Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerney Thomas/archive1

Kerney Thomas
great article...spent a lot of time on it...self-nomination...good info and tells as much as possible about his ministry.


 * Refer to peer review. 1) cite your sources 2) There is almost nothing about the man outside of his ministry work; tell us about his youth and family 3) It's bad form to show a screen shot without pixelizing out the phone number; it looks more like an advertisement than a featured article. slambo 01:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "He has been married to Debra L. Thomas for 27 years and has two children, Kerney Thomas III and Krystle." uh...thats family info right there...geez this guy is a 3:00 am tv preacher...not exactly a wealth of pics of info out there...


 * Exactly, only one sentence. It isn't nothing, it's almost nothing.  A bit of judicious digging around should be able to find some more information.  Who were his parents?  Where was he born?  Where (in what cities) has he lived?  Where did he go to school?  Does he hold any advanced degrees?  Has he been honored by any notable groups?  I can appreciate that the information may not be easy to find, but with it missing here, the article is not, IMHO, FA quality yet.  slambo 20:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've pixellized the phone and url on the screenshot and uplaoded the image to a different filename, and formatted the image in a manner more consistent with other biography articles. The original image didn't have any copyright or fair use tag on it, so it may get deleted by one of the automatic image deletion processes (see Untagged images).  Since I'm guessing that the image was a screenshot of a TV broadcast, I've tagged the updated image with  .  So, there's one objection down, how about those references? slambo 20:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Refer to peer review. No references, details are quite sparse, odd unsubstantiated language ("humorously and