Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Céline Dion

Re-self nomination. This article has gone though two peer-reviews and two FACs. I think third time's the charm. Checking the Featured article page, it seems as if articles on pop singers are lacking (maybe due to their controversial nature and the difficulty to achieve NPOV). Ive taken the comments from the last two FAs and I've incorporated the changes (even the opposers of the last FAs think that it's now ready). There is treatment of Dion's music, her success, etc, all done while maintaining a NPOV style, using brilliant prose and verified with authoritative sources. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think its finally ready, nothing stands out to me as a reason to object at the moment. The spelling and grammar is good, I did not find any typos when I used a spell checker on the article. Good work! — Wackymacs 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I was glad to help out at the most recent peer review, which was a resounding success, and can say this is the finest article I've seen on anyone in the current entertainment business. NPOV, informative, not too gushing (they are naturally going to focus on outstanding achievements). Well done Orane on being so happy to accept criticism and work it through. Harro5 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support; my objection about references has been addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  Even if this does not pass, I would really like to thank you guys very much for giving valuable feedback, acquiring sources and opposing the last FAC, which enabled arcticle to be improved. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. You've done a fantastic job, Journalist! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great job! deeptrivia (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Need at least one free use image. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an article have any pictures at all to be a featured article. - Cuivienen 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney, this is not a valid reason to object. — Wackymacs 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great work! - Cuivienen 14:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, second Cuivienen's comments. Hermione1980 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good job done! --Terence Ong ^|Talk 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's a really good article —factual, neutral and well written. I'm glad the last nomination failed as this gave the article a chance to be improved.Khalif 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I am absolutely NOT a fan of her or her music, however, I think you're quite right about the "third time's the charm statement." Very well done, and an excellent example of the best of our collaboration processes. :) --JohnDBuell 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment regarding a free picture. Have you contacted her fan groups (or even her through her agent) to see if anyone has a picture they'd be willing to release under a suitable license? Failing that, don't we have enough Wikipedians in Las Vegas that could go to her show and take a decent pic? A FA without a single free picture seems like a serious problem. - Taxman ^Talk 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone expound on this "free image" phenom? Ive been on Wikipedia for a while now, and Ive never seen an article opposed on this ground — Ive only seen oppositions because the image lacked specific and detailed fair-use rational on the description page. Are "free images" now mandatory for featured status? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 23:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite a number of FAs have had non-free images used. It's hard, though not impossible, to get free images with those still living and the recently deceased. And as pointed out above, the use of images is ABSOLUTELY NOT an FA criterion. --JohnDBuell 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally it's considered they are a bad thing unless no free images are possible. When free images are possible your fair use claim is weakened. Wikipedia is GFDL and fair use images are a necessary evil at best. The goal is information freedom, not justifying fair use. And no need to shout. Yes it's not a requirement, because pictures aren't a requirement, but it doesn't mean free images aren't important. - Taxman ^Talk 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont think that he meant to shout, maybe its just to put emphasis. A PD photo —Image:Céline Dion-AFR.JPG—has been added to the article by User:Pharos. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I DO tend to use all caps just for emphasis yes, especially when I COULD REALLY START SHOUTING by a combination of boldface and all caps. Sorry if anyone took umbrage. :) --JohnDBuell 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good Job --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Seems to fit all criteria, polished to near-perfection. Hope this doesn't make any of the other divas jealous ;) - JustinWick 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've already supported this FAC, and won't be changing my vote, but Orane could you update us on the remaining "Citation needed" tag in the article? If it can't be found, couldn't the line it follows just be re-worded to remove the uncited phrase? Thanks. Harro5 01:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ive added the note, albiet not as authoritative as the rest. It's from an editorial review at Amazon.com. Now before anyone gets alarmed, I did not cite it as a professional review, just a source that proves that the album showed a lighter side and had a theme of "joy". If it's still unacceptable, I'll keep looking.Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've replaced the amazon citation with a reference from Larry Flick of Billboard magazine. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Efficient as usual :D. Thanx. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Balcer 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's an exceptional article KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support very good article. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Well done! Rossrs 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article. Informative, useful, well-written, excessively referenced--nicely done. If anyone ever wants to find out anything about Céline... well, this is it. Nice job! Matt Yeager 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. *drew 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The caption for Image:NextPlaneOut.jpg claims "the video shows how cliched her ballads and videos were becoming". How does this image demonstrate that?
  2. The image Image:Celine Dion OC.jpg is tagged as a "promotional photo", but the site it's from gives no indication that it's a press-kit image or equivalent, and the site owner is probably not the person who holds the copyright on the image. The original source needs to be found.
  3. What point is the image Image:OHcap5.jpg supposed to be making, or is it simply decorative?

