Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

To make it easier to see what still needs doing, and to see if I can pass the article as it stands now, I'm starting afresh. I have implemented many of the suggestions mentioned above, though some still need doing. It helps to clear the blackboard, and make a new list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

• Original research. Pass. I've not noticed any original research. This is, as Scottdoesntknow notes above, a complex subject - Love's life has been fairly rich, and she has added to that by making larger than life statements about her history, so it can at times be difficult to pin down the truth. Is that really her on the back of the Grateful Dead album, for example? The only person who appears to say so is Love herself, and the Dead have not confirmed it - indeed, have been rather lukewarm about their relationship with her father. However, though this is a complex and difficult subject, the article does stick with published statements. The quality of those statements I'll come to later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Major aspects. Some aspects that might need more coverage are her dress style. In sources I'm frequently coming upon references to Love's dress style, in particular to her use of torn Baby Doll dresses, and her dress style is seen as influential on later female musicians. Also, there is a fair deal of commentary in sources on how disturbed Love is due to her background, and I'm not sure how fully that comes over. However, I'm inclined to pass this section, as GA doesn't require comprehensive coverage, simply broad, and I think the main aspects of her life are adequately covered here, and her broken childhood is covered here. Perhaps just a bit more on her fashion sense as part of ongoing development. On balance - Pass. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a crucial aspect to Courtney Love's fame which centers around her body and her styles. She humorously addressed its significance by putting one of her most famous dresses in a museum display case on the cover of their b-sides album. The description of kinderwhore often loses an element of reality in its description, because to describe the dress without describing the woman wearing it is pointless. Courtney has powerful shoulders, strong-looking, somewhat masculine hands, and great legs, with piercingly upsetting eyes, so when she dressed in an ultra-feminine style, her own personal "dangerous" body became a strong contrast to the dress itself, which was created to make a woman appear as demure as possible. This would highlight the perversity of a history of women's fashion and popular perception wherein women are treated or styled as ineffectual, weak, demure, safe, nice, generous, kind, etc. In essence she created a psychadelic, surreal effect by dressing ultra-feminine while appearing incredibly dangerous, e.g. wearing a stately dress but then thrusting a bare leg up onto a monitor while performing. She also played with images of Victorian era and medieval womanhood. To put it simply, it's a real loss that all the images of her on this page are from present day, because a) she's had too much plastic surgery and b) she's dressed much less interestingly. We're losing a lot of what made her interesting simply by not showing how she looked in her heyday. How does one go about procuring images with proper approval?Mistertruffles (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

• Focused. More work needs doing. There is a lot of useful information in this article, though it does occasionally wander into too much detail and quoting. Unless particularly sensitive or important it is better to briefly summarise than to include quotes. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Also, detail like "The two first encountered one another at the Satyricon nightclub in January 1989, where Nirvana was playing a show. Cobain passed by a booth where Love was seated with a friend, and she blurted to him, 'You look like Dave Pirner' (lead singer of Soul Asylum). The two purportedly playfully wrestled on the floor in front of a jukebox that night." is more suited to a biography of Love than a short article in a general encyclopaedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. I have been working a bit on the article to improve the prose, though I haven't done enough. There are lots of short untidy paragraphs, even a single sentence paragraph. This gives the article an untidy, amateurish look which is off-putting for readers. I think the article has been assembled bit by bit by a number of writers, rather than anyone taking responsibility for reading through to ensure the writing flows. GA doesn't require the same level of quality writing that FA does. As long as people can read through quickly, easily without distraction or confusion to get the information then that's a pass. But where the language is a bit awkward, as in "Love's song lyrics are often told from a female's point of view", "Her later work was more introspective in its lyrics as opposed to aggressive", "Love's most prolific relationship was with fellow rock musician Kurt Cobain", "In more recent years", then it can make the reader pause. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• MoS. I've done a bit of work on the lead, but it still needs a bit more. A crude rule of thumb is that each major section in the article should have a summary in the lead. I think that the rest of the article meets the MoS sections that apply to GA. I am unsure about the use of the table in Filmography. I also question the need to make the reader click through to two separate articles to find out that she has made five studio albums. Those albums could be listed in the Discography section. I also question the need to have such a detailed filmography in the article when the discography information is either elsewhere, or is to be abbreviated to the major works as I have just suggested. The filmography information can be moved to Courtney Love discography, and it may be considered that Hole discography be merged with Courtney Love discography as people looking for details of the one would welcome details of the other. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pass

• Fair representation without bias. This is close to a pass. The article includes negative as well as positive details. Where I'm hesitating is that the tone could be seen as apologetic or even laudatory rather than purely neutral, and there seems to be a reluctance to detail some of the more negative aspects of Love's past. The concerns about her parenting are not objectively and appropriately given. There is no mention in that section of her drug use, but there is a long statement that "This is simply about Frances preferring to live with her grandmother", and there is a sympathetic line about Love feeling sorry for herself because she had "no real connection to her daughter". In the lead the lines: "Throughout her career, Love's wild stage antics and subversive feminist attitude have polarized audiences and critics,[7][8] with Rolling Stone once calling her 'the most controversial woman in rock history.'" could be read as laudatory. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the removal of sympathetic or laudatory lines, including "wild stage antics" (which sounds embarrassing and childish or at best like she's setting off fireworks and biting heads off bats) and "subversive feminist attitude" (which is a bit coddlesome). The difficult aspect of editing Courtney's life details is that almost all coverage of them betrays some kind of bias either praising or damning her, and the dueling depictions of these events is often what makes them interesting. The public tension between the two viewpoints gives her a sort of heroic underdog and villain identity simultaneously, which is what makes her such an interesting subject. Mistertruffles (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources There is a commendable amount of inline citing. My quibble here is that when I have checked some sources, they did not always fully support what was said, or the sources were TV programs difficult to access, or which appear to be direct quotes from Love rather than independent commentary. While we can use Love's own quotes, they need to be used with care - see WP:PRIMARY. Where possible I have replaced insecure sources with accessible book sources. This would be an ongoing operation. FA would require much better quality sources than are present in the article so far. Also, the multiple sourcing needs to be reduced or bundled as I have commented in the previous section. I don't think any of the sources are insecure enough to hold this back from listing, so I'm inclined to pass this section, though with the strong caveat that the sources are to be looked into and improved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review has gone on for over a month, so it would be good to see this closed one way or the other. Whatever the final result the article has improved during the GAN, and I've been pleased to see that the reader's Page ratings have gone up considerably over the past month. A concerted effort by the main contributors should see this listed. Putting on hold for a week to allow time to build the lead, and do the copy-editing and trimming this is required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite requesting assistance from all the related WikiProjects, main contributors and recent contributors, there has been no progress, indeed the article has gone backwards. This GAN has gone on for over a month, and though Scottdoesntknow has done some good work, there has been no support from anyone else, and it has not been possible to do everything necessary to get the article to meet GA criteria. I dislike failing an article after time and effort has been put into it, but progress has now stopped, and there is still a lot of work to be done. When the work has been done the article can be nominated again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]