Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lindsay Lohan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lindsay Lohan

I'm not the original author but, since so much of the current work is mine, I'm calling this a self-nom with appropriate credit and thanks to its other constructive contributors. This article received very little attention in peer review, but the help offered there was huge. I say this article is ready, and I hope you agree. RadioKirk talk to me 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. May need some lengthening in some sections, but meets all technical requirements. RyanGerbil10 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Lead-in is too short, recommend expansion. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a brief overview; anything specific you would suggest? RadioKirk talk to me 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the lead is too short. It does what it needs to do. Andrew Levine 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the only other sentence that made any sense—to me, anyway... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, not a problem then. Perhaps I'm just too used to seeing long lead-ins for FAs. ;) - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be 2-3 paragraphs, based upon Wikipedia:Lead section. AndyZ 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

When I went through this process a couple of weeks ago for Karen Dotrice, I read where it recommended 1-2. So I go back and read it again... and I forgot this is a bigger article... ;-) RadioKirk talk to me

• Support. Well-done! (due to personal preference) I'm not sure I like the number of sub-sections. Why are biography and career under one section. I think they can be split up. I'm just looking at other FA actress, like KaDee_Strickland, and how they're sectioned off. It just looks better, IMO. Gflores ^Talk 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, I just noticed another user told you to format it to look like Britney Spears. You can't please us all. ;) It's up to you. :) Gflores ^Talk 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL well, I checked out a few different pages and used the format I thought looked best. Even then, I tweaked it a couple of times afterwards. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I did just separate Biography and Career but, given the dearth of details about her personal life, I'm going to either keep looking for encyclopedic information or, perhaps, revert it back! After reread, I changed it back. RadioKirk talk to me 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, please explain the reference: "born Lindsay Dee Lohan[1]". --maclean25 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That was her name at birth; she said so on TEENick. I have a request in to Nickelodeon for a transcript of the program; in the meantime, the only Internet references are the contemporaneous accounts of those who saw it. Oddly, the footnote no longer works... (Edit: Okay, not so odd; the ref was intentionally nuked by someone [I know because I removed it altogether, and the next ref no longer worked when bumped up to the top]. There's no explanation for this move that I can find; not here, not on the talk page, not in search. Can someone bother to enlighten me so I know what I did [theoretically] wrong? Thanks...) RadioKirk talk to me 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• This appears to be a discussion thread about some people who saw the referenced piece of information "born Lindsay Dee Lohan" on TV. I don't think that counts as a reliable source. --maclean25 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object; I want to support, but it's just too short. Everyking 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And to think, I considered that article an elephant for a 19-year-old... anyway, if you know of anything I missed, point me there, please. RadioKirk talk to me 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectNeutral for various reasons. First of all, several quotation are misquoted. For example, "and the children are delighted that this chapter in their life is over" should be "...and the children are delighted that this chapter in their lives is finally over." and "looks forward to rebuilding his relationship with his children" should be "look forward to the opportunity to rebuild my relationship with my children." and inappropriate headings like "Personal" and "The beginning". --maclean25 06:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Issues discussed on RadioKirk's talk page. --maclean25

If maclean25 will allow me, I'm striking the issues already addressed. The remainder are on my talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 01:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's bloody weird; those quotations match verbatim the first version of the story I read (they were c+p, in fact)! Fix on the way... RadioKirk talk to me 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• What about the "where she delivered more dialogue..." quote referenced to filmbug.uk? --maclean25 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, rats, they paraphrase the exact quote... I'll get a better link. RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Please fix maclean's objections, though. —Nightstallion (?) 