Talk:Nikki Jean

About the notability tag on top - now it's gone

I've removed the {{notability}} tag on top of this article, which was placed since December, 2007. Nikki Jean's career went up and recently she's featured in Lupe Fiasco's hot new single Superstar, so people will want to know who is this singer. I believe that she is notable enough. Brainmachine (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikki Jean/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 06:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Short description / Introduction

1. Up to you but I think “…with him” instead of “…with the rapper” sounds better and a lot simpler.

2. Consider removing “highly regarded” from the short description as it could be considered puffery. I think the notability of the names is more than enough to be impressive.

Early life

3. I’m debating the use of race to describe her parents. If it is indicative of her brand and image, such as her songs or overall life story, I can understand using it. But when I first read “white labor lawyer” I was confused if it meant a “white labor” lawyer. It may be unnecessary after reading through the article's content. If you believe these details to be important to her article, please capitalise White as it is referring to race.

2005–2008: Nouveau Riche and Lupe Fiasco's The Cool

4. "She later went on the album tour" could be worded better. Perhaps “She later went on a tour for the album”.

5. Consider reworking "Jean's collaborations with Fiasco marked her..." to “Jean's work alongside Fiasco played a significant role in her rise to broader recognition. A 2011 article from Billboard noted that she had been "quote”.

7. "She believed her lack of wide success actually helped her secure collaborations, allowing her to approach each writer as a fan" could be reworded to “She believed her lack of mainstream success helped her secure collaborations, which allowed her to approach each writer as a fan.”

2008–2011: Pennies in a Jar

8. While I understand the “even” in the following "Dyaln even allowed her", I don’t think it should be included. It reads like it’s exaggerating the point which generally Wikipedia should read a lot more neutral and objective.

9. Rework "She was originally signed to Columbia Records but they dropped her in late 2010 as the music seemed "more mature" than they anticipated; the album was instead released on July 12, 2011 by indie label S-Curve Records, titled Pennies in a Jar." to “She was originally signed to Columbia Records but was let go in late 2010 as her music seemed "more mature" than they anticipated; the album was instead released on July 12, 2011 by indie label S-Curve Records, titled Pennies in a Jar.”

2011-present: Extended plays and further collaborations

10. Please rework the content in this section by adhering to chronological order. It mentions 2013, then 2015 and references a 2018 work, before going back to 2015. Then the second paragraph starts in 2014.

Musical style and influences

Perhaps you could expand more on "Her later EP Champagne Water touched on current societal issues, such as through providing examples for what societal issues they were (e.g., societal issues such as...). The use of "current" is too general, as in 2014 the issues were different to 2023.

Other and concluding remarks

Remember that if you incorporate my examples for reworking some sentences to keep the relevant styling (e.g., italics) and Wikilinks in the current article.

After these recommendations are incorporated I believe this could be passed. BritneyErotica (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@BritneyErotica:  Done. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 05:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I've gone ahead and passed this nomination. BritneyErotica (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some copyediting is required. For example, "He called her up and..." could be reworked to "After a phone call with...". I assume Lupe Fiasco was the one who called her but it is initially a bit confusing with phrasing. An example could be "After a phone call with him, Jean was invited to feature on two tracks: "Little Weapon" and the single "Hip Hop Saved My Life" from his album, Lupe Fiasco's The Cool (2007), the latter of which she co-wrote." Reworded this example. I'll do some copy editing later. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC) I also think brackets immediately after containing the band's name change would be appropriate. For example "the Disease (now named Nouvuea Riche).  Done. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The "Artistry" section may need to be reworked as it may be ambiguous (what does this section actually refer to?) and is not consistent with other layouts found on other biography Good Articles.  Done. Retitled this section more fittingly. If you want, I can also try to merge it with the main section. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ideally, AllMusic would not be used for biographic details (See WP:RSP) which it seems to be referenced a lot throughout the article. It is also problematic to have reference to two different spellings of her name, and justify the spelling "Nicholle" with a weaker source than The Wall Street Journal.  Done. I removed the use of AllMusic for biographical details and changed the spelling of the name. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Ideally there would be some additions to biographical information in order to cover who she is as a person as well as her career information. This is all the coverage I could find on her personal life. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'll have to look at this more closely due to previous conflict of interest. I'm sure it is no longer a problem and from my first reading it seems to be okay (especially after copy editing). Jean barely edited the article, and they did only to replace a photo added to the article that was not of her. I started working on this article because of their inquiry on the teahouse. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	It seems to be on its way to meeting Good Article criteria. I have specific concern for reference [1] in providing biographic information throughout the article. The other references look good and are reliable. If you need any further examples for copyediting I can definitely provide a thorough breakdown when I have more time.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.