Talk:Nina Girado

Biography

i don't know how to use this. i just want to tell wikipedia staff not to delete this article coz i have the permission to publish the content from www.ninasoulsiren.com. we are just building this wiki to collaborate the future content of that website. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninasoulsiren (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point the question is somewhat moot, but Wiki does not have permission to extensively duplicate copyrighted material simply because "somebody gave you permission". Either the source needs to be in the public domain, or the source needs to include a statement of how the material may be used elsewhere. That statement must be acceptable to Wiki guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And additionally moot, but as the site of the subject of the article, only limited content can be sourced to that site anyway. WP:SELFPUB -- Active Banana (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

American singer?

Why is it that she's called an American singer when she's a filipino AND only famous in the Philippines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.115.200 (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nina Girado

I am glad that this pagfe is back because there is information in here that I think is important, however it does need to be edited because it simply sounds like a biography and not an encyclopedia entry. PhoenixPrince 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because it's a copy & paste from [1]. Since I don't see an OTRS permission tag, I removed it for now. Garion96 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was Nina's biography deleted?

I composed a three-paragraph biography of Nina which was correctly sourced and was not just copied from any website. Why was it deleted when it is sourced, true, important and uncopied? (Kristelzorina|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

More sources and references?

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Neutrality issues

Clearly written by a fan, bias tone throughout and POV commentary such as section headings: "Early commercial success" "New image and fame:" "Personal and professional struggles:" In need of a good clean up. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First OPM female artist to have 3 #1's in 1 year

It is on Nina's official site on the "About" page... However, the content of the page was replaced with the one which is copied from Wikipedia, and it also contains this info. So, it really proves that Nina is the first female OPM artist to have 3 number one singles in a span of one year. 119.95.235.95 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, No. Twice.

1) a self published site such as a persons official web page can be used for non-controversial non-promotional content about the self publisher - NOT as a source for awards I claim I have won. Generally content like: "I wrote this song thinking about my childhood puppy." or "I grew up in Xtown." would be acceptable. see: WP:SELFPUB

2)Mirrors of Wikipedia content are not allowed as sources for the same reason that Wikipedia is not allowed as a source. See: WP:CIRCULAR

Content needs to be from third party reliable sources - generally: newspapers, books, other mass media such as major television studio works that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The Award Presenter's website would be reliable to confirm that they had given X award to X person in X year. Active Banana (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll search for news sites... It's really hard but I'm trying follow the rules. tnx Kristelzorina (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or things like Rolling Stone (magazine) or Vibe (magazine) or many cities have weekly "whats going on in local entertainment venues this week" that would "professional" reviews on music releases or commentary on upcoming performances. Active Banana (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking Kristelzorina (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nina transferred to Universal Records Philippines

Earlier in 2010, Nina was rumored to be transferring from Warner Music Philippines to Universal Records, after doing a duet with Jay R and rendering a song on Kris Aquino's album (Jay R and Aquino are both artists of Universal Records (Philippines).

In June 2010, it was confirmed on TV Patrol, a news show on ABS-CBN, that Nina is now part of Universal Records. - Video here Kristelzorina (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nina's upcoming album

I can't find a reliable source or article... just tweets from her twitter - SoulSiren_Nina... But the video is here - http://ninasoulsireigns.blogspot.com/2010/08/nina-in-pilipinas-win-na-win-abs-cbn-2.html Kristelzorina (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC template may be in error

The template says that it was a former FA candidate. But the former FAC list of such does not include this article. Further, an article needs to achieve GA before it can be a FAC, and this articles has never yet achieved GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nina Girado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

I checked about 20 references and came up with no actual references. There were dead links on bare URL references, I-Tunes sales pages, personal blogs, web pages that had no content related to the topic, blank pages at non-working websites. Coupled with the fact that these were given as sources for some pretty strong claims (of the type that would be promotional writing without strong sourcing) and I think that this article has a long way to go to become GA. I'm not sure where to start, so I'll go by reference numbers (all reference numbers are the numbers as of 12/23/13). I'll be building this over time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Clarifying, I checked 20 and found none and so then I checked 50 and the results are below. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reference #1 is an I-tunes album sales page.
• Reference #2 (used 4 times) is a near-bare-url (title only) to what looks like a broken link or blank page
• Reference #3 is a dead link
• Reference #4 (used twice) is a dead link
• Reference #5 is to an I-Tunes album sales page
• Reference #6 is a dead link
• Reference #7 (used 5 times) is to an entertainment portal, but looks like a real article
• Reference #8 (used twice) is a dead link
• Reference #9 Looks like a real reference, not in English
• Reference #10 links to an article about an oil leak, nothing to do with the topic
• Reference #11 Is to a poster advertising a concert
• Reference #12 links to an article about basketball, nothing to do with the topic
• Reference #13 is a dead link
• Reference #14 (used twice)links to an article about a political appointment battle, nothing to do with the topic
• Reference #15 Goes to a YouTube Video
• Reference #16 (used 4 times) is a dead link
• Reference #17 (used 5 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
• Reference #18 (used 8 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
• Reference #19 (used 6 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
• Reference #20 (used 5 times) is a dead link
• Reference #21 Goes to a web page unrelated to the topic
• Reference #22 is off line. Looks like a catalog/discography
• Reference #23 (used 4 times) appears to be a dead link
• Reference #24 is a dead link
• Reference #25 is a dead link
• Reference #26 goes to an article unrelated to the topic
• Reference #27 is a dead link
• Reference #28 is an I-tunes album sales page.
• Reference #29 is a dead link
• Reference #30 is a dead link
• Reference #31 is an I-tunes album sales page.
• Reference #32 is a dead link
• Reference #33 appears to be a dead link (blank page)
• Reference #34 is off line, an interview on a DVD
• Reference #35 is a dead link
• Reference #36 goes to a web page that has nothing about the topic.
• Reference #37 very brief real article / writeup (about 6 sentences)
• Reference #38 (used twice) is a bad or dead link
• Reference #39 (used 4 times) is a bad or dead link
• Reference #40 is a dead link
• Reference #41 is a dead link
• Reference #42 is a dead link
• Reference #43 goes to a real list of sexiest women. Unclear if the rating is by a blogger or FHM
• Reference #44 is a dead link
• Reference #45 is a dead link
• Reference #46 goes to a real article about the breakup with Nyoy
• Reference #47 goes to a real article about the breakup with Nyoy
• Reference #48 is a dead link
• Reference #49 IMDB listing the song as having been in the movie
• Reference #50 is a dead link

There is nothing per se wrong with any one of these. But the sum total, combined with the fact that in many cases they are used to source some stronger claims, adds up to seeing nearly nothing to support that there is suitable sourcing to back up what is in the article, the "and verifiable" GA criteria. I would be happy to discuss this further, but think that the article would take more work than can be done during the GA review process to meet GA criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. The article has 6 images; there are no non-free images, so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Result

I am forced to non-pass this article. After I did the analysis of references and note the issues I did not go further on the rest of the review. There appear to be not editors involved at the article. I pinging the nominator and they thanked me for reviewing it but did respond on the issues and are not an editor on the article. My questions / noted issues have been open for 27 days with no response. The best to whoever works on this in the future, including in any resubmittal for GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

August 2020 - clean-up/maintenance template

While it appears there is an intention to take on expanding this article. Sadly, it requires a HUGE clean-up.

• This article falls deep into the 'puffery' pit, laden with unsupported attributions and editorializing; see MOS:PUFF.
• The inordinate length of this article. It's overly-detailed and at face value steps into WP:TLDR territory. See: WP:NOT
• Heavily promotional in nature without strong sourcing. Article is riddled with numerous dead links, citing sources from personal blogs, unlinked/blank webpages, bare URLS - mostly far from reliable.

Notwithstanding, there are issues with prose and content that are quite bothersome, among the immediate ones:

• Nina loves collecting preserved butterflies - why is this notable and why do we care?
• she was one of the guests who performed on the program before the ribbon-cutting ceremony - and we need to know about this because?
• Choreography section needs to be taken out - she hardly is a dancer and this doesn't warrant a section of its own.

This article would benefit from a peer review and a thorough copy-edit

I wouldn't remove the maintenance template so long as these issues aren't addressed. Eddie012087 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed the following statements as viewed non-noteworthy upon review.

• Nina loves collecting preserved butterflies
• she was one of the guests who performed on the program before the ribbon-cutting ceremony

Still working on how to revise the details on her Dance recognitions. Thank you.Kristelzorina (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)