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, I have a dislike for the girl, but that article is great. Well done. Forever young 08:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Object. A solid article, but not comprehensive enough. There are quotes from critics regarding a few of Lohan's film and television productions, but not others. Hardly any material on her music career; featured articles on recording artists should try to include substantial discussion about the subject's musical styles, influences, themes, etc. (as well as critical appraisal), but this article fails to go beyond classifying her music as "pop" and providing a description of her fluctuating popularity on the charts. Additionally, what have the mainstream press said about Lohan's celebrity status? I've seen her compared to (amongst others) allegedly manufactured "starlets" such as Hilary Duff, Ashlee Simpson etc., but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. And regarding herself: what are her ambitions, what does she think about her career and body of work, and why does she say she chooses the projects that she does? Lohan is a prominent celebrity, and there's more to be said about her than the article's current state would suggest. Also, the rationales of fair use on the image description pages aren't that strong, e.g. regarding Image:ALMP pub.jpg, why is this being used than, say, a promotional photo from the Speak photoshoot? There are also a couple of sloppy sentences here and there, such as "Eventually, her persistence paid off, including more than 100 print ads for Toys "R" Us". I'd also like to reiterate that I think it is a good article, and it's nice to see pages on contemporary celebrities free from POV. I suggest looking at featured articles in the categories of "Media" and "Music". Julia Stiles, Sharon Tate and (in particular) Kylie Minogue are the ones I usually refer to. Extraordinary Machine 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people, I tell ya... [grin] Seriously, I'll keep at it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the improvements, but I don't think that the article is anywhere near substantial enough yet. There's detail, yes, but not in all the right places. For example, exact dates and box office figures aren't necessary. Additionally, no offense to the writers of CommonSenseMedia, liveDaily or All Music Guide, but there are more authorative sources out there to quote from (they shouldn't be hard to find on places like metacritic.com, especially with modern high profile recording artists like Lohan). Overall, still not enough critical appraisal; I always try to include at least two quotes (and often three) from critics when writing about each major project (film, television and music) that the subject of an article (if they are a singer or actor) has participated in as that's what the authors of featured articles about entertainers have done. The "Media spotlight" section is a little superficial; Lohan's alleged "party girl" lifestyle and weight loss have been widely publicised, and a lot more could be written about this kind of stuff, especially if her (arguably) less notable car accidents are given an entire paragraph. The lack of substance makes the section read a little like a string of factoids; I just don't think it flows perfectly well. Also, the image fair use rationales are not adequate: on every image description page you have to explain exactly why you chose to use the image in the article instead of another, and not just leave the rather general description of "Its use is designed specifically to provide a pictorial representation of the accompanying text". E.g. if the second screencap in the "Early work" section is from The Parent Trap (or a specific scene in the film) for a reason, then say so on the description page. It's a good article as I said, but I think it has quite a way to go before it becomes FA quality. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment.I agree somewhat with some of the things that you said. However, I disagree completely with you opinion that All Music Guide is not authoritative. In fact, it offers some of the most comprehensive and authoritative music reviews out there (even Wikipedia recognises it: Wikipedia:Notability (music). A.M.G is certainly better than most newspapers (yes, even N.Y or L.A Times). This is because while it is totally committed to giving reviews, the others simply offer a small section where (often inexperienced) news editors and journalist give their opinion of a piece of work. The former is much more indepth and comprehensive — atleast that's what I've been taught in Lit and media studies etc. Moreover, try not to be too subjective. This issue of too much subjectivity on FACs was recently discussed by Raul654 and Tsavage. See here. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise about AMG, I apologise. But obviously there will be some degree of subjectivity in FA nominations, since the criteria can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Extraordinary Machine 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, EM, if you'll forgive me, I have to disagree with virtually every point. Much of what you're describing ventures into the redundant, especially critical quotes, and particularly when those cited tend to represent the consensus. Meantime, I've seen sites like All Music Guide quoted often in articles; the alternative, really, is "Rolling Stone says this and Rolling Stone says that." Sources should represent a wide view, and I tend to think "authoritative" is subjective, anyway. Regarding "Media spotlight", what you're asking wanders out of the encyclopedic and into the sordid, in my very strong opinion (besides, weight-loss and boob-job articles were mostly confined to tabloids and blogs while the wrecks made Network news). An encyclopedia (again, IMO) should explain what's relevant and why in as few words as possible. As for fair use rationale, would I be out of line to suggest you're picking nits? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment→ actually no, he is not "picking nits". Detailed fair-use rationales have really become important requirements for pictures, and one to two sentences just won't suffice. Typical ones would look like these Image:IBT.jpg, Image:SmallCelineDion.jpg or Image:CoolCap2.JPG. Orane (t) (c) (e) 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the text within the copyright box, I seriously believe this is a case of overkill; nevertheless, I'll adapt that text for all images within the next 10 minutes or so. RadioKirk talk to me 05:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to have a critical quote corroborated by another as that way, the reader gets the sense that it really is consensus rather than what one specific critic said. Using more than one quote is especially useful in cases where consensus is divided. I didn't necessarily mean Rolling Stone magazine, there are countless other sources to pick from. I don't mean to demean people's work in any way, and it's a nice article, but I still believe that it could be more comprehensive. For example, I don't get a sense of how the media considers her a "manufactured" artist outside of an implication from the AMG review quote, when (from the articles I have read) she's often criticised for this (even if it isn't true). Even if the material on her alleged "party girl" status isn't expanded, I think Lohan should be directly quoted rather than it just saying "repeatedy denied the various rumors". Also, instead of "Fully Loaded did moderately well at the box office, earning US$66 million in domestic release and US$144 million worldwide" for example, you could write "Fully Loaded did moderately well at the U.S. box office, and became Lohan's most widely-seen film appearance elsewhere with US$144 million generated in ticket sales" as it gives more meaning than the figures by themselves may do. Good work on the image fair use rationales. Extraordinary Machine 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on Fair Use. On the other points: I'll continue looking for appropriate quotes for consensus, and perhaps a quote from Lohan on partying and breast enhancement rumors. However, I cannot justify your statement re Fully Loaded: That would require a comparison of all worldwide currency in the respective years of film releases to make that statement with encyclopedic certainty. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You should now find this to your liking. RadioKirk talk to me 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I still feel that the article could be a little more comprehensive and that some of the detailed parts (exact dates, box office figures etc.) should be removed. However, I appreciate the attempts to remedy my concerns, and as it stands it's a great article. It appears to meet the criteria, and I now vote support. Extraordinary Machine 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose —per EM. Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns addressed? Please reread. RadioKirk talk to me 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::*Comment. Definitely better. Just a suggestion: how about including something about media spot-light/controversy into the intro? It is discussed at such great lenghts in the article. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::Comment→ Very good. I know that it seems like I'm a bother, but just bear with me :D. There is still the issue of Lohan's music. You have not given any indication of what her music sounds like. Examples of this "music" issue can be discovered by reading Kylie Minogue, Rebecca Clarke or Céline Dion. Just give indication of themes and sounds of her albums, plus critical appreciation from experienced critics. I've gone ahead and cited a source that gives reviews— All Music Guide. Here's the link: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=LINDSAY|LOHAN&uid=CAW030601272331&sql=11:wy09kextdq7c~T2. Hope this helps. Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support— my objections have been addressed. Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object - the article is well written, well referenced, and I really think for such a young performer it covers all the major points without delving into trivia - congratulations on that. My only concern is tidying up the image description pages - the fair use rationales are way, way better than most. (What exactly is wrong with the public domain image that's been identified? Is there no place in the article for it? Just wondering.) As per Wikipedia:Image description page, source and copyright should be provided. This simply means linking back to the original webpage etc that the image was taken from, or for a screenshot say explicitly "screenshot taken from DVD copy of ..... " etc. The examples that Orane mentioned (Image:SmallCelineDion.jpg) contain exactly what's required. If you can just tidy up those small but important details, IMO the article will be ready. Rossrs 11:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done—and, to date, I have not been able to find a single PD image of Lindsay any older than, say, 12. RadioKirk talk to me 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support aah, that explains why no PD image. Yes all my concerns are addressed. It is well written, well referenced. Looks good. Rossrs 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support: As much as I disapprove of her personal life choices and whatnot recently, this is a really informative article. Great work! --Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 00:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This article should really use a different image in the infobox. That picture is hardly recognizable as the red-haired schoolgirl that the name Lindsay Lohan conjures up in most minds. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL well, if I may disagree, that's one of her most recent pics, and I don't see why the reader shouldn't say, "oh, so that's what she looks like now, huh?" ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)