# Talk:Chely Wright

I will be adding more detailed information about her discography in the coming days. It will mostly expand the singles section and add some official chart positions from Billboard.com.

Check out (promotional video link removed), about how she supports the troops. -LtNOWIS 02:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't ad space my friend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.0.3 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the pr on the upcoming release of a book for tomorrow.  It reads as if she wrote the wikipage for pr.  Whoever wrote this entry  needs to clean it up/rewrite it -this is not an adpage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.135.217 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 

Interesting debate about k d lang - and I understand the point about not including her in an article about another artist, and I like the new wording (among the first) for Ms. Wright - but just FWIW:
k d lang came out in 1992 in an article made public in several Canadian news outlets and in Advocate magazine.  She was listed as one of CMT's 40 Greatest Women in Country Music in 2002, which is years after she came out. She did a duet with Roy Orbison in 1998 which was pure country and introduced that way on TV.
It seems a bit "underwhelming" to try to say that one of Canada's foremost country singers was not a "major" country western singer. As to the Boston Herald and New York press, those are god sources, but there are many others that deem Lang to have been prior - to wit the Guardian  which points out that k d lang came out as one of the earlier stars.
99.192.88.80 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I see you restored my edits- which is another reason I don't trust wiki much these days.  Seems like a pr machine more than an info site.  Whatever.  That also gave me a lower opinion of this so called coming out.  Well timed publicity- thank God for KD Lang-she was the first to come out- how easily forgotten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.135.217 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 

Try reading closer. They are saying Wright is the first MAJOR country music star to come out. Major seems to be the word you keep skipping over. Lang was a fairly minor artist. Won a couple of awards, but it didn't translate into the commercial success that Wright has achieved. Regardless, the NY Post and the Boston Herald are reliable sources. You aren't. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What !!?? You are joking.  Surely.  KD Lang has won 4 Grammys (one being best country vocal performance) and has many other nominations. She is about as major as they come - and one of the best singers out there. Her records have sold in the millions-topping the charts for decades.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.135.217 (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. I already said she won a couple of awards. She won 2 as a country artist. Then everything else was as a POP artist.After her 2 country Grammy's, both of which were BEFORE she came out as a lesbian, she was never even nominated in country categories. In other words, she crossed over and abandoned country music. And Wright, who has achieved more commercial success (in terms of charting) than Lang did in country music, has never left country music. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
She came out in 1992 - and she released Even Cowgirls get the Blues in 1993....if that does not say she is still appealing to country audience after she came out then I don't know what else does.  But whatever.  You obviously are invested in this.  I just think it does a great disservice to KD Lang.
Right......she came out in 92, she made Cowgirls in 93....and it was not a country album. It was a movie soundtrack for a film of the same name. The album only made it to #82 in the US. The record didn't even go gold, where her previous 3 went gold or platinum in the US. In that same year, she got Grammy nominations as a POP artist. 1990, last nomination in country. 1992, she came out. Never got a nomination or had success with country after that....because she switched to pop. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I honestly never had heard of Chely Wright until she came out-so good for her-now I know of her -a gay C& W singer.  But not the first gay C&W singer.  You may have a hard time seeing it that way-but the rest of the world has heard of KD Lang.  And has paid for her records for over 20 years now (she has sold millions upon millions with best of collections).  I suppose you will be telling me that Lyle Lovett is not C& W either.  Now if you want to say KD Lang is not country as in Grand Ol Opry- fine- but she is the reincarnate of Patsy Cline-no matter where she plays.  That is her voice.  She is the quintessential country and western crooner.  The audience does not change that. sigh...... Now sadly- I see this as a big marketing campaign for Wright's upcoming book and album- and I had never heard of her before...so they are hoping that people outside of C&W world will buybuybuy. As for who is correct here(not Wright)-you can use this argument 20 years after Wright has emerged from the closet.  Until then- the future is too difficult to predict to dismiss KD Lang.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.135.217 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter much if you heard of her before or not. That's an irrelevant point of discussion. This isn't about who heard of whom. I've tried to explain it, but that doesn't matter either. The reliable sources said it. Go complain to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The question of whether k d lang is country enough, major enough, or mainstream enough for the claim that Chely Wright is the first major, mainstream country singer to be openly gay is one that is being discussed in a number of media reports. A good Wikipedia editor does not offer their own opinion on the issue and push for the article to reflect it. A good Wikipedia editor finds reliable sources that assess these claims and reports the results on the Wikipedia page. If there is consensus, then that one view is what should be reported. If there is disagreement, then that should be reported. But as this is a story that is still unfolding it is hard to say what the consensus (if any) might be. For now, the page seems accurate enough to me, crediting the "first" claim to two sources that do, in fact, make that claim. 99.192.89.172 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (no relation to 99.190.135.217)
