Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Justin Bieber on Twitter/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 01:57, 3 July 2012.

Justin Bieber on Twitter

 * Nominator(s): LauraHale and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This article explains an important modern cultural phenomenon. The use of social media technology like Twitter for marketing has major commercial and marketing implications, and has recently been the subject of academic inquiry in a number of disciplines. The Wikipedia has a shortage of high quality articles on commercial subjects. We believe that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is fully and amply sourced from a variety of reliable sources, including academic and mainstream news articles. It has passed a careful and painstaking Good Article nomination, and has appeared on the the front page as a Did You Know?


 * As the editor who passed the GAN for this, I have to say that I don't see it becoming FA status. ⇒ T A  P  21:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You maybe be correct, but please heed the reviewing instructions at the top of WP:FAC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More simply; I shall recuse myself from this. ⇒ T A  P  22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your GA review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * Having been alerted to this in an email (conversationally, not seeking any action on my part), I don't think the prose is FA standard. Also, the section markers seem more or less arbitrary, I am not sure they are a guide to the reader in seeking to find content.  Urge the nominators to consider withdrawal and a PR.  Not opposing merely because I don't want my oppose to hit the noms with a fifteen-day penalty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I only nominated a few minutes ago. Your email obviously works a lot better than mine. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the article, but please, let's all follow Wehwalt's example and try to keep this discussion centered around whether the article meet the WP:WIAFA criteria--not what we personally like or don't like to read about on Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question If the goal is discussing Twitter as social marketing, why isn't an article on "Twitter as a means of social marketing" at FAC instead of one of the multitude of "Pop icon on twitter" articles? Such an article would be far more informative, useful, and likely to meet FA criteria. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because nobody wrote it. :) However case studies are a common tool in marketing. I think this this article will be greatly appreciated by marketers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ref issue
 * Contains two definitions of the named ref "biebstwits32" and four "/" invocations:

The second definition is simply omitted from the rendered article; they are all collated together using the first definition; see. The first ref is presumably correct. The second could be fixed by simply renaming it. It is not clear which the "/" invocations should really be linking to without a review of both the article content and the sources. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup; . Since I posted the above, two further instances of duplicate named refs and fully duplicated references definitions were added (didn't look to see where); I was able . This is a very common problem that can be identified by proper use of the WP:REFTOOLBAR, which is on everyone's toolbar (some configuration recommended). Cheers, Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * another issue. The TV Guide cite "Justin Bieber Accounts for 3 Percent of All Twitter Traffic" was defined twice as two different named refs; see and . The duplicates were even used consecutively . I'm gonna work on the MacArthur articles, now ;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose for the following reasons:
 * The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. It also needs to be rewritten to flow a lot better.
 * Reading the sections from paragraph to paragraph, it is very hard to follow, as it seems that random facts are strewn all over the place with no sign of cohesiveness.
 * Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict, The closest I can find according to the reference is ...and apparently can't quit with the Twitter. I'm not seeing where it says, or even implies, that Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict.
 * Changed to "called a twitter addict" Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * An extensive copyedit is needed, as there are grammar errors all over the place. Some examples include the following:
 * Ashton Kutcher first learned of Bieber through Twitter and Charlie Sheen accidentally shared his phone number with the world while trying to direct message to Bieber. - Kutcher first learned of Bieber through Twitter and Charlie Sheen?
 * Add comma Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Split sentence. Doesn't read better if you ask me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...where his fans can usually make topics about him trending. - Please see WP:PLUSING; something like make topics about his trends is better.
 * Linked for you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...which resulted in James A. Roppo, attached to Bieber's record company, being arrested because he failed to post an update... - Again, change to something like "the arrest of James A. Roppo" instead of "James A. Roppo being arrested".
 * Bieber is a self-declared Twitter addict, joining on 28 March 2009, a month after his mother. - You're trying to jam two completely unrelated and separate statements into one sentence (i.e. his being a Twitter addict and when he joined). Move the "self-declared Twitter addict" part somewhere else in the section.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His decisions regarding which followers to retweet is, in his words, "kind of, like, it's random". - The subject of the sentence is decisions, which is plural. That means the verb has to be are and not is.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:LQ is not consistently followed; compare "kind of, like, it's random". with "all roads lead to Justin Bieber."
 * Compared, but it's correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One example of this is a tweet from October 2009, when he tweeted "If you could give to any charity, what would it be?" - I believe there should be a colon after "tweeted". There are also many others like this.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Paragraphing is all over the place. Compare the paragraph structure in the "Introduction" section (which is fine) with all the other sections. There shouldn't be paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long. The "Technology, marketing and the media" is poorly written in this regard.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He was ahead of Ashton Kutcher who had a score of 97 and Sean Combs who had a score of 94. - The clauses there need to be set off by commas.
 * Added comma. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The arranged it so Bieber and the others... - Sigh.
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bieber, along with other celebrities, has been the subject of the false reports of his death on Twitter, - The false reports?
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The couple were bombarded with phone calls, and threatened to sue Bieber for having made the tweet. - Should be "and they threatened".
 * No, its fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some glaring verifiability issues, with some stuff either not in the citations given or other stuff that I could not verify after looking at the next available reference.
 * Numerous citation issues:
 * Refs #78 and #79 (and these are just a couple of examples) use a cite web template for a paper magazine. You need to use cite journal, put all the pertinent information (including page numbers) and then a URL if applicable. The same applies to many others, including books that are all linked to Google Books. Everything is needed so that, if that Google Books entry disappears, we still have the full citation in which to locate said book or magazine.


 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other citations have incomplete or missing information. See refs #14 and #78, both of which have missing page numbers, and you'll see what I mean.
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref #1 (and others): Is there a reason your citation is pointing to infoweb.newsbank.com instead of directly to the Mashable article itself?
 * I have already had to add 3 citation needed tags on the article where I could not locate certain facts from the nearest reference.
 * They were there originally. Put them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If I find other issues, I will report them. However, long story short, this article is a mess. --MuZemike 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How did this acquire GA status, one wonders. Thanks MuZemike. Drmies (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure you will work hard to get this article promoted. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No I won't. Many of the fixes made recently are of a kind that shouldn't have to be done in a GA article, certainly if that article is nominated for FA. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time, though open to revisiting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead of 3-4 paragraphs
 * Can we clarify this? Since the article has only 16,000 bytes of prose, my understanding was that it only required two or three paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of paragraphs is not important. There is no paragraph "requirement", it's a suggestion in a guideline. What's important is how well the lead summarizes the contents of the article. Since the article is basically just a list of barely organized facts (no offense), I'm not sure there is any sensible way to summarize it. My suggestion would be to first re-organize the article in some coherent fashion. How about: History, Communication with fans, Analysis and commentary, and Controversy. Everything else should be removed as cruft. Kaldari (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You remark that he writes about some topics "less controversially", but provide no clear indication why the first topics mentioned were or might have been controversial
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose seems very choppy in places
 * Re-worded several sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notes should be after See also
 * Removed See Also section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TV show names should be italicized
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * cn should be addressed
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that epubli appears to be a print-on-demand service, what makes their books high-quality reliable sources?
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Didn't check through, there may be others
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some formatting issues and inconsistencies in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Some comments: Lady of  Shalott  00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of quotes of individual tweets, many of which are just stating that Bieber said something, but without indicating why there is any importance to what he tweeted. Why choose those particular tweets to mention specifically, and not others? The reason should be made clear in the text.
 * The Charlie Sheen incident seems to be very tangentially related to this article topic. That is related to Charlie Sheen on Twitter, not so much JBoT.
 * If you say "Bieber related topics", Bieber-related needs a hyphen. There are at least a couple instances of this sort of problem that need fixing.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically (for me) the Introduction section is inappropriate. The last two paragraphs are simple repetition of what he posted on Twitter, (i.e. in the second last paragraph when he hit 6 million fans he thanked them on Twitter, when he reached 11 million fans, he thanked them).  The last paragraph is the same (the reference to Drew on X-factor).  The sentence "Bieber comments on a broad range of subjects on Twitter, including the Arab Spring's Egyptian uprising that led the country's leaders to shut down the Internet" doesn't seem appropriate, did Bieber's tweeting directly result in the government shutting down the Internet, or was he simply commenting on something that thousands of other people were commenting about at the same time.  Same with the Kony 2012 reference, and the "less controversial" tweets, what makes his trip to New Zealand so special that it should be mentioned in this article?--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead re-written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the lead, meant the section titled "introduction". --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the reference to Instagram in the lead seems rather unrelated to the article (or Twitter in general, just by skimming the Instagram article.) The only relation is that he mentioned it on Twitter, and the article shouldn't be about everything he tweets about. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Has there ever been a case like this, in which an article is simultaneously up for AfD and FAC? And is that allowed? Inter change  able  23:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure it is; this is how new processes are born: WP:FACD. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been another case like this. Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner was simiultaneously up for FAC and AfD back in May 2006. It was kept at AfD and not promoted at FAC, only to be promoted at a second FAC a month later. It survived a second AfD in 2009 in a rare case of a featured article being nominated for AfD, but was demoted during an FAR in 2010. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

When I copied this and some others into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, I fixed quite a number of errors in citations along the way, including missing page numbers, incorrect authors, missing information, and wrong citation templates used. Checking what's here against what's there would be a productive exercise, not least because you won't have to duplicate my effort and spend the several hours on fixing a whole load of citation problems that I did. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This article is bloated, hard to read, does not pass 3,4 of WP:WIAFA according to me. – Plarem (User talk) 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why do you feel that it fails #3 of WIAFA? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The image review found no problems with the copyright status of the images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the article has been nominated at Featured Article Candidates for Deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – For reviewing purposes, it's important to separate emotional feelings from an article's merits. This topic has clearly generated a lot of heat, which is reflected by the AfD nom in the middle of an FAC. I rely on the quality of an article in deciding where I stand in reviews, and unfortunately I don't think this is up to FA standards. There are too many issues at the moment, and a sampling are below.
 * The second paragraph of Introduction is what previous reviewers say it is: a mixture of a bunch of individual facts that don't form a cohesive whole. I agree with their complaints, and would like to see the section focus on the main aspects of Bieber's tweeting, rather than on a bunch of loosely connected things (I'm sure he wasn't the only person who tweeted about the Arab Spring or Whitney Houston's death).
 * Many people tweeted about the Arab Spring, but he was the largest node. There is a lot of research being at the moment on nodes and dissemination. The other month's Communications of the ACM was especially interesting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While here, I also have concerns about the jargon that is used at times here. We seem to be assuming that readers will automatically know what return following, following itself, and retweeting are, which I think isn't a safe assumption. If my parents were reading this. they'd be totally lost.
 * This is a good point. I have linked some jargon already. I will see what else can be done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how encyclopedic the phrasing is in "Bieber gave a shout out to his followers". That could be made more formal.
 * I don't see much of value in this section's last two paragraphs. Pretty much the only thing I think is helpful is the follower milestones, and these are covered later.
 * I have cut it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Going back a little bit, I see "For a brief time in April 2011, Bieber quit Twitter." Now this is something that is interesting, yet it's totally glossed over. What made him quit, if anything? Why and when did he come back? Why aren't these aspects covered when many less worthy ones are?
 * Later the same day! My recollection is that it was because of the paparazzi incident described lower down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that sounds like he just had a little snit, and then got over it. To turn the question around, what makes this worthy of even mentioning? It either needs to be dropped, or its significance discussed. Otherwise it's a meaningless factoid. Lady  of  Shalott  02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point being made is that he was unable to stay away from Twitter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Speedy withdraw article is at AFD, doesn't meet good article criteria 3a & 3b and violates numerous policies.--Otterathome (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technology, marketing and the media: "He was regularly trending in April 2010." It's already mentioned that he trended a lot that year, so why is the month separately mentioned? If it has to do with Twitter's algorithm change, that should be made clearer, perhaps by saying when Twitter did this.
 * The b is capitalized in LeBron James.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Followers and fans: The first paragraph is basically a list of followers statistics in prose form. Can't say that this is engaging writing, honestly. And why are his Facebook numbers relevant here? This is an article on his Twitter presence, not his Facebook presence.
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "In March 2012, Bieber's fans wanted to unseat Lady Gaga as the most popular celebrity on Twitter." This has to be "wanted him to unseat"; otherwise it sounds like the fans themselves wanted to unseat Gaga, which isn't the intention.
 * I thought it was fine, but changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither Bieber nor Lady Gaga discussed their mutual fanbase's campaigns on Twitter." "fanbase's" → "fanbases'"?
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do notes 2 and 3 have 10+ references each? It seems like overkill for what is being cited.
 * I was waiting for someone to notice. I will ping LauraHale and ask for them to be cut back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs 2 and 3 are the same and can be combined. Also, the page range needs an en dash.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes Twitaholic.com (ref 8) a reliable source?
 * It pulls the data straight from Twitter's API. We could get it ourselves. It was needed only because the GA reviewer wanted the exact date. I was happy with the reliable sources that just said the month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs 25, 92, and 138 have the second figure missing from their apparent page ranges.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In ref 163, PCWorld is a magazine and should be italicized.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 77 has an unformatted link.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Constructive criticism is always welcome. I know it takes time and effort to review an article, and it is very much appreciated.Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy withdraw but not because it is at AfD, more because the prose in particular is dreadful; honestly this does not even meet GA standards let alone FA. --John (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: 1e, stability cf: since nomination, diff 246 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Delegate: I think the Justin Bieber on Twitter article could stand some expansion to incorporate the new material you have unearthed. If it's okay with you, I would like to ask the delegate to withdraw the FAC nomination at this time. Thanks to everyone who make constructive comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


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