Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Gerrard/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.
Lisa Gerrard[edit]
I'm nominating this article because I think it meets the FAC criteria.
Glitter1959 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]
- Oppose Not of appropriate length (too short), and only one reference. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Currently rated start class, which seems justified by its referencing.--Grahame (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not wishing to pile on but this article is too short and inadequately referenced. May I suggest you try for good article status? You'll get a full review there on what is missing for GA status. I'm afraid it's well wide of the mark for FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per the above. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Based on comprehensive. The articles mentions 1961 when she was born, and the next section deals with 1981, missing 20 years right there. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for now. I guess the article needs a little more tweaking before it is a featured article.Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]
- It needs far more than a little more tweaking. See featured article criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball oppose, mostly for the severe lack of references. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball oppose too short, unreferenced--Kiyarrllston 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some references on the page now. I'm going to add more later.
Glitter1959 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]
- You'll find it helpful to read WP:CITE#HOW. What you did is add unformatted URLs to the "References" section; instead, you should correctly reference which statement is sourced by which reference by way of footnotes while using the correct citation template. It sounds more confusing than it is, honest. :) You obviously have reliable sources available to verify your information, so it's a matter of correctly formatting it. If you need any help, just let me know. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Maria. Someone kept on deleting the references on the page. And I am now having trouble putting them back. Grrrr.
Glitter1959 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.