A good wikipedia editor uses the sources. The sources said it, not me. I simply tried to explain it here. Whether you agree or disagree with me is immaterial, 2 seperate reliable sources said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources that describe lang as a major mainstream country music performer, and she has after all won multiple Grammy awards for country performances (the Grammy awards being the epitome of mainstream music) and has had at least one number one country song in Canada. She performs in more than one genre (so does Dolly Parton and no one would question that she's country) but she started in country. I added and cited lang's coming out in 1992. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And I cited 2 reliable sources saying Wright was the first major artist. That's not MY opinion, it is the sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources say Wright's the first - if you find a source that disputes Wright's "firstness" then add it, but using a 2008 book to cite lang's coming out to make a point in the article is Synthesis. Hekerui (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well hey, thanks so much for the assumption of good faith there, buddy. Of course I was adding the information only to make a point and not because it is true and verified. Factual errors can be included in reliable sources; that's why newspapers have Corrections sections. The article correctly states that two reliable sources have (incorrectly) identified Wright as the first openly gay major country music artist. It is not "synthesis" to include a reliable source which corrects that inaccurate information. Knowing a fact ("1992 is earlier than 2010") is not original research. There's been a major un-closeted country music artist since 1992 and that the source was published in 2008 has no bearing either on its reliability or its use to document lang's coming out. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I now used a contemporary source that discusses Wright and lang. However, I'm concerned about weight, because there is no evidence k. d. lang is relevant for an article about Wright. Hekerui (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Fun fact: You know what most people don't know. Although k.d. Lang is credited as the first openly gay country artist, Wilma Burgess was actually the first. She had a series of mid-60s country hits, including the famous tune "Misty Blue" (1966), however she is often uncredited because there is no references about it. Sorry to intrude, but I just thought I'd let you know =P Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but Chely Wright is the first country singer to come out, NOT K.D Lang. All the sources used for the article are correct. People are wanting to say that the article is incorrect when its not. K.D. Lang is not a exclusive country singer, she sings pop too. Actually she sings more pop than country doesn't she? These K.D. Lang fans just keep pushing to have the article say that K.D Lang was first when she wasn't. Actually having K.D Lang in the article is pointless because the article is about Chely Wright, NOT K.D. Lame, I mean K.D Lang. The Fans of K.D Lang need to stop pushing for her inclusion in this article.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I added the word "American" in front of your entry for Chely Wright as the first to come out. According to the Wiki entry for k.d. lang "Lang ranked #33 on VH-1's 100 Greatest Women in Rock & Roll in 1999 and #26 on CMT' 40 Greatest Women in Country Music in 2002, one of only eight women to make both lists." seems pretty clear to me who was first...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcinns (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 
...and you all keep taking it out - whatever - guess Wiki is totally US oriented.142.68.45.207 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about being US oriented...it's about reporting what the fucking source says, not what some wikipedia editor decides to interpret for himself. Read WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The source being two US newspapers - but that doesn't make it US oriented, right? Lang, who came out as a lesbian in a 1992 article of the LGBT-related news magazine The Advocate, has actively championed gay rights causes, lang was #26 on CMT' 40 Greatest Women in Country Music in 2002, therefor an accurate article would not state that Chely Wright is the first country western artist to come out. My solution was to simply put the word "American" in front of the statement making it clear that Chely is the first American Country Western artist to come out, and it need not mention Ms. Lang at all. To do otherwise simply means Wiki is quoting incorrect US sources who are being xenophobic and not recognizing that there are other countries in the world - countries like Canada where an artists lifestyle is not such a huge deal.99.192.73.58 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, most country fans don't seem to consider Lang to have been a country artist - she's a pop artist who has had some country releases. The same could be said for Ray Charles, but he's not a country musician either. Wright was a mainstream country artist in the 1990s. Also, it hasn't been called "country western" for 30 years or more. --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Wiki entries are not based on "what most fans think" - they are based on references. The reference to support the contention that kd lang is a Country artist is simple - lang was #26 on CMT' 40 Greatest Women in Country Music in 2002. If you are saying that what fans feel vs what Country Music Television reports differs, that's fine, but the fact remains that the two US newspapers quoted in the article to support the assertion that Ms Wright is the first "major country artist to come out" (quoted from the entry under discussion) is obviously inaccurate. I simply don't see the big deal about making it completely accurate by adding the one word "American" in front of the other adjectives (country artist). Failing to do that makes the article misleading and opens up all this discussion. If it's that important that Chely be seen as the first, fine - create a blog, but don't simply keep saying that because two US papers can't report a story accurately, and there is documented evidence of a contrary fact that one simply wants to ignore, that your article is correct. If the author is so intent that they wish the article to remain as is and wrong, fine, but it demeans what Wiki stands for.99.192.73.58 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The list also includes Linda Ronstadt. It isn't necessary to be a country musician to release a country song, or even to be influential in country music. Also, your contention that the US sources are being xenophobic is an assumption as well. --Khajidha (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Try to follow the facts:
1. kd lang came out in 1992 - source Advocate
2. kd lang was #26 on CMT' 40 Greatest Women in Country Music in 2002
3. Chely Wright came out in 2010
4. Any assertion that Chely is the first country artist to come out is simply wrong