  --Carnildo 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption for the first image has been expanded. It does show how typical her ballads were becoming: there was the darkness, the dreary mood, even walks on the beach —the typical love cliché (I could not get a photo of that part). About Image:OHcap5.jpg. Its not decorative at all. I said that it showed a different side of Dion that has never been previously shown. The song was uptempo (as mentioned in the article), that was one of the first time she made a "party video" with such vibrant colours ( and her outfit and "dance moves" in the picture helped to portrey this). For the lead: Ill find the original page and if it can't be found, Ill just replace it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• May I ask how Carnildo's first objection is relevant to the nomination of the article? (The caption for Image:NextPlaneOut.jpg claims "the video shows how cliched her ballads and videos were becoming". How does this image demonstrate that?) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I always thought that the picture said it all (I didnt know I had to spell it out). Anyway, I expanded the caption a bit. I've also uploaded a new picture Image:Celine Dion..jpg. (A photo of Céline Dion. Comes from the press kit containing other promotional photos, album pictures and public appearances. Found an http://music.yahoo.com/ar-313262-photos--Celine-Dion. Is that acceptable? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ive replaced the pics with some that best reflect the article's content. You might want to check it out. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Celine Dion OC.jpg has been removed, as I can't find any other sources. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• If the image doesn't demonstrate what the caption is describing, then the article doesn't need it, and it should be removed. For Image:ImageOHcap5.jpg, I've changed the caption: [1]. There's a difference between describing the image and explaining the image, and unless the image is being presented as a subject in and of itself (such as the Mona Lisa), it should be explained. --Carnildo 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough for me. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Having spent the last half-hour reviewing the source material, I fail to see what this article adds to our knowledge about CD. Her website is heavily copied from, as are the handfull of press-releases that similarly have been taken as "gospel". The biography books mentioned have large sections lifted verbatim (albeit, not full chapters, but I might query the 10% copyright if I were a lawyer) To lead on the front page with such bland regurgitation and biased, fan-led comment is to reduce Wiki to an extention of her employer's marketing department. I doubt it'll change anything, but I think another view needs expressing here. --HasBeen 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll have to argue this point out when I come from school. But ill just like to comment that you are very mistaken in saying that I copied heavily from her website. Can you prove this? Please do so. "Biased"? "Fan-led"?, "regurtitating"? Have you read the article? Its more negative than positive, how is that "Fan-led"? And for her books" No source (except quotes) were used "verbatim." Do not accuse me of plagiarism. Seeing as you opened the account on the December 22 (yesterday), I think that you need to read alot of "protocols", "manuals of styles" and other featured articles before you really make a good/fair and unbiased judgement. PS: not all featured article appear on the main page. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe HasBeen's objections can be addressed. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Object as per HasBeen. Bio, for example, includes close paraphrases from the VH1 source, for example, and the changes -- converting "working-class" to "poverty-stricken," for example, appear to introduce inaccuracies. Example: "Her brother sent the song to music manager René Angélil, whose name he had found on the back of an album" vs "which she recorded with the help of her mother and brother and shipped off to a manager named Rene Angelil, whose name they found on the back of an album by Ginette Reno, a popular Francophone singer". Example 2: "her image needed to be changed, so he had her long, curly hair cut, parted and shaved her eyebrows, and had her teeth capped to cover up the incisors that had prompted a Québec humor magazine to dub her 'Canine Dion'" vs "Dion underwent a physical transformation, cutting her hair, plucking her eyebrows, and having her teeth capped to cover up the incisors that had caused a Quebec humor magazine to dub her 'Canine Dion'". The claim that this objection cannot be addressed is ridiculous. Even if it were correct, the extensive copying comes close to justifying tagging the page as a complex copyvio, not a featured article. Monicasdude 16:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Hollow Wilerding that objection cannot be addressed. User:HasBeen says that, "I fail to see what this article adds to our knowledge about CD'. What type of objection is that? The fact that there are no "surprises" in the article is not a valid reason — "the article must surprise" is not a FA criterion. Moreover, the article is very different from other articles. Can you find any other articles that discuss her music (her lyrical content, themes, musical styles, motivation and development/transitions throught each albums), and provide critical commentry on it (reviewers' comments — both good and scathing) etc? If he can find one, Ill even object this article myself. The article is not "fan-led" or POV'd. It even presents a very negative view of her music. Would a "fan article" include a quote such as this:

"What never ceases to amaze me is how the trite-est, most cliché-ridden music often takes an assembly-line of lauded music industry professionals to perfect... Sinking ships are what I imagine as this tune ["My Heart Will Go On"] plows onward of four-plus minutes, and this album feels as if were never to end. Is it no wonder why I have such fears of going to the dentist?" [2].

I highly doubt it.

Her website has not been copied from, but used as a reference, and there are few (if any) press releases used as sources in the article, so they are not taken as "gospel". The books that are used as references are not plagiarised — in fact, most of the information existed in the article before the books were found and cited as references (the voters in the last RFA are testaments to this fact). Lastly, to Monicasdude. How can you call this copyright vio? Did I infringe anyone's exclusive rights? To tell of the events in a persons early life in this manner cannot be plagiarism. No one can lay claim to these events. If a boy was shot when he was 15, there is no other way of saying this other than "The boy was shot when he was 15." If 200 articles contain this statement, is that copyright violation?

Let me use a better example:

"In 1988, Carey met Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola at a party, where Starr gave him a demo tape. Mottola played the tape while leaving the party and was very impressed by what he heard. He returned to the party to find Carey, but she had already left. Nevertheless, Mottola tracked her down and signed her to a recording contract." — from "Mariah Carey".

This event happened. All articles say this. It is not plagiarism; it's just relaying events that cannot be presented otherwise. The citation from VH1 fails to prove copyrightvio/plagiarism, as these events cannot be relayed otherwise: She composed her first song and sent it to Angelil. He cried when he heard her sing. She was inspired by Michael Jackson. Angelil remade her image. The only possible thing to do is change Dion's past and rewrite it to make it different from other articles. What would be a valid claim to copyright/vio or plagiarism is if the main body of the article was similar to VH1 or A.M.G (from Career break through onwards), not specific, factual events in the person's early life. both of the objects cannot be addressed, and should be considered null. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly agree. Please see Special:Contributions/HasBeen to observe his actions against music-singles released by Gwen Stefani. Although this article is not a song itself, I feel as though he is against actual articles of the artist themselves as well. Monicasdude's objections are also peculiar — she needs to be a bit more specific. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sections of the article are unmistakably plagiarized, as my citations ought to make clear. Neither copyvios nor plagiarism are limited to unaltered cut-and-pasting; what is "peculiar" is the claim that it is OK to replicate text that is so little changed. As for user:HasBeen, while his AfD requests may not be appropriate, his comments that too many pop music articles are overloaded with fancruft is shared by a significant number of other editors; there was an RfC on this issue not very long ago. You shouldn't be personalizing editorial disputes like this. Monicasdude 15:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am not attempting to offend you, and I apologize if I so did. Your objection has now become clearer for me, and I'm just curious to know what lines in the article (other than the ones that you have cut and pasted above) you believe appear to be plagiarized? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Here's another one from VH1.com: "there were also changes in Dion's personal life, as Angélil would make the transition from manager to lover. However, fearful that the public would find the twenty-six-year difference between their ages perturbing, the relationship was kept a secret" vs "During this time there were also important developments in Dion's personal life. In 1988 Angelil crossed the line from manager to romantic partner when he kissed Dion one night after a show in Dublin. Fearful that fans would find the 26-year difference in their ages unsettling, the couple kept their relationship a secret for several years."

From celinedion.com: "becoming the first Canadian artist to receive a gold record in France." vs "In 1983, she became the first Canadian ever to receive a Gold Record in France."

