The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 06:53, 22 April 2012 [1].
Unfaithful (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... this is my second Rihanna article on which I have worked and heavily and with all my efforts. I know that is not perfect when it comes to prose, but I just want to try the first nomination and see comments with which I can improve and eventually satisfy them. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose based on incomprehensibility issues in the Info box and Lead alone. This many mistakes in one prose sections leads me to believe that it is highly probable that countless more are present in the other 10 sections.
Also, three general comments. Why is the there an unneeded and unsightly clear in the Background and release section? And nine of the Digital remixes countries in the Release history table are missing a Label box. The "A Girl like Me" book link should also be included.
Aaron • You Da One 12:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose (1) One does not ask a sourcing question [2] about an article at WP:RSN and then ignore the input there when submitting an article for FA status. The source is not a RS and should not be used in a Wikipedia article (2) Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect. [3] Fladrif ( talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Delegate note -- Yes, with two opposes and no serious movement on the review for some time, this FAC will have to be archived. If and when all outstanding comments are addressed, and a minimum of two weeks have passed following archiving, the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 06:53, 22 April 2012 [1].
Unfaithful (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... this is my second Rihanna article on which I have worked and heavily and with all my efforts. I know that is not perfect when it comes to prose, but I just want to try the first nomination and see comments with which I can improve and eventually satisfy them. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose based on incomprehensibility issues in the Info box and Lead alone. This many mistakes in one prose sections leads me to believe that it is highly probable that countless more are present in the other 10 sections.
Also, three general comments. Why is the there an unneeded and unsightly clear in the Background and release section? And nine of the Digital remixes countries in the Release history table are missing a Label box. The "A Girl like Me" book link should also be included.
Aaron • You Da One 12:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose (1) One does not ask a sourcing question [2] about an article at WP:RSN and then ignore the input there when submitting an article for FA status. The source is not a RS and should not be used in a Wikipedia article (2) Any article with User:Legolas2186's fingerprints on it is automatically suspect. [3] Fladrif ( talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Delegate note -- Yes, with two opposes and no serious movement on the review for some time, this FAC will have to be archived. If and when all outstanding comments are addressed, and a minimum of two weeks have passed following archiving, the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply