Talk:Honey Davenport

Pre-FAC comments

• Generally people will give a bit of side-eye to articles that have a large number of citations in the lead, because that material is meant to all be cited in the body. While it's not prohibited, you might consider reducing the number
• Given the length of the article I'd expect more paragraphs in the lead
• Generally the more non-free media you have in an article the stronger the rationale need to be for each. You've got three non-free sound clips and none of the three have particularly strong rationales. If you really need all three (I'm not convinced the first in particular is necessary), work on elaborating the FURs.
• Since you mention the police brutality incident in the Activism section, it probably makes sense to move the longer explanation of it from Personal life to there.
• You're citing a number of social media sources and blogs, which is likely to be an issue at FAC. Are other sources available? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for these suggestions! I'll go through the article and make changes accordingly. A couple follow-up questions:

• For the lead length, about how much expansion do you think would be appropriate? I tried following the MOS:LEADLENGTH guidelines, which suggest 2–3 paragraphs (DYK check says the prose is about 21,000 characters). I also tried keeping to an older guideline (that I can't find anymore) that suggested including one lead sentence for each subsection; is that a good rule of thumb?
• I wouldn't mind removing one of the non-free media files. In fact, I only uploaded the third one a few hours ago (the other two have been there since before the GA review). My inclination would be to take out one of the last two so that a comparison can still be made between the subject's older and newer work. What was your reasoning for thinking that the first one would be the best to remove?

Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would say 3 paragraphs. (I'm not familiar with the older guideline you mention, but in general all subsections should be summarized somewhere in the lead).

• I agree taking out one of the first two makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks. On second thought, if I change the rationale of the second file to include the fact that it's an example of her collaborative work and features other artists' voices, would that distinguish it enough from the others (very early vs. very recent example of her work) to justify all three? Armadillopteryx^talk 15:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not by itself, IMO. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've made the following modifications:

• I've removed all the citations in the lead, with two exceptions: the ones that source Davenport's legal name and those that source her birth date.
• I've expanded the lead to three paragraphs.
• I've updated the rationales for all non-free audio files in the article (here and here and here). Do you think there is now sufficient justification to include all three, or should I still look at removing one?

• In each of the cases the NFCC1 parameter is referring to an "image", but the criterion is for "media" - just explain there's no free sound clip rather than trying to explain that images can't replace sound. In terms of the purpose criterion, in each case the argument is basically "this is the subject's style at X time period" - this could be elaborated. Say in the description what differentiates early sound from late sound, solo sound from band sound. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thank you for this very clear explanation on the kinds of changes that were needed to the rationales. I understand better now, and I've updated all three again. Is this better? Armadillopteryx^talk 09:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Better, but the last one still needs improvement. Your rationale argues that it's a milestone because of the music video, but the media isn't the music video, it's just a sound clip. You could use a clip from the music video instead, or you could amend the purpose to be based only on the music. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I liked the idea of using a video sample instead, and I've now replaced the sound clip with that. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cool, but again would suggest expanding the purpose of use. At the moment you're saying it's a milestone - what does the reader gain specifically from seeing/hearing it on top of just being told that it's a milestone? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is this better? Armadillopteryx^talk 01:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've moved the description of the police brutality incident to the Activism section.
• I've cut out all but the following two social media posts: (1) an Instagram post by the subject about her birthday, since I haven't been able to source the day and the month from anywhere else, and I think it's okay to use this post per WP:ABOUTSELF, and (2) a Tweet where she links a music video released behind a paywall (the video did not generate much press, but I think it ought to be included in the videography; my rationale for this is also based on WP:ABOUTSELF). Do you think this is okay?
• I've removed the Medium article, the Gold Derby piece, and the NYU Local article that were used as sourcing; I don't believe anything else in the reference list qualifies as a blog. I also removed and replaced a Metro article after checking the list of perennial sources.

• On a quick look I see a student newspaper, plus PinkNews is flagged as generally unreliable at RSP.

• I've gotten rid of the Washington Square News article and replaced it with better refs now.
• I read at RSP that PinkNews is "generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation." Where do we draw the line on what kinds of quotes from subjects are acceptable? The PinkNews piece I cited is not actually an article; it's an interview, and the only information I took is a quote directly from the subject. This strikes me as similar to the one type of thing RSP says this source can be used for; is my interpretation incorrect? Armadillopteryx^talk 09:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Technically the RSP entry says only that one specific type of quote, but you can try to make this argument if you want. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I can't find another source where Davenport speaks about that subject specifically, but I suppose it's not a huge loss if I end up having to just delete that quote. Should I cut it out now or wait to see if/how it is addressed at FAC? Armadillopteryx^talk 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Entirely up to you, but in general, "X is the only source that says Y" is not a strong argument that X is a good source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree—that was more me debating aloud whether I ought to just cut out the info and the ref preemptively or if there is reason to leave it for discussion at FAC. I will read through the RfCs in more detail to understand why the source was deemed acceptable for the type of quote cited at RSP. I would only argue for keeping the statement/source from that angle, if indeed the RfC contents are consistent with it. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had the opportunity to read through the three discussions re: the status of PinkNews at RSP. My main takeaways:

• Discussion #2 was about a different topic, but five comments briefly mentioned PinkNews. Of those, three suggested it was reliable, while two suggested it was unreliable.
• Discussion #1 and discussion #3 focused only on whether PinkNews can be used to source a subject's sexuality, and they concluded that PinkNews should be considered POV with respect to that topic. They did not consider the publication's general reliability or reporting practices. This may be why the phrasing at RSP is so narrow. In fact, the bolded comment that originated the language at RSP reads: Generally unreliable except when quoting living people who have self-identified their sexual preferences. If PinkNews gives a source for a claim, use that source. If PinkNews makes a claim that is in another source, use that other source. If the other source does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, remove the claim. If the claim is found only in PinkNews remove the claim.
• If we take the words of Guy Macon's comment at face value, PinkNews would be considered reliable in the way I've used it—that is, quoting a living person who has self-identified their sexual preferences. Davenport's sexual preference is public knowledge (as sourced here in her article), and all I've taken from PinkNews is a quote from her (which happens to not even be about her orientation).
• Following the guidelines from Ealdgyth's page, I looked up PinkNews' editorial policy. It describes their procedures for article inclusion and fact-checking, specifically in the "Political stance", "Historic content", "Right of reply" and FAQ sections. They also appear to have an editorial board that oversees these things.
• My feeling after reading all this is that PinkNews is not classified correctly at RSP, since the only area in which they appear to be unreliable is in sourcing claims about individuals' sexualities. Though it's currently labeled as generally unreliable, I think the three RSN discussions taken together with the publication's editorial policy would actually suggest it should be classed as "additional considerations apply"—that is, it's reliable except when talking about a person's sexuality, unless the sexuality claim comes in the form of a quote from the individual in question.
• Do you think my reading of this is accurate? Armadillopteryx^talk 23:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• The specific comment that you quoted kind of undermines your argument - you've said this is the only place where you've found this claim, and that comment's last sentence suggests in those circumstances it should be removed. The rest of the discussion is less absolute and I can see a claim for "additional considerations", but I would anticipate you might face pushback on this at FAC given what RSP currently says. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it does, actually. The first sentence of that comment reads, Generally unreliable except when quoting living people who have self-identified their sexual preferences. The conditions of the "except" clause are met in this case: the material in question is a quote from a person who has self-identified their sexual preference. The rest of the comment appears to be referring to the discussion at large, which was about the source making third-party claims, not about the source quoting people making self-descriptive claims. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Just had a thought—do you think it would be a good idea for me to open a thread about this at RSN before going to FAC? Might be easiest to just get a clear consensus from there ahead of time. And as an added bonus, we would either get confirmation that the current wording at RSP says what it means to say, or it could be updated. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, that could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I've started that thread here. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: The RSN thread on PinkNews turned into an RfC, which was closed yesterday and resulted in the source being upgraded to generally reliable. I assume this means there shouldn't be an issue with taking a quote from the subject from there. What are your thoughts on this article now? Armadillopteryx 14:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do you feel you now have a solid answer to this for every source used? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• In general with regards to sourcing, take a look at this and think about how you'd answer that question. If you don't have a good answer, replace the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for this resource! Armadillopteryx^talk 09:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

How does the article look now? Are there further changes I should make before opening the nomination? Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 22:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there's no article for Glam Awards I'd suggest including a brief inline explanation of what these are - I'm not sure most readers would understand what "Door Goddess" is
• Actually that probably applies to some other things mentioned as well, such as "drag aunts". Suggest taking a pass through to look for terms of art that might be unfamiliar to readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for these last two points. I will go through the article and address those things in the next day or two. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'll get on these shortly now—I should finally have a few hours to go back through the article and expand on these things. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I've now gone back through the article and addressed these two points. I wasn't able to find a written explanation of "Door Goddess" specifically, but I added some general context about the Glam Awards and clarified that that term is the name of one award category. I also explained "drag aunt" on its first occurrence (in the Path to drag subsection). Armadillopteryx^talk 23:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)