A possible other correction could be that Chely is the first "solely" country artist, perhaps, but that's not what was reported. Linda Ronstadt used to be categorized as Country, so what? And the assertion that the two US newspapers is xenophobic is meant to not "assert" anything - it is factual that if they report contrary to 1 - 3 above they are simply wrong as well.99.192.73.58 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your possible "other" correction is simply the intended reading of the report. kd lang is not solely a country artist, therefore saying that she is a country artist without also saying she is a pop artist is incorrect. Lang's position on that chart shows only that she is a woman who has released some country music, not that she is a (solely) country music artist. I don't recall Ms. Ronstadt ever having been classified as a (solely) country artist, merely as an artist who had some success with country releases while remaining mainly a pop artist. You interpret their report as contrary to your facts, I interpret their report as disagreeing with you over what is meant by "country music artist". By your definition anyone who has ever released any country songs (or released any songs to country radio) is a country artist. By that definition Uncle Kracker, Kid Rock and Ween are all "country artists". Saying that the exclusion of kd lang comes from xenophobia is saying that the papers in question have a bias against either homosexuals, Canadians, or people who don't capitalize their names. Do you have proof of this bias, or are you simply assuming it because they made a statement that you disagree with? --Khajidha (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You try following the facts......Lang has not done a country album since BEFORE she came out. The CMT list you refer to came out (no pun intended) in 2002, but wasn't based on the events of 2002. She abandoned country music BEFORE coming out. Here are the FACT, not the opinion of some anonymous editor: Fact: Multiple reliable sources have said Wright is the first "major country artist" to come out. Fact: The article says exactly that. Fact: The article is currently in line with WP:RS and WP:V. Fact: Your suggestion is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So enough already. Show a policy or stop the fanboy nonsense. Kid Rock has won a CMT award and been nominated for an ACM, but that doesn't make him a country artist. He is a rock/pop artist that made a country song or two.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
+ Please cite ONE non-US source which says that Chely Wright is the first major country artist to come out. What does it matter WHEN kd lang crossed over? Are you saying that Shania Twain is not a country artist? The simple fact is the article as written is wrong - Chely is the first AMERICAN country artist to come out, not the first country artist.Sheesh...99.192.56.179 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and since you asked - kd lang's Hymns of the 49th parallel (2004) had several country hits on it, including her covers of Johnny Cash's version of Bird on a Wire and Neil Young's After the Gold Rush. We Canadians know that a lady from Alberta singing those types of songs is country.99.192.56.179 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is A Canadian source "non-US" anough? [1] "Chely Wright will go down as the first country music artist to announce their sexuality and looks to help bring country music to whole new fan base.". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Do not insert your response in MY response.......and the part I quoted is the author, not Wright, so your "point" is moot. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is one from the Seychelles [2] "Chely is the first artist in the world of country music that turns out to be gay."...and that one is a Blog - I thought they didn't count???? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked for a non-US source, not a reliable one. BTW, I'd debate whether that is a blog or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect non-US sources to even necessarily know what (American) country music is. And Neil Young isn't country, so what does her covering a Neil Young song have to do with anything? As far as the crossing over goes, you are using the term to cover two different things. kd lang "crossed over" by CEASING TO RELEASE MUSIC TO COUNTRY RADIO, Shania Twain "crossed over" by BECOMING SUCCESSFUL IN COUNTRY AND POP MUSIC SIMULTANEOUSLY. The term "country artist" as used in the sources and as used by most people on this page (and seemingly most people period) is an artist who releases/has released primarily or even exclusively country music. BY THAT TEST, kd lang is not a "country artist" the majority of her music has been pop. Chely Wright has released ALL of her music under the classification country. --Khajidha (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
OK - I get it - the Chely fan base wants it to be this way - but just so you know - kd lang sang in May 2008 and got the following review: "Lang also showed off her vocal chops as a country singer with a stellar cover of Chris Isaak's Western Stars, which saw her backdrop spring to life as a starry night, and an "old-timey" version of Paydirt, with the singer surrounded by her band in a semi-circle, and the audience clapping along" (http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/L/Lang_KD/ConcertReviews/2008/06/01/5735311-sun.html) Lang in Canada is considered a country artist, so is Twain, and Neil Young has also released country music (several singles and a couple of whole country albums...) You all are debating whether kd lang is or isn't country, when I have cited several sources stating she is, you all are debating she stopped being country, which was true for a time (due to her hassles against beef - she is a vegetarian) but she continues NOW to be a country artist.You seem to be violating NPOV. Please also see the Wikipedia list at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3ACanadian_country_singers) It isn't ME being the fan type here, I am looking for accuracy and I've given several WP:OR99.192.56.179 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't "get it". You keep basing this on some bias or nationalistic thing. It's not. It's based on policy, sources and in NOT being a fanboy/fangirl pushing an agenda. You clearly have some interest in pushing a Canadian into the article and you're acting like it's everyone else who has an agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a piece of a sentence with 4 citations clearly casting doubt that Chely's statement (by the way, if you read the Boston Herald account it is Chely that is saying she is the first, not the Herald...) and it gets removed. 2 of the sources were:
http://www.tv.com/country-singer-chely-wright-comes-out-as-gay/webnews/74478.html and http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/05/05/chely_wright_isnt_shocking
