QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 7th September 2011, 6:17pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
If you really want to see a badly-written Wikipedia article look at '
The Fame Monster, the album by Lady Gaga.
Ha ha ha. You have just stumbled across one of Wikipedia's most pernicious weaknesses--
bigger-than-life female pop stars.
The Edge of Glory (T-H-L-K-D). 77k bytes, 110 references. For
one song.
Telephone (song) (T-H-L-K-D). 81k bytes, 161 references. For
one song.
Bad Romance (T-H-L-K-D). 88k bytes with 172 references. For
one song.
Born This Way (song) (T-H-L-K-D). 117k bytes, 176 references. For
one song.
The Gaga Wikiproject is still relatively young---only 128 articles.
Similar mountains of fanboy bullshit are posted on en-WP about many other scary women singers.
With every one of their songs dissected in obsessive detail.
Madonna: 238 articles.
(Her main article has 294 references, making her more referenced than any American president, except
for the last two, Bush and Obama--since their articles are perennial Wiki-dork battlefields.)
Whitney Houston: 93 articles.
Mariah Carey: 201 articles.
Beyoncé: 192 articles.
Celine Dion: 237 articles.
Britney Spears: 125 articles.
Cher: 151 articles. (Complete with circular categories.)
Miley Cyrus isn't even 20 years old, and she's already got 82 articles...not counting the Hannah Montana stuff.
It is another weakness of Wikipedia: it can't remember much further back than 10-20 years. The few
female singers to predate that with similar amounts of crazy coverage include Ella Fitzgerald and Aretha Franklin.
I think they were probably better singers, with longer careers, than Lady Gaga.