Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tila Tequila/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 17:39, 22 December 2007.
An article about the most friended person on MySpace. A versatile singer, actress, and model. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm concerned that we don't have consensus on name usage yet per the talk page. Benjiboi 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I don't think this article is quite ready for featured status yet. It looks like a very large number of the references are to Tila Tequila's own Web sites. In order for our sources to be reliable, they need to be written by somebody independent of Tila. (It's quite possible that she doesn't always tell the complete truth about her life, for example.) She's been written about by newspapers and magazines that have good records with the facts, so it won't be impossible to find better sources. Once you've found the sources, you'll want to review Wikipedia:Citing sources to make sure they are formatted correctly. Then you'll also want to look over Wikipedia:Lead section to get an idea on how to start the article off. You'll want to include more information about her rise to fame and how she used MySpace to accomplish that. Also, a lot has been written about Tila Tequila's place in popular culture (she's a celebrity who could never have become famous 20 years ago), and it'd be great to have a section that talks about what critics have said about her. You'll also definitely want to work out a consensus on the talk page about her name. I think you're off to a good start, but still have some work to do (seems like that's always the case at Wikipedia, doesn't it?) Good luck! --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the point of having a quality article is to blend in the critisism seamlessly so it sounds neutral? --wL<speak·check> 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose: there isn't the bibliography, fundamental object for a FA+too short article. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
- Strong oppose, as the article is currently in an naming conflict that has an WP:RFC, and there are too many first-party sources. The lead section does not summarize the article as it should. --wL<speak·check> 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:PR and WP:FAC; please choose. You can close and archive the peer review, or ask that this FAC be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask that this FAC be withdrawn, then. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with it, Lady Galazy. Please wait for the bot to update the article talk page, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask that this FAC be withdrawn, then. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:PR and WP:FAC; please choose. You can close and archive the peer review, or ask that this FAC be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[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.