This is not nationalistic, except that you keep saying kd Lang is not a country artist when clearly (and I have given you like a half dozen sites for that) she was and still is. Whatever - keep your little dreams alive - I have mentioned this to a whole whack of people here in Canada, and when I say Chely Wright says she is the first country artist to come out EVERY SINGLE PERSON says "what about kd Lang?" I based my statement (which was "although there is some debate that kd Lang should have that title" behind the Herald reference for those who didn't see it). I am through debating this here - there are so many websites now that state openly that Chely is NOT the first, you go right ahead and keep saying she is and attribute the newspapers (one of which is merely quoting her - the quote by the way is from Larry Katz, an editorial writer for the Herald who said "She claims to be the first openly gay country singer. She’s probably right: Heck, I can’t think of another." - but you're still wrong - and Wikipedia loses.99.192.55.32 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And I removed it. 2 of the sources were blogs, 1 points out that Lang came out AFTER she went pop and the 4th called Lang "country-ish". None of them dispute the cited claim that Wright is the first MAJOR country star to come out. And, on top of all of that, this is not Lang's bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+ Right, I understand - the Headline on Broadsheet is "She may be the latest, but she's far from the first LGBT-supporting singer to come out of Nashville" but that doesn't mean anything to you, tv.com says "Wright is being heralded as the first country music star to come out as openly gay – although that claim is a bit questionable."..."authors" like you are why Wiki gets a bad name!Bcinns (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are fuzzy about what a reliable source is. The TV.com entry is just a blog entry and TV.com doesn't have a great rep for reliability. Again, you are ignoring what this bio says: That she is the first MAJOR country artist to come out. Not the first, but the first MAJOR one. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+ whatever- I trust she is paying you well...Bcinns (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that sort of thinking will serve you well in life. I note you failed to acknowledge my producing 2 non-US (including one Canadian source) sources that say she was the first. And I don't get my feelings hurt when a SPA tells me I'm "being paid". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+ kd lang was not major:
Country Awards:
1990
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Country Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
1989
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Country Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
1989
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
1987
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Country Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
1985
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Most Promising Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
Nominations:
2009
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
ARTIST OF THE YEAR
Juno Awards
2009
SONG : I Dream Of Spring Lyrics
JACK RICHARDSON PRODUCER OF THE YEAR
Juno Awards
2004
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Artist of the Year
Juno Awards
1994
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Recording Engineer of the Year
Juno Awards
1994
SONG : Miss Chatelaine Lyrics
Female Vocalist
Grammy Awards
1994
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Producer of the Year
Juno Awards
1993
SONG : Constant Craving Lyrics
Best Art Direction
MTV Video Music Awards
1993
SONG : Constant Craving Lyrics
Record of the Year
Grammy Awards
1993
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Recording Engineer of the Year
Juno Awards
1993
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Best Engineered Album
Grammy Awards
1993
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Female Vocalist of the Year
Juno Awards
1993
SONG : Constant Craving Lyrics
Best Cinematography
MTV Video Music Awards
1993
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Album of the Year
Grammy Awards
1990
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Canadian Entertainer of the Year
Juno Awards
1989
ARTIST : K. D. Lang Lyrics
Female Vocalist of the Year
Academy of Country Music Awards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcinns (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC) 

Half of those NOMINATIONS (which are different than wins) aren't even for Lang. They are for cinematography, engineering etc. Further, who gives a shit what she got nominated for AFTER SHE LEFT COUNTRY MUSIC? That has absolutely zero bearing on the conversation. Get a clue. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+ blah, blah, blah Bcinns (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You want Lang to take credit for sound engineering and cinematography? Wow, what a superwoman. She just does it all. You tipped your hand as a POV warrior with your first post in this discussion "thank god for kd Lang". Your credibility was on the downhill slide since then. If you come up with a policy based argument, let me know. Otherwise, I'm tired of your willful blindness. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+I never said "thank god for kd lang" - typical of your "authoring" to misattribute.Bcinns (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it was a similar IP number. My apology. You're not a sockpuppet, just a SPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the idea that Chely is not the first Major country & western musician to come out.  The first thing I thought when I read that line was "if you don't count K.D. Lang".  My opinion doesn't matter much here, but it seems you are insisting Chely has this honor when it is at best questionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.201.48 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 

The sources say otherwise. And, as has been pointed out a dozen times, Lang didn't come out when she was a country artist, she came out after she'd gone over to pop. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 Please quote a source for the above statement!99.192.60.92 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually - the sources do not say that - what the sources all say is that Wright claims to be the first - the Boston Herald actually questions this (read the quotes from above) - there is also some question as to Wright being a "major artist", your cites for the reference #'s 7 and 9 do not use the term "major"; and the New York Times calls Wright a "minor country artist" in their report of the coming out, and they do not quote her claim to be first . Also, what does it matter what happened after Lang came out? Lang, contrary to your opinion, actually was country  when she came out  in 1992, having won the Grammy for best country artist in 1990 - she became pop in 1993 maybe because she had come out who knows but what happens next is not knowable in Wright's case, so it doesn't matter what happened to anyone else afterwards.

You can spin and re-write history all you want, the references used do make the statement that she is the first major country artist to come out. As for your timeline, you're full of it. Langs last purely country album was in 1989. By the time she released Ingenue in 1992 (which was recorded in 1991, before she came out), she'd already started to transition to pop. Her 1993 soundtrack for "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is not a country album. Bottom line: This is Wright's bio, the sources are accurately quoted and a debate about who was first does not belong in the bio. You're a SPA with an obvious agenda, so don't even lecture me or anyone else about people trying to push an opinion. You have no grounds to stand on. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
+and I took it out, as I posted it then thought better of it...I menat the "other dude" as the one who commented that they'd second the idea about Lang and I misspoke (which again is why I took it down - only you saw it apparently - kind of shows the lengths you're going to doesn't it)? Re-posting an entry that was deleted by the author (isn't THAT vandalism and disrutive?)  even when someone makes a mistake, thanks for that...!Bcinns (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, reposting the comment is not disruptive, especially when it illustrates your attempt at sockpuppetry. And what "lengths that I'll go to"? It's in the freakin edit history. Anyone can see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I restored the above repsonse as it illustrates the attempt at subterfuge. The IP above, which happens to be located in Halifax, made the comment about "the other dude". Bcinn comes in and deleted it. Guess where Bcinn is located? Halifax. Coincidence, Doubtful. If Bcinn is the IP, he's trying to fool people. If he's not, then removing other editors posts that aren't vandalism is disruptive. As for your "fanboy" accusation, I own exactly ONE of Wrights songs. I don't even remember editing this article before I added the info about her coming out. Yeah, that's real "fanboy" behavior.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
+Ironically, it was purely coincidence for the other post (the one before the "ha,ha" one) - I put that post in then thought better of it, because it was rude (and I took it down, but since you put it back I'll just apologize instead, not because I made the comment above (and for the record Halifax is a city of 350,000 people, could there be mnore thabn one poster - hmmmmm...) - but because it's back up there. I've tried all ways to have you see that the entry as it stands is inaccurate, as kd lang was a country artist (I have several dozen sources that say so and showed you a couple) and I suggested putting something in like "American", which would make the entry true, "solely", which would make the entry true, or what about "current"which would also make it true?  Your issue is that you haven't got a single source that refers to Lang as a pop artist before she came out in 1992 - if you do, let's see it! You know what - even if you do, does that matter - she definitely WAS a country artist, and she came out, who said anything about it being important that she STILL was country when she came out? (but if that's important give us a source)? You also have accused me twice of being a sockpuppet, and had the decency to apologize once (and are wrong again) , but otherwise you have been most unpleasant to people who admittedly are not used to the way Wiki works. There is a supposition of good faith, right? Enough nonsense, give a source or change the entry. Bcinns (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. Of the few IP's in this conversation, at least 3 are from the same internet provider in Halifax. One was shown to be yours when you logged back in and changed your signature. AGF isn't a suicide pact. If you think I am going to believe that it is sheer coincidence that 2 other IP's from your city and your provider just happened to jump into this conversation to side with you just because of AGF....well, let's say I'm not that gullible. I'll call a duck a duck. Add to that the fact that the only edits they've made all year are in this conversation. Believing your "it's just happenstance" excuse just isn't plausible. I haven't even looked for a source that called Lang a pop artist in 1992. I'm not going to. The sources used in the story are reliable sources, they made the statement and and their statements are presented accurately. While I was wrong before, you're now exhibiting sockpuppet tendencies. Your excuse isn't believable and your denial (instead of just admitting it) of your attempted puppetry makes me inclined to open a SPI. I've got no problem admitting if I'm wrong, but I'm not buying your excuse. I'll ecide if I want to go through the tedious SPI complaint or not. But if I do, it will most likely result in a block from editing.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 You go right ahead and do whatever you feel is correct. I have saved my screen captures where you admit to restoring a post that an author deleted.Bcinns (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Where I "admit" it? Hey genius, it's in the edit history. I couldn't possibly deny it. Duh. You're saving screen captures of shit that is in wikipedia's servers and everyone can view. Every single edit you make it recorded and viewable. So when you go back and change stuff, everyone, including me, can go see what you said in the first place. Seriously man, get a clue.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36, just in case you do decide to open an SPI, you should know that at least one coincidence has happened in this thread. My only previous post in this thread is the one signed "99.192.89.172 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (no relation to 99.190.135.217)". I signed it that way to avoid confusion of a similar IP number. But it also happens that I live in Halifax, so my IP number can look like the ones that belong to the guy(s?) you have been primarily arguing with. Also, if you check the other posts made by the IP number that shows up for this post (142.68.42.47) you will find just one edit to the article on Boston, but it's not an edit I made. Just one made by someone who previously happened to get assigned this IP number.
As for the issue at hand, I previously wrote: "For now, the page seems accurate enough to me, crediting the 'first' claim to two sources that do, in fact, make that claim." That still seems right to me, as I have not seen a source that clearly contradicts the claim (and yes, I did see both the Salon and the New York Times pieces). So count me as a Haligonian who does not see good enough evidence yet to think the "Chely was first" claim needs to be qualified.
For what it's worth, I don't know if my fellow Haligonian editor(s?) are old enough to remember this first hand (as I am), but in 1992 when k. d. was promoting Ingénue she was very frequently refered to in the press as a country singer and she always responded quite insistantly that she was no longer a country singer. It had nothing to do with her beef with beef. It was just an accurate reflection of a change in musical direction she had made. In fact, she sometimes got a little annoyed with journalists who continued to describe her as a country artist.
I'd advise the other Haligonian(s?) and any others who think it is incorrect the list Chely as "first" to listen to Q on CBC radio this coming Friday. Chely is scheduled to be one of the guests with (I believe) guest host and Brent Bambury. I would be shocked if, in what is likely to be a 30 minute interview, Bambury does not ask her about the "Chely was first" vs "k. d. was first" issue. It might be interesting to hear their takes on it. For those not in Canada and without access to CBC radio, the shows are all archived after broadcast on the CBC webpage here: [3]. 142.68.42.47 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Save it for the SPI. That won't be decided by what I think, but by what the admins think. I doubt they'll find 3 IP's from the same provider posting essentially no place but this topic a likely coincidence, especially in light of Bcinn's deletion of that post, (a denial and excuse all at the same time) to be a likely coincidence either. Unless of course Bcinn wants to just confess and quit acting like people are stupid. As for Lang being "promoted as country"....well of course she was, she hadn't released any pop albums up to that point. Of course, she hadn't released much of anything in the time preceeeding her coming out. Argue it how you want, multiple reliable sources have called her the first MAJOR country artist to come out, that is what the article says and the bio isn't the place for the debate. Maybe all you "Haligonian" fans of Lang should write an article about homosexuals in country music, then you have that debate in that article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
+I see that the latest edit of mine was also removed, I am tired of the conflict, so I won't change it back again, but as there is at least one other interested party - what I wrote was:
This claim has been contested. (and the source used was - http://www.moxieq.com/article.php?aID=4778&PHPSESSID=638661752#
seems to me we have a source that clearly contradicts what is stated in the article.) I shall be listening to CBC this morning as well, thanks for the tip. Perhaps if others wish to express an opinion on this source...(MoxieQ being a highly respected Gay Rights journal...)Bcinns (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bcinns, there are two reasons I don't think the MoxieQ article is sufficient to justify a change in the article. Firstly, I did a quick google search and am not convinced that MoxieQ meets the requirements for being a credible source. MoxieQ is not used as a source for google news. It's been around for a year and the only references to MoxieQ I could find were press releases of its original creation - nothing since. Also, in the year it has existed it no one has even thought to create a Wikipedia page for it. Furthermore, the main sections listed on their home page are, in order listed,  "Gay Weather", "Horoscopes", "Daily Dirt", and "Movie Reviews". That does not scream journalistic reliability.
Secondly, even if MoxieQ were regarded as a credible source, the article you cite does not clearly contradict the claim that Chely was first. It acknowledges that others one might call "first" either don't count as a "major star" (Patrick Haggerty) or had left country music already (k. d. lang). The article refers to counting Chely as first as a "technicality", but that really is to admit that there is a "firstness" to what Chely has done. The spirit of the claim that Chely is first is that she first was successful in country music, then came out as gay, and then continued a career in country music. People like Patrick Haggerty don't meet the first criterion and k.d. does not meet the third, even by MoxieQ's own admission.
The reason the third criterion is significant is easy to see if you think of the examples of coming out in sports. John Amaechi made big news when he became the first former NBA player to be openly gay. But when he came out he was already retired. So if (when) in the future someone who is still an active player in the NBA comes out as gay it will be a very big deal because no one has ever tried to simultaneously be out as gay and play in the NBA. k. d. is more like John Amaechi and Chely like that possible future out gay NBA player. What k. d. (and Amaechi) did was significant, but the significance of what Chely has done is not eclipsed by it. That is why the media reports have not called into question the "first" claim. There really is a "first" here. 99.192.56.9 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (aka 99.192.89.172 and 142.68.42.47)
+ Thanks for that very civil and understandable explanation - while I might quibble with your description of MoxieQ (it is a very reliable source, in a fun spirit, within the gay community), I see what you mean with your excellent parallel in the sports analogy. This may be what others had in mind when stating that Wright can be, in your words, simultaneously out and a country singer. That I can appreciate, and it makes the historical explanation easier to understand. That is, that kd Lang was a country star who then came out (which is where I was going when I suggested "current" as an adjective for a modifier for Wright's actions that I felt would make the article more accurate), and I must admit I didn't understand why that really would be an issue - your use of simultaneously makes that clear. Thanks for the cogent explanation!Bcinns (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that was very well put. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation you will see that comments on discussion pages are supposed to be posted in the order they are made, so the newest one always goes at the bottom. The third example they give, where George is replying to John even after Elliot and Jane have responded shows how indenting is the indicator of who a response is to, not the order. The comments made by Niteshift36 at 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) and 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) were not put at the end and with the proper number of indents as the instruction page shows. I fixed both the indents (or lack thereof) and the order. My changes are correct. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you change the indentation, not the location! At this point, you are altering the conversation and context. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
First, the fact that you still use the asterisk and not colons for indents shows you have not looked at the page that tells you how to format comments. I fixed your asterisk to a colon here, but please use colons in the future. Second, if you would bother to read the page I have linked to you will find that it is wrong to insert comments in between two already posted comments, so what you call "ill-conceived reorganization" is actually just puting things as Wikipedia requires. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What you fail to understand it the policy you are citing is NOT a policy. It is a suggestion. Nobody is required to follow it. However, your alterations change the discussion. That is vandalism. I've read it, I just place more importance on the content of what is said than I do counting colons. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Every time someone makes an edit on a talk page there is a box at the top of the page that says "Please respect the talk page guidelines". Those guidelines say that inserting comments between already posted ones is wrong. You can call it a "suggestion", but it sounds like policy to me. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if it "sounds" like a policy to you. It's not. Policy pages have a banner at the top telling you they are a policy. Style guidelines have banners identifying them as such. etc. You don't see that at the top because it's not a policy. It is a preferred style, not a requirement. Further, you say "Those guidelines say that inserting comments between already posted ones is wrong", but the page you are citing shows an example of how editors can do exactly that. Your own "source" proves your claim incorrect. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom...." So what I did was acceptable editing according to the guidelines. Not vandalism. Not disruption. Something Wikipedia guidelines call "appropriate". 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Editing, as in fixing indentation. Not the context. It is disruption. It alters the meaning of the discussion. Removing is for violations of BLP etc. Do not move a response to a different location so as to make it change context of discussion flow. You've made your so-called "fixes", so this further belaboring of this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"It alters the meaning of the discussion." What alters the meaning of the discussion is when a comment is inserted above an already posted comment but at the same level of reply, making it look like the older one came after the newer one. This reply, however, by virtue of its indenting, is a different conversation thread from the less indented comment below it, so no such ambiguity arises. Sticking to the guidelines - both on order and indenting - leads to clarity. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"Your own "source" proves your claim incorrect." Not true. You don't seem to have read it correctly. What it tells you is how you can insert comments between comments when the coment inserted is at a further level of indentation to the one it is above. But what you did was insert comments at the same level of indentation. Those are supposed to go below, not between the comments in question. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the article "Canadian singer-songwriter k.d.Lang was active in country music in the 1980s and came out as a lesbian in the early 1990s, but had not gained mainstream acceptance in the genre and had moved to pop music."
