The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
I am self-nominating the Carpenters article once again, because I made the appropriate edits from comments from the old nomination, and the quality is much better than now than before. Please leave constructive criticism. Thank you! Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 04:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Just because three people opposed it before I re-edited isn't good reason for opposing it. I made the corrections to everybody's constructive comments. What more do you want besides references?
Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan
07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
**What has that got to do with anything? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against regarding the contents of the page itself.
Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan
08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
**Now are you happy? Cuyler91093 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: I added more references. It went from under 30 to 45. I will continue adding references. Projected estimate will be around 100. Cuyler91093 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Another note: Now, there are 67 references total. How much do you guys recommend I put in the article? Cuyler91093 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Sadly no. Article lacks any context or insight, and is riddled with stubby paras, incomplete refs, and blue links. Ceoil 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
I am self-nominating the Carpenters article once again, because I made the appropriate edits from comments from the old nomination, and the quality is much better than now than before. Please leave constructive criticism. Thank you! Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 04:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Just because three people opposed it before I re-edited isn't good reason for opposing it. I made the corrections to everybody's constructive comments. What more do you want besides references?
Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan
07:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
**What has that got to do with anything? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against regarding the contents of the page itself.
Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan
08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
**Now are you happy? Cuyler91093 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: I added more references. It went from under 30 to 45. I will continue adding references. Projected estimate will be around 100. Cuyler91093 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Another note: Now, there are 67 references total. How much do you guys recommend I put in the article? Cuyler91093 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Sadly no. Article lacks any context or insight, and is riddled with stubby paras, incomplete refs, and blue links. Ceoil 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply