Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chloë Sevigny/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 21:41, 26 July 2010 [1].

Chloë Sevigny[edit]

Nominator(s): Ashton 29 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has come a very long way, initially beginning as an article with little information and relatively unsourced trivial information to being an informative, well and structured page. Chloe Sevigny, herself, is becoming more and more recognized as a fine actress and still remains cult icon and one of independent cinema's leading ladies. With her Golden Globe win for her role on Big Love, the subject is becoming even more relevant to today's society. I want to know exactly what can be improved to give the page an FA status. Thanks! Ashton 29 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/27264/Gummo.html?dataSet=1, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_4_36/ai_n26846989/, and perhaps http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17149433.html (can't get it to load). Ucucha 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments:

Current ref # 19, 48, 84 are missing retrieval dates.
Retrieval dates should be consistent, a few are access dates, whereas the others are retrieval dates.
Use italics for publications such as Newsweek.
Some sources show place of publication, i.e., London for The Guardian, but no location for The Los Angeles Times. Be consistent by adding location to those that don't have it, or delete from those that do.
Sources with retrieval dates should be linked to the source > a spot-check of shows that 20, 26, and 27 don't.
Spot check shows author/s missing in at least current refs 28 & 29.
Ref 30 returns an error.
What makes Rotten Tomatoes a reliable source?
What makes Opening Ceremony a reliable source?
- ... What doesn't make it one? It appears to the website for the store, I think they'd be pretty reliable. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can this information be found in a secondary source, without linking directly to a store? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Celebrity Clothing Line. Com a reliable source?
What makes Emmagem.com a reliable source?
current ref 37 links to Wikipedia
spot check shows current refs 58, 59, 60, 61, and 63 have publication first, while other refs have publication after title.
spot check shows current ref 85 is a blog. What makes it a reliable source for a biography of a living person?

These are spot checks only. Will return for a more thorough check when these issues are resolved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

The {{NFIO}} is certainly justified. File:Chloe sevigny kids.jpg, File:Chloë Sevigny Boys Dont Cry.png and File:Big-love-chloe-sevigny6.jpg all fail non-free content criteria for various reasons (high resolution, weak rationales) and should be removed.
You need to fix all the curly quotes and apostrophes with straight quotes (’ to ').
Echoing the above, many references have work but not publisher info.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose as no obvious work is being put into this. FAC is not peer review, so unless work is going into addressing the quick-fail issues, this should be speedily closed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.