This does not belong in a article about Chely Wright because,well this article is about Chely Wright not K.D. Lang. Also I know that when I was reading the article about Chely Wright's personal life it seemed kind of odd and out of place to see a blurb about K.D. Lang. The Fact is that Chely Wright was the first country artist to come out and the 2 of many sources (Boston Herald and New York Daily News) back this up. From what I have read online, K.D Lang did not come out while she was a country singer, she came out when she was a pop singer. I realize that it seems like I am splitting hairs here but technically it is correct that she came out while she was a pop singer.--BeckiGreen (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. We had that debate above. Both sources list Wright as the first major country artist to come out. Lang did some country albums, but didn't have the commercial success Wright did. And Lang had abandoned country and was making pop albums when she came out. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
True, true. Hekerui (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... "Lang did some country albums, but didn't have the commercial success Wright did." Obviously you did not check their respective discography pages. Lang's final two country albums both went gold in the US. Wright has only ever had one gold album. One of those two Lang albums was in the Billboard Country top ten, the other made it to #12. Wright has only ever had one top ten album and her second best one did not make it to #12 (it was #15). Lang clearly had marginally more commercial success than Wright in country music. But she had left the genre before she came out, so if Lang was not the first major country artist to come out it was not because her level of success was not high enough to count as a "major" artist, but because she was no longer a country singer. 142.177.24.137 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, yeah, I know what I said and it is correct. True, Lang had 2 country alubums go gold in the US. But the highest charting country single she had was #22. Wright had a #1. Lang had 4 country singles chart in the US. Wright has had 17 so far. Lang got up to #9 once in country albums, Wright went to #4. It's all moot because 1) The reliable sources made the statement and 2) Lang had already abandoned country and gone to pop music when she came out. Wright hasn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone added the K.D. Lang paragraph back in the article and I removed it again. I am not trying to start a edit war but I will keep removing it because it had nothing to do with Chely Wright's personal life. It sticks out like a sore thumb in the article.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No it actually doesn't stick out like any sort of thumb, sore or otherwise. It addresses a question that many people ask when confronted with this supposed fact about Wright, namely, "what about k.d. lang?" It would be one sentence but god forbid we strive for clarity and context. BTW, "I don't want to edit war but I will keep removing it" is not only a completely inappropriate of assertion of ownership of the article, it's completely contrary to the principle of collaborative editing, not to mention an open declaration of edit war.
"This makes Wright the first major country music artist to come out as gay (former country artist k.d. lang came out in 1993 but had abandoned the country music genre by then)." Yeah, that really detracts from the article. Really makes it just impossible to follow. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you are trying to compromise, but surely you also see that it's not just one (or two) editors that have said it doesn't belong. The majority of verifiable, established editors (not random SPA's from the same provider) that have discussed in have said it doesn't belong. That starts looking like consensus to me. So the "ownership" lecture might be a bit presumptious. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Part of why it may look like it doesn't belong is because the "Personal life" section is so completely under-developed. That often happens with BLP articles because for some reason editors tend to split the personal and professional and go into minute career details while ignoring the personal details. There should definitely be more than five short sentences about her "personal life" and a glance at the available sources shows a lot of material available. At the very least her reasons for staying closeted (both personally and professionally) should be detailed as well as the reasons why she decided to come out when she did. Structurally this article is a mess and I'm frankly surprised anyone would rate it C-class. Regardless, the point still stands that as part of a properly developed section mention should be made of lang because of her history in the country genre and being out so much earlier than Wright. That no one has yet developed the section properly doesn't mean that information that ought to be included should be omitted.
As far as being "presumptious" [sic] goes, I find it rather more presumptuous to announce that particular pieces of information will be removed no matter what. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel it belongs, but I'm not going to fight over the way that you've included it. I do not think the wikilink needs to be there for lesbian. WP:OVERLINK tells us that links aren't needed to common words that are understood by most users. Most English speakers know what a lesbian is without having to go read the article to figure it out and that's why I removed it. FWIW, I also think that making an issue of a typo (the u and the i are next to each other) is kind of childish. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The chart with the awards is starting to get a little overboard. In broad general terms, if the award isn't notable enough for an article, why is it on here? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Chely Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160109200424/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYCbaqNMb0&feature=related to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYCbaqNMb0&feature=related
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chely Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119034234/http://chely.com/reading-writing-rhythm to http://chely.com/reading-writing-rhythm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723164138/http://chely.com/awards to http://chely.com/awards
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The article has the following statement:

The location was chosen primarily due to the limited acknowledgement of the LGBTQ community in the surrounding area.
