Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bettie Page/archive1

Bettie Page[edit]

A bit of a self-nom: I wrote the first version over a year ago, but many other people have made changes, & added more material to make it more than I could. I have sent this thru RfC, although this only received one comment, I made the changes suggested there. So now I ask: shall we label this a Featured Article? -- llywrch 23:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section should be re-written so that it encapsulates the most important points of the overall article. As it is now, half of the lead section is about the early party of Betty's life, which really isn't among the most noteworthy things about her. ike9898 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Refer to peer review As was said above, the lead needs to be expanded upon, but also the Revival section is a little short. (As an offside note, putting an article through RfC isn't enough when it comes to feature articles; Peer review can also help people review, comment on and expand the article, and thus is a very helpful tool when it comes to FAC) --JB Adder | Talk 10:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- When I wrote "RfC", I meant peer review. Here is the response I received. More undoubtedly would have been useful -- & still would be -- but I worked what I had. -- llywrch 02:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I still, however, stand by my statement about the extremely short Revival section. Expand it please, if you can. --JB Adder | Talk 04:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Query What's the basis for claiming "fair use" on the Dave Stevens illo? N. Caligon 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that fair use does not apply in this context. Were the article a review of Dave Stevens work, it would probably fit fair use criteria. In this context, it seems much closer to a true copy-vio. I'm going to take it out of the article as a precaution. Feel free to replace if you clearly articulate why it is not a copyvio. ike9898 18:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)