User:Cullen328/sandbox/TAP


 * 1) Oppose There is a lot of substance in many of the oppose !votes, which I have considered carefully. I want to raise another issue: I took a close look at Megitza, the second Good article listed on the candidate's user page, which is about a musician and vocalist. I found an article with a lot of problems. Much of the content consists of mentioning various concert appearances in and around Chicago from 2008 to 2012. The content includes one quotation describing a festival rather than her performance there. The article includes irrelevant factoids like the names of two Chicago agencies that sponsored one such event. In the lead, four of her songs are described as being "notable" without any evidence being provided to support that claim. And so on. The article does not seem to meet GA standards to me. The reviewer, Dr. Blofeld, commented that "This article is still by general GA standards a weak entry . . ." but still promoted it. As part of a Peer review a few weeks later, Blofeld commented, "It was lucky to scrape GA". Since the candidate wishes to work with Contributor copyright investigations, I have a real concern with a seven sentence block quote taken from a review of one of the musician's performances, which left out only a few words from the actual published seven sentence review. According to the Copyrighted material and fair use section of WP:QUOTE, "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted . . ." Although this is an essay, it is referred to in guidelines and I believe reflects best practice regarding use of non-free content. Admittedly, the article was written back in 2012 and was a collaboration with Blofeld, who seems to have added that lengthy quote himself during the GA review. TAP did not comment one way or another. Things could have been cleaned up in the past three plus years but haven't been. There's an additional concern. We have a GA about a 30 year old musician of borderline notability, and the article has not been updated by its original author since July, 2012. Reading the article, one might think that her career came to an abrupt end in 2012 although it is clear from her own website that she has been active since then. Although not required, I think that diligent and active editors should pay attention to and maintain the articles they claim credit for, especially BLPs of currently active people. And that's especially true of editors who want to be administrators, in my view,