There are a few things I think we can tighten around this statement. Firstly, was it chosen by the Lighthouse organization, or some other body? And can we also clarify what factual evidence the local community limit acknowledgement of the LBQT community? Also, I think “acknowledge” is a strange word. You can acknowledge the LBQT community but oppose them. To not acknowledge something is to deny its existence, and that sounds highly unlikely to me. Some clarification and sources would be helpful here. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chely Wright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


### "Good article" nomination, passed
This article has passed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
The article has excellent prose (I did some extremely light copyediting, it is of very high quality nevertheless). The issue I have with this is that the structure is a bit disjointed. For instance, when I read her biography, "2004–present: Independent albums and musical transition" merges into "2000–2010: Early activism". Now I don't have a problem with the two sections - it could well be that this is a good structure - however, the section largely glosses over her acceptance of her lesbianism, which I'd have to argue is part and parcel of Wright's musical career. At the very least, it needs to explain this more clearly. As it stands, it currently reads that she only ever alludes to her homosexuality and never formally announced she was gay. This is clearly wrong, as the it shows further on in the article.
Personally, I feel that the activism section should be just a summary of her activism and renamed to "Activism" (it's somewhat inaccurate to say that her activism is only her "career", btw), the personal life section should be migrated into the biographical section, and that the musical career section should be removed, and the subsections become actual sections, like in many other biographical articles. "Musical styles" is also not really part of her biography, but a summary of her... well... musical styles.
@Aussie Article Writer: I see your point related to make a clearly-focused description in the "2004-present" section. I added in a quote and made it clearer in the first paragraph, second sentence. I also added some more connections to her sexuality in that section, since that is the time frame for when she came out. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: I can understand that the word "activist career" sounds strange. Activism makes more sense. I also removed that sentence where you put "citation needed". I am not sure where I got that from and could not find the original source. Thanks for checking that! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
However, I do not think it would be appropriate to merge activism section with the music section. First, it would interrupt the focus of that section. A significant part of her music career had nothing to do with activism or her coming out (Meaning prior to her coming out in 2010). Second, Wright has made activism a career outside of her music. With the establishment of her role in GLAAD, the Like Me Lighthouse, and the autobiography, it was necessary to make it a different section. I especially feel strongly about this because there is a whole generation of LGBT youth who purely know Wright for her activist work. Readers who are curious/need information related to activism may find it difficult and disorganized if I was to merge it with her music career. The same makes sense for her "personal life" section. Hope that makes sense. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Now that the heading has been changed, this makes more sense. And your reasoning seems sound, that does sound like it might confuse things to merge the two together after all. I also think the additional sentences you have added are quite relevant and help with the flow. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have also added a citation needed, along with a comment on the talk page.
2. Verifiable?:  Pass
3. Broad in coverage?:
It is hard for me to comment on whether enough was written about her musical style.
4. Neutral point of view?:  Pass
5. Stable?:  Pass
6. Images?:  Pass
Overall, this is an excellent, excellent article. The prose is some of the clearest I've read. The accuracy and sourcing seems impeccable. Though I am not a domain expert, it seems to me that it is quite thorough. The images are tasteful, well chosen and high quality. If not for the structure concerns, I'd be happy to pass this as a GA, although I might actually ask someone with more musical knowledge than I have to see if the musical styles section is thorough enough, so I might need to ask for a second opinion. However, I would like to thank the authors of this article, you have done a wonderful job and even though I have failed this, it was a fascinating and enjoyable article, and a pleasure to read such clear, crisp prose that has been so excellently references. Well done! — Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: Hello, I cleaned up, re-wrote and nominated this article. Thank you for reviewing this article. However, with all due respect, I disagree with the fail you have stamped on this GA nomination. I do not see why an entire article needs to be failed because one sub-heading layout disagrees with the way you believe it should be organized. Instead, you can simply put the article on "hold", allowing me seven days maximum to make necessary changes. I will make sure it is re-assessed by someone who has a better grasp on this article's structure. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: I agree that this is an unfair failure. There is only one problem presented, and you did not give @ChrisTofu11961: any time to try and resolve it. Every other GAN I've been involved in, the reviewer has given me ample time to resolve any issues. And the problems you presented do not seem pressing enough to warrant a quick-fail. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTofu11961 and TenPoundHammer: Apologies, I am new to GA review. What template should I use to hold the article? I am happy to do so, it’s probably my inexperience at GA review that has caused this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You haven't formally failed the GAN yet (you didn't remove the template or anything), so you're still good. Just leave a note asking for ChrisTofu11961 to make the improvements you've called for and give him a week or so to fix any issues that arise. (See Talk:Eddy_Raven/GA1 -- this process sometimes involves a lot of back and forth.) Once you feel like he's gotten everything fixed, then you can promote it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I have reread the instructions more carefully, and placed it on hold. I genuinely would like to promote this article, the contributors have clearly put a lot of time and cate into referencing and the prose is engaging and of high quality! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: Thanks for understanding. I went back in and made some changes (see comments above). As an FYI, I will be out of town for a week, starting tomorrow. So I may be slow to responding after tomorrow evening. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTofu11961: congrats, this has now passed and is a GA! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: Thank you for helping to pass this article onto GA status! ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As the article states, “She pointed a gun into her mouth, but changed her mind before pulling the trigger.” It gives a proper source for it as well. If anyone is looking for even more intense authenticity, you can hear her tell the story in her own voice and words on the “Coffee, Country and Cody” podcast from WSM radio, “Coffee, Country and Cody with Chely Wright” recorded May 28, 2010 and published June 1, 2010. It’s especially intense hearing it from her in her own voice. Another intense moment occurs when Bill Cody reads a short excerpt from her book in which she expresses her reasons for coming out. I think this is a terrific source, but I don’t know how one would cite it or if it is an acceptable source under Wiki policy. Poihths (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)