From artistdirect.com: "Dion's performance at the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games solidified her spot on the world stage. She performed "The Power of the Dream," a song co-written for her by Linda Thompson, Babyface, and David Foster (whom she has worked with on all of her English-language albums)" vs "Her performance at the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games solidified her spot on the world stage. Performing "The Power of the Dream," a song co-written for her by Linda Thompson, Babyface, and David Foster (whom she has worked with on every one of her English-language albums)."

These all come from random spot checks of the most prominent online references. I can't check the print sources, and I haven't checked any of the other online sources, or even gone through the sources I mentioned systematically. The article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom; too much text has been copied with only superficial changes; it's a much better idea (and much less time-consuming) to write up an original text than to try and figure out exactly which current text came from which source and needs to be redone.Monicasdude 16:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on the artistdirect.com one, but the VH1 quote doesn't look that bad to me—it looks like it was rewritten and not copied. As for the celinedion.com quote, how else could it be said? It seems important to include, and there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The last VH1 quote I cited isn't really "rewritten"; a few words/phrases have been altered to create cosmetic differences, but the essential copying is clear. If the celinedion.com were taken in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in light of all the other plagiariam/copying in the article, it should be viewed skeptically. The wikipedia copyvio discussion needs to be clarified; right now it implies that copyright violation is an all-or-nothing thing; but more complex copyvios (like this article) aren't appropriate, either. Monicasdude 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you completely that WP needs to discourage complex copyvios explicitly. --Gurubrahma 16:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone here point me to an authoritative document (esp. website) which deliniates precisely what, under United States law, is considered a "complex copyright violation" - that is a copyright violation that is not simple cut/paste? Especially when one is taking a few sentences from an article, citing the source, and paraphrasing. As I understand, this is common practice in academia, and not considered plagurism. - JustinWick 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive the late response, my computer is infected with a virus; Im at the library. I understand where M.D is coming from, believe me, but I fail to see how his quotes justify his claims. He keeps searching in the article, trying to discover any similarities that it may have with the sources. However, here's the thing: celinedion.com, vh1.com etc are all sources, and as such, there must be similarites between them and the article. Points conveyed must be similar; how else would I prove that what Ive been writing is factually accurate and backed up by another source? He keeps citing points about specific instances from Dion's personal life and keeps comparing them with the sources. These are things that cannot be said differently or they would distort the facts (the intimate relationship being kept a secret is a perfect example). The point is similar, but not the way it is written. Isnt that what deriving information from a source all about?

The quote that I find most peculiar is the one that says "Dion is the first Canadian artist to receive a gold record in France". MD, if that point can be said diferently, please enlighten me on the space provided: __________________________________. Its just like saying "Dion is the best selling female artist ever." It is just a fact. To say this otherwise would not only distort its meaning, it would also be stupid. Don't get carried away here. At this rate, I wouldnt be surprised if it was said that I plagiarised "the" from the dictionary. How can it be plagiarism if I cited the source? Aren't the writers given credit for their work? Have I ever said the information came from me? I backed up the points made with sources. That is all. I know that WPs best interest is at heart, please dont take it personal, I apologise if I seem harsh, but I fail to see validity in your argument. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Where is the previous CD FAC archived (I'd like to retrieve some of my previous work)? --Tsavage 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[3] [4] Monicasdude 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is really good, and is ready to become a featured standard! --DrippingInk 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object The article has improved quite a bit since the last two (very recent) FAC nominations. However, I still have an objection on the basis of comprehensiveness, for the same (central) reason as in the last two noms:

• Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. No section directly addresses her musical craft: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music-making process itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.

It's fine to discuss discuss a notable person's accomplishments, but when their notability involves a specific skill or ability, that should also be distinctly examined. (The copyvio objections are worrisome; this objection is limited to the issue raised.) --Tsavage 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You have used that objection three times without changing a single word, and I am now certain that the article has addressed those concerns. You claim that all the article does it mentions her genre/ influences, nothing more. Are you serious? I have discussed (in appropriate and accepted length) her MUSIC: There is mention of theme, mood, genres, how she derives themes and motifs from personal life, the instruments used, her lyrical content, her progression throughout each albums etc. Really, you need to come up with a new, more convincing objection, or this one might be overlooked. And you keep bringing up Billie Holiday etc. Why would I use a non-featured article as a model for a potential featured article. The article is called "Celine Dion", not "The music of Celine Dion". What makes her notable enough to include in Wikipedia is her career, which encapsulates her accomplishments, personal and business life and her music. Including anymore "music" info would not only make it relentless, it will also make it fatiguingly long (its already over 42 kb-10 more than preferable). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a little unfortunate that you choose to emphasize a point, three times without changing a single word, without properly checking the source...I did change a few words... ;) It's obvious you're commited to this article, and it has improved. However, at this point, one question comes to mind: Are you more interested in having CD make FA at any quality, or in FA representing really great articles? Because here, the two for me are becoming mutually exclusive. What I mean is, I probably don't have to write this response, because this FAC likely won't succeed based on the near-wording/copyvio objections. But then, I am interested in seeing a great pop music artist (and even song...) article. So, I take the time to reply, when that time could be spent on other FACs. At a certain point, nominators too should step back and review the situation, rather than relentlessly pound away at the process... Persistence can be a virtue, but not always... IMHO... MEANWHILE:

1) Billie Holliday and The Edge are EXAMPLES of articles where the artist's musical craft is treated as a distinct element (unlike this one); their content quality has nothing to do with their format, IOW, you CAN create a bad product using a good template...

2) Really, you need to come up with a new, more convincing objection, or this one might be overlooked. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but this objection will do just fine for now, because it still applies. My previous objections: from the original FAC, Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. was...fixed. From the second: Numerous typos seems to be...fixed, and Far too long and relentless for the material it covers is waiting in the wings (it reads better now, but I'd have to read it again after the new music material)... Bottom line: I'm not on a mission to block this article from FA, I'm trying help filter out articles that don't meet the FA standard. I've struck objections and changed my vote on other FACs...

3) Your suggestion that CD's notability should be separated from the skills and talents that she is notable for is very interesting: The article is called "Celine Dion", not "The music of Celine Dion". You essentially support my point: Dion's music of requires its own treatment in a comprehensive CD article (which it doesn't have now, only bits and pieces of comments from critics scattered here and there); if a subarticle is subsequently required, so be it... --Tsavage 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry that you think that I'm a bit overbearing, that is not my intention. I know that the FAC will fail as its now too controversial. I guess this is exactly why articles on contemporary pop stars are not featured. Tsavage, what I getting at is that, you seem to want a seperate subsection of the article that deals with "music", and you will oppose the article until that section is included (like Billie Holiday and The Edge). What I am saying is that this section is not mandatory for an article to become featured, and many of the featured articles do not have them. You think that I seem eager to have my article featured, but that's not the case. Its just that I see many articles being featured (eg Simon and Garfunkel, Kylie Minogue, Bob Dylan etc) and I think that this article is on par with them. Im am baffled when people oppose this article for something that is in a current featured article and vise versa (the music topic for example). In the article, I have isolated certain sections that have dealt with Dion's music, then critical perception of her craft. Instead of isolating "music" from her "life" section, Ive worked her craft into the prose of the article. At this moment, I think that its a matter of personal style for you, and, as you and I have different styles, your objection cannot be addressed. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't objecting to the article, just that it shouldn't appear on the front page as the cream of the crop just yet. There is a tendency in a lot of wiki bios to be bland and somewhat second-hand: this is as much a fault of the wiki verification system as anything. I did indeed like the article's NPOV and balanced criticism of some of her more recognisable work, but my criticism as to sources and content for a lead piece is as valid as the tide of rebuttal. True, I dislike much of the stand-alone pieces on wiki, but this isn't one of them, and I am not arguing for that point here. Please double check some of the paragraphs next to the books cited. Also, if some of the sources do not verify the content, why have they been listed as such, should they not be "further interest" or the like? I know you have worked really hard here, and it kills me to be kicking up this fuss, but a front pager needs to be beyond reasonable criticism, doesn't it?--HasBeen 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for being less rigid in this response, :). I have one thing to say: not all featured articles appear on the main page. If the article does become featured, you can voice you opinion on its sutability for front page at Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article.

• HasBeen, featured articles are not always nominated just because their nominator wants to see it on the Main Page. The article fits the FA criteria and your objection will most likely be discounted when the final outcome of this FAC is decided. — Wackymacs 09:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Featured articles are supposed to represent Wikipedia's best work. Why do you think this article, which is at best right on the border between the extremely derivative and the outright plagiarized, represents Wikipedia's best work? Monicasdude 11:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• For an answer, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. This article meets all of the criteria, and does not contain plagiarism. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, apologies for bad wording. It does seem to follow thought that articles that are awarded this honour are in a better position to be pushed to the front page, sort of a natural progression? From the guidelines: "The director makes selections from the pool of featured articles in accordance with these guidelines. If you want to nominate an article to appear on the front page, please do so on this page's talk page. The article must already have featured status". I appreciate it is difficult for a "pop bio" (for want of a better description) to shine brighter than their own website (for example), but it can be done: please see the Frank Zappa page. I knew nothing about FZ until I started to check the sources on this application, and I was pleasantly surprised to find the wiki article far outstripped the man's own web PR in terms of information, brevity and depth. Now I appreciate that perhaps that is not a valid criteria for this particular award, but it is what we are likely to be benchmarked against by a casual reader if you think about it. Just a thought, albeit a rather unhelpful one in this discussion... --HasBeen 09:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, there are big problems with the way FAC is operating at present. Dion is only one case in point. Three nominations in six weeks, hours and hours spent on the same points... Articles are supposed to be just about PERFECT by the time they get to FAC, yet they routinely generate days and weeks of discussion and revision. I recently posted two complaints to Raul644's page: [5][6] I've been working steadily and fairly diligently on FAC for at least six straight weeks, and it is very frustrating to see seriously not great articles getting approved, and a truly ridiculous amount of weight being put on objectors. To compound matters, (with all due respect) the FAC director is necessarily making editorial decisions (rather than procedural ones on consensus) in promoting certain FAs that have standing, actionable objections, in effect deciding what is an editorially "worthwhile" objection. And people are regularly attacked for sticking to their criticism, while "support" votes generally have no reasoning to support the basic criteria of "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable" (the usual is "Great! Excellent. Well-written! FA quality!)!?! Really, I've spent two years on WP, "keeping my head down", working on stuff I know about and am interested in, steadily adding dozens of new articles, working over time on existing ones, working through editorial battles to useful resolutions without becoming a maniac, it's all there to see in my history for those so inclined. And I'm not looking for credit or glory (who the hell is "Tsavage"?), I never even thought about FAs until I saw a really bad front page FA and started taking an interest, which is how, probably the same day or so, I arrived here. And I am really disappointed in this process. The worst of it is that FAs lead to the front page. FAC otherwise is one in a zillion things bubbling around in development on WP/Wikimedia, and there's room for it all, but the front page gets everyone, and the many issues it brings up are too fundamental to this "freedom of information" project to ignore. I'm really disturbed (well, as far as an IP number can be disturbed, which is what I remind myself...); I'd like to push for policy change. Perhaps the new article rating system announced for January will make a difference...otherwise, I'll see if I can figure out the WP system for instituting some sort of motion on improving FAC. I'm all for freedom, top quality, and particularly not having crap on the front page. Thanks for the time! --Tsavage 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • 42kb is too long, the writing is not concise enough
  • The TOC reads like a fan biography, particularly '2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas' - a bit more NPOV in something as fundamental as the section headings would be welcome
  • See also section should be merged into the general flow of the text.
  • Some of the quotes from reviews read as if the article is endorsing them as fact.
  • A lot of POV problems in the text, such as Nancy Miller of Entertainment Weekly, echoing many fans and critics..., The album showed a more mature side of Dion, evident in the title-track..., Dion had not lost touch with the public... and many other. Worldtraveller 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Firstly, A agree 42kb is a bit long, but most featured articles, being complete, are even over 50kb long.

• The size of other articles doesn't matter - this one is too long because the writing is not concise enough. The skill of writing an encyclopaedia entry is to summarise all aspects of a topic in as few words as possible, and this article uses too many words.

• For the headings, I dont know what to say. and for the record "'2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas'" is the name of her show.

• OK, it's the name of her show, but why does it need to be a section heading? That smacks of PR. The headings just need to be more neutral and less promotional.

• See also" should not be merged, or Ive never seen it done.

• See also sections have long been looked unfavourably on. If a topic is significant in relation to the topic, it should be mentioned in normal text - if it doesn't fit into the normal text that implies it's tangential to the topic.

• Would you cite some examples of the "factual reviews" you recognise. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• e.g the sentence 'However, her stage presence improved and simpler costumes and appearance provided for an enjoyable show.'

• The TOCs don't have to be corrected since they yield the information documented in the section that follows. I never actually noticed the minor POV issues, allow me to correct them. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't at all understand your point here.

• Where are the comments made by Nancy Miller and the line "Dion had not lost touch with the public" located in the article? I have failed to identify them. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I expect that would be because you removed the line about not losing touch with the public... You can find the miller comment by using your browser's text searching function, it is still in the article.

The POV issues have been corrected. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure they have I'm afraid. I see in one place you replaced 'sometimes criticised' with 'seldom criticised', an example of the article getting more, not less POV. Worldtraveller 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes or seldom criticised. What's the difference? Also, that line is not POV whatsoever. The matter is that some music-critics offered criticism while others offered praise. The conclusion? Seldom criticised. If you don't like it, I'll swap synonyms out. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Finished. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Very little of the identified plagiarism has been removed from the article. "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)" Monicasdude 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose' as per Tsavage and Monicasdude, explicitly on the points of comprehensivness and potential copyright issues need to be resolved. Also there seem to be a few too many fair use images that aren't really justified in the context of the article like Image:ImageOHcap5.jpg and Image:Dion and Bee -Gees.jpg, Image:B&theB.jpg.--nixie 16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are no copyright issues in this article whatsoever — also, regarding the images, had there been too many "fair use" images locating in the article, then User:Carnildo would have pointed it out. Therefore, your objection is inactionable unless there is anything else you would care to point out? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am entitled to make any objection I want, and they are completely actionable, Carnidilo is not the only person that comments on images. And until some uninterested third party oks the text for copyright issues my objection on that count stands too.--nixie 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• You most certainly are entitled to make any objection that you want, whether it be overlooked or not. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I can't understand why this article is here for now approaching two weeks, with such a degree and range of objections, from comprehensiveness to extensive copyvio. From reading some of the comments, it seems the idea is to give objections time to be acted on. But this surely can't refer to entire article rewrites. I think this guideline is being inefficiently used, and this complaint has nothing to do with restricting freedom or anything like that, simply with a practical interpretation and implementation of the FAC guidelines. If FAC is allowed to be a free-for-all, even a "polite" one, the chances of article improvement are lessened. Nominators are daunted, objectors are daunted, the whole thing looks like much more trouble than it's worth, and so, the general motivation to nominate an article is likely diminished (except perhaps for those whose main goal is to secure FA status, as opposed to pursue FA quality). In fact, moving things along more quickly, and requiring nominators, supporters and objectors ALL to be much more specific and detailied in their reasoning (as clearly indicated in the guidelines, only poorly enforced here), would likely result in a much more fun, fast and overall effective and rewarding process (and surely couldn't result in an even less efficient situation than at present). (A thought: With all the fuss over the recent Nature science article peer-review of WP, I wonder how the last 50 feature articles would fare given to a panel of writers, editors, researchers, English professors...whoever the experts are on basic writing quality... Is FAC REALLY promoting the BEST of WP?) Given the nature of this FAC discussion, I don't believe this post is off-topic—that is certainly NOT the intention, I simply want the energy expended here to count for all it can... --Tsavage 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Well said. I totally agree. But I'll add...People object and want different things and you can't please all of them; they have different opinions about layout, writing style, even focus of the article. I nominated my article to make it better, and it is; but attaining FA is very daunting indeed. Most objectors need to be much more specific; nominators aren't mindreaders. I've also noticed many, but certainly not all nominators, rarely check the status of their FACs. Rlevse 03:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is daunting for good reason for all concerned? The FA is an award that must be earned, after all... --HasBeen 09:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• *Support I'll try to do a bit of work on this. I think the objections from the objectors are good - I just don't see it as a reason for myself to object. It's clear there has been a lot of work put into this. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object with a few fairly minor issues. The "Biography" section needs a couple paragraph summary underneath it. The last paragraph under "1993–1996: Popularity established" needs a cite, I think. Explain the outcome of the National Enquirer lawsuit (I know they gave some money, but this was apparently an out-of-court settlement. Is that right? Make it explicit). There's a couple hidden comments in the article that should be addressed. I've just done an extensive copyediting, but more is still needed. There's lots of passive voice, and a good bit of awkward wording:
  • "While in the 1990s, her albums contained many genres, sounds and moods, her later albums, drawing more influence from her life, had maternal overtones"
  • "no real connections to the lyrics were shown"
  • "Singles crossed over from fast-tempo, gospel-tinged styles to soft-rock, dance-pop and sentimental ballads."
  • "Dion's image has not played a large role in garnering media attention or selling records" -- I just plain don't believe this, please cite
  • Tuf-Kat 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. -- KTC 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is what a FA is supposed to look like. However, although it isn't a biggy, the photo in the section, "2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas" is awefully large & disruptive. Suggest reducing size dramatically. May change vote if this is not dealt with. Good work... Spawn Man 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed it myself, also changed my vote to strong support. Spawn Man 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object I feel REALLY bad doing this - but I just got done taking care of TUF-KATs criticisms and started to see the problems with this article:

1. The prose at points is very unwieldy - I fixed up the first few paragraphs but it is going to need a good lookover by someone with some time
2. Annoying ommissions - for example it meantions "her brother" (who apparently is nameless :\) discovered her manager's name on the back of an album but doesn't mention what album! It is kind of like saying Microsoft was founded based on an idea from "a magazine" rather than a specific issue of popular science :(.
3. Passive voice where it just shouldn't be used... I've seen worse cases but it is pretty bad unfortunately :(.

I don't want the editors to get discouraged though - this is stuff you can fix in a few hours - especially if you work together. I'd also keep an eye out for small POV issues though as this will get an objection quite quickly, esp. on pop culture articles. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object Way too much fanclubish Fad (ix) 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hi. I'm not sure if this is like the RFA process where anon editors can't vote, so I won't. However, after reading some of the comments here, Ive made a few changes to the article (tidied it, fixed up the contorted sentences, passive voice etc I'vealso added a source). Hopefully, this helps; I think its a really good article. 207.236.66.194 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support!! Excellent! An anon comes from nowhere and saves the day!!!!! The brother and album author is even named now which is enough for me! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: One month! Is this a new record on wikipedia? deeptrivia (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, I'd personally like it to be closed soon either way myself. Maybe Raul is a closet Celine Dion fan!! O_o!!! Bias of the cabal of I tell you!! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You said it. I thought it was supposed to take 1-2 weeks. I think it will fail (even though I'm sure most of the objections have been addressed — the opposers just haven't bothered to return to the page to strike it out). Anyway, it will take a while before a renomination; though I personally think its "there", a few others tell me it's not— albiet with vage generalisations like "bland" of "fanclubish". I also want to distance myself from any allegations that I'm overeager for featured status.

PS: A special thank u to the anon editor. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've come back several times. My objection about not having direct comprehensive coverage of her singing craft—vocal range, training, approach to singing, how her voice has changed over the years, etc—stands. This is a decent article, but without covering her basic musical skills it can't be called "comprehensive".

I also (still) think it is ridiculous to have CD here for so long (a month now). It creates a negative, bad vibe and it's a gruelling thing for everyone concerned, nominators and reviewers both. How many times is a FAC editor expected to read one nomination? Conscientiously keeping up with a month's worth of article revisions and comments is HOURS AND HOURS of work for one person. This seriously diminishes my taste for FAC work. It's unreasonable and unnecessary, and seems to be quite unilateral to boot. IMO, the one-week candidacy guideline should be stuck to much more closely for all FACs... --Tsavage 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I really wont get into a debate with you. All I'm saying is this: you really seem to lack knowledge of what an encyclopedia is/does (IMHO of course). Encyclopedias provide general info i.e a succinct overview of the singer and her career. Excluding the fact that she trains 4 days per week at 7 pm to 9 pm, and she has a 3 octave vocal range does not make it incomprehensive. (BTW, whats the deal about vocal ranges? see WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines: Vocal Profile controversy. All the necessary info is included; the specific, and IMO unnecessary, information that you require — training, approach to singing, how her voice has changed over the years— can be found on her official website, and come to think of it, much of that can be derived from closely reading the article.

I agree with you on the "one-week candidacy guideline" comment. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See also

• User:Raul654/archive3#Request_for_clarification:_FA_promotion_of_Celine_Dion.