Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Friday (Rebecca Black song)/archive1
- 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 by Ian Rose 08:16, 16 November 2012 [1].
Friday (Rebecca Black song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write this article, but I polished it up to GA level a few months back. I'm wondering whether it's ready for FA? This song was released over 600 days ago, so I don't expect much new information or sources to emerge, at least until there's a "Where are they now: Rebecca Black" special on TV in the future. It's a stable article, very few edits since the GA, albeit it is semi-protected indefinitely. Only one fair use image, with rationale, all other free. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - As of now, I am sorry but I don't see the article being anywhere near FA level. The lead is underdeveloped, the prose aren't concise, many references are poorly done or just plain unreliable. I think this needs more research, a peer review and maybe a good-copy-edit. Just an example, sources #'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 & 18 are just plain unacceptable. and the list goes on and on.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there's sourcing issues, but I see no reason why Salon (ref no. 2) can't be cited, even though it's more useful as a review than proper reporting. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I think the nomination may have been rushed. Some of the links do not appear to be high quality sources, as noted above. The prose isn't terrible, but it isn't very brilliant either. For example, the quotation "We haven't received a dime from anywhere" is redundant and repetitive. The "citation needed" will need to be checked out as well. My suggestion is a good, thorough copy edit and some stronger, more reliable sources. Please also note that once a person has been mentioned by his/her full name, his/her surname should be used for following instances. I see a mix of "Black", "Rebecca" and "Rebecca Black", all used multiple times. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggesting withdrawal --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Twitter is not a reliable source. Recommend withdrawal. --Rschen7754 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend that this article be withdrawn and taken straight to Peer Review. Despite its flaws, with some concerted effort this article can definitely be refined into FA shape. If this is taken to Peer Review, just give me a ring and I will provide plenty of feedback and guidance. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.