concrete, but the level of detail in the article is so minute that it's more worthy of publication in a magazine than an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia summarises facts. It doesn't dump raw facts onto the table and expect you to make sense of them. We don't need to know the album was at so-and-so position on the Canadian charts at a particular date. Also, a lot of the singles information in the article should be spun off to their own articles. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, seems to me that's radical deletionist logic, and you can't turn out a featured article that way. Chart data is of course important, as are television performances seen by millions. How anyone could call that fancruft boggles my mind. The information is integral. This could never be a featured article without it—that's the difference between featured articles and stubs. Everyking 12:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • We're supposed to summarise the chart data, not regurgitate it. There's a fine line there you should realise exists. I'm sure Simpson did a lot of things to promote the album. Should we report them all? Unless the incident was curiously of note (i.e. the lip synching scandal), just note that she appeared on So-and-So Show and be done with it. You don't necessarily need to chuck in the exact date or airing time of the show, or what lipstick she wore, etc. (not that the article contains that stuff). My point is, summarise information. And like I said, you still need to spin off the various singles' information to their own articles. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • The singles information already is summarized and spun off to individual articles. Surely you know that, John, considering how involved you were in the La La argument? The singles chart data is summarized as well; it's more detailed in the Pieces of Me article, for instance. But album chart data doesn't have anywhere else to go, so it has to be here. I can't see the logic in having a separate article on album chart data; it's not really a logical division point. It'd probably get VfDed anyway—and then I figure you'd vote to delete it...catch-22, huh? The mentions of the various TV appearances are brief. All it does is say she was on a show and about what time it occurred; often I refrain from even giving the exact date, instead using vague alternatives such as "in the days leading up to the album's release..." Everyking 13:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • About half of the promotion section is devoted to the singles. I still say we don't need that detailed album charting info, but I won't push that point too much. After rereading the article, my doubts are overall growing — the article is passable, but it doesn't click. It's difficult to quantify, but the prose just doesn't come off very well; it doesn't flow. I'm thinking we don't need too many critics' opinions; perhaps cutting one or two positive reviews wouldn't do too much harm, considering they outnumber the negative ones? Still, I'm not sure why, but this article just doesn't click. It's just too...disjointed. There's nothing strictly wrong with it, just doesn't flow well. Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's great, but have made various tweaks and simplified what seems like needless verbosity in some spots (though I think I didn't remove any info). Does this seem better to anyone? Tuf-Kat 23:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears that the verbosity is in the process of being reinstated and expanded. Those changes would have been a good start at improvement, though. iMeowbot~Mw 00:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too much fancruft. - Taxman 03:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, regrettably. Too little detail.
    • Limits itself to 48 external links in the body text, despite the record-breaking importance of this artist and album.
    • Only lists chart rankings and sales numbers for 5 or 6 countries, as if the authors were not aware that Simpson is becoming one of the most widely-known artists of the decade, even outside the English-speaking world. Should really have a separate section for each major international market.
    • Has quotes and information after the fact about what Simpson 'recalls feeling and expecting when crafting and singing the album, but no direct quotes from the time when she was making it. Nor are there quotes or images from the team that worked with her on the album. Even what DioGuardi or Shanks thought about the production and its reception is left to the reader's imagination.
    • The other performers and production crew get almost no mention in what otherwise tries to be a serious encyclopedia article. We're not talking about a throw-away CD here; one can expect many of these people to be famous in the near future. Peiken and Frazier don't even get a mention, nor do they have their own articles to justify the omission.
    • Could also use tighter writing style, better splitting into subpages, and less redundancy, but considering how much vital information has been omitted or ignored, those are secondary concerns.
    +sj + 07:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I like your attitude, but A) you aren't kidding, are you? B) How am I supposed to satisfy both this objection and ones like Taxman's above? I'm actually thinking about splitting things off into subarticles, "Autobiography chart positions and sales", "The making of Autobiography (album)", etc., and doing some major expansion and reworking from there. But I am worried that will be controversial and my subarticles could get VfDed. Everyking 07:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Sjc makes good points, actually, except for the chart info and lack of external links. I mean, sheesh, we're an encyclopedia, not a tabulation of facts or links. If you want all the trivia you can imagine, go to a fan site. If you want all the links in the world, there's dmoz. Look, our featured singles articles don't contain such detailed chart info or external links; why should albums be any different? I think this article could be spun off to a couple of subpages if you addressed sjc's concerns and cut down the trivia. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • There'll be no removal of "trivia", John; the best you can get is moving it to subpages. I won't buckle to that kind of radical deletionism. That kind of info is precious to the reader, not to mention all the work it took me to record it and dig it up after the fact. Everyking 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • And I think you've got some work on your hands to start digging up that info on your featured articles. In fact, I'll be voting object on those from now on unless you've got some good chart info. Everyking 10:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • And as there's no consensus for this, Raul will be well within his boundaries to ignore the objection. Please don't do this, Everyking - this is really stooping low. Ambi 12:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • There isn't a consensus for your objection, either, so I take it you'll be OK with it being ignored as well? Everyking 13:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • There's six people making this objection on this page alone. There's also those that have commented on past nominations, and all those such as Reene that commented on the talk page of the article itself. In contrast, I count one support vote on this page. Ambi 13:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • Of course, that was rhetorical; I'd never say you shouldn't have a vote. As you just said about me. Everyking 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - never heard of the artist or the album, so I'm a neutral reader. Unfortunately, this article contains way too much trivial information which does not interest me in the slightest, and obscures the valuable information which is there. A whole paragraph describing the movement of the album in the charts over several months is mind-numbingly boring to someone who's not an obsessive fan. It seems to me that the great problem with this article is that it's being jealously guarded by a fan, and edits by people who want to make it readable and generally interesting are being reverted. Worldtraveller 12:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You're voting object because you some of the information is boring to you? Well, since everything is going to be boring to somebody, I guess we ought to just not have any featured articles, then. It obscures the other information in the same way that an article on the seventh page of a newspaper obscures the articles on the preceding six—it doesn't. Everyking 12:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Other people have also suggested that there's too much information there which does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. You seem entirely unwilling to accept anyone else's criticisms or revisions of this article - why? Isn't that at least partly why you'd nominate it for FAC - to get other people's opinions on how it could be improved? Worldtraveller 13:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And that is entirely untrue. Everyking 13:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • That statement might actually make some sense if you hadn't been completely unwilling to except the criticisms or revisions of Johnleemk, Worldtraveller, Taxman, iMeowbot, Rhobite, and I (and that's just on this page, this time around). If you're indeed willing to accept anyone else's criticisms or revisions, why did you state just above that you "won't buckle"? Ambi 13:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I said I wouldn't buckle to radical deletionism, i.e. the notion that half the article should be deleted without being moved anywhere. Everyking 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • I'll believe that you're prepared to accept any of the criticisms or revisions of the many objectors to this article when you actually make steps to accomodate them, and show any sign of being prepared to accept some sort of compromise on the matter. Ambi 13:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Then you should've started believing that weeks ago. Everyking 14:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • If you want the article to become a featured article, then you're going to have to revise it in accordance with the community's suggestions, or not revert anyone else's revisions with the same intent. If you're not prepared to do that, then accept that it won't become a featured article. Worldtraveller 15:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I note with semi-amusement the revert war on the history page of this article over my edit. Instead of clarifying the issue with my tweaks (of which incidentally, there were only one or two out of several dozen changes), Everyking did a blanket revert and arrogantly suggested I discuss edits on the talk. I agree with Worldtraveller's assessment that Everyking's a prick who jealously guards his article from other editors unless the changes are discussed. If you notice the dispute last time, I avoided ticking off Everyking until I realised he refuses to accept any edits unless they're discussed on the talk. Nothing would ever get done if things were like this. I'm now going to rewrite the article in full (I intentionally avoided removing material in my first minor rewrite), and Everyking's blathering comments be damned. Johnleemk | Talk 07:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • How am I supposed to deal with a person who has an attitude like this? There's not a shred of civility here. Everyking 08:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Everyking, lecturing about civility? Oh, I object due to current edit war. The article should come back when the editing situation is more stable. Gentgeen 11:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are probably right. But it was stable before I nominated it. Everyking 12:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • As long as you subject the article to public scrutiny yet refuse to accept others' edits, the edit war(s) won't stop. I state this as a matter of fact, and if you're going to mumble something about me being a revert warrior, btw, I haven't reverted any of your edits for ages. Johnleemk | Talk
            • John, don't tell me you still don't understand my position. I want others' help and input. I don't want others to go deleting factual, verified information unless we can reach consensus that it should be deleted. I am certainly open to discussion on all of these matters, but you know that I prefer to split detail into subarticles rather than simply deleting it if it makes any sense at all to do so. Part of the problem is that we seem to have fundamental differences about what this encyclopedia should be. I think it should have reasonably in depth, well-researched coverage of notable topics; you (I think) believe that brief summaries are satisfactory, and the reader will have to settle for non-free sources to get more detailed information. And I think that's a hard difference to overcome, since it goes to the root of opposing philosophies. Everyking 14:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This from the person who said: rv, john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is currently listed at WP:RFC, & a casual glance at the Talk page shows that there are some serious disagreements over its contents. Until these issues are resolved, its inclusion obviously would violate the ideal of a "Featured article". -- llywrch 19:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're quite right, but Raul removed it from the FAC page, so don't worry. I'll continue working on the objections and on expanding the content and hopefully I'll have it ready for another nomination at some point in January. Everyking 19:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Which will most likely be again rejected, as long as you continue to ignore the majority of objections. Ambi 03:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • What did I just say, Rebecca? Everyking 09:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur with Llywrch. Edeans 00:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)