Talk:Leah LaBelle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope I won't be inconvenient during your break, but I've been eyeing on this article and decided to start placing a review.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I feel that the lead is too long with it listing the artists that she worked with during their tours as well as well as it explaining how Epic is a partnership with I Am Other and So So Recordings.

   I have removed the artists name from the lead. I think it is important to include all of the record labels in the lead, but I have shortened the sentence to make it more concise. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   "As a child, LaBelle listened to music, including jazz and the Beatles, with her mother..." While I understood what it meant, I found the wording a little awkward.

   Revised. Let me know if it still needs more work though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I am not enamored with OK!, TMZ Sports and US Weekly being used as sources. Were you able to find any other references that could replace those?

   I will look for better sources over the weekend if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   No huge rush. Take your time. 100cellsman (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   The section: "LaBelle's mother provided a $10,000 scholarship under her daughter's name to University of Southern California student." was not in the source given.

   Fixed. Somehow I forgot to replace the link for that resource. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

   I feel that a few of the article's paraphrasing is insufficient: [1], [2], [3] But I also feel that some of these sections may be too basic to reword or is mostly from names or song titles.

   I am slightly confused by this part. In the first link, the copyvio detecter is picking up on two quotes that are cited in full in the article, though I revised the part about the demo. For the second link, the copyvio detecter is picking up mostly on titles (i.e. Total Experience Gospel Choir, Caught in the Middle, etc.). I have changed some stuff slightly, bu I think that will always have a high percentage due to proper nouns. I am not sure how to change anything in response to the third link, as the word is pretty basic, and I am not sure how I can edit it without making the sentence worse if that makes sense. Either way, thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think her appearing in the video for happy is that significant, especially when it references the official video instead of an article.

   Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The photos of her don't really give a good view of her face, but I screencapped a YouTube video under CC that looked good. I'll put it in the infobox for you.

   I respectfully disagree with the image swap. I actually think the original infobox image was much clearer, and the new image may show more of her face, but I find it is blurry. That is just my opinion though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   Well I also changed it without consensus between us. It can be changed back if you wish. 100cellsman (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   No worries. I will definitely think through both options. It is helpful to have another image of her on Wikimedia Commons either way so thank you for the upload! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think an image of Berklee College of Music benefits the article. I would feel better if an image of an artist she worked with or a quotation would replace it instead.

   Removed and replaced with a different image. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The paraphrasing wasn't something I was too worried about since it wasn't enough to constitute an immediate failure. Otherwise, this article is well presented and should sum up her life pretty well. Great work. Here's hoping it gets to FA quality in the future!100cellsman (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for your help! It would be cool to see this reach the FA level one day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Responses

• Apologies for putting my comments in a separate subsection, but I just wanted to explain my edits. I have removed a majority of the questionable sources with higher-quality ones. Unfortunately, I had to keep some to support the sentence about LaBelle's relationship status with Butler. It is an odd situation in which a majority of the media outlets reported that they were married though family members from both side have denied these claims and requested that it be corrected on the death certificate. It is a weirdly murky area, though I believe the family more as I have seen some glaring errors in media reports about LaBelle (i.e. saying that Butler's daughter was her daughter, mistaking "Sexify" as an album, etc.).

• I replaced the infobox image with the original as I feel that it is a higher-quality image, though I understand your rationale for replacing it. I would ideally like to put this through the FAC process one day. I am just uncertain about the image as it is blurry and I am not sure how the image policy works with YouTube screenshots (I should be more familiar with Wikipedia policy to be honest though). I do not want to come across as a dick though, because I greatly appreciate your review so far. I will definitely bring this issue up with a future peer review, and if there is a consensus for the other picture, then I will be more than happy to swap it out again. Apologies for the long message, as I have a tendency to ramble. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think using such sources can be acceptable if they must be used as a last resort. Thank you for your efforts otherwise. Also, using YouTube screenshots are generally acceptable as long as they are not from a shady source with the CC claim. (Here's a good example: [4]) But I'll accept the image change. Hope your week will be good as well, I'm reviewing the article a bit more thoroughly for verification so it will take some time, but I'll definitely be able to provide pointers along the way.100cellsman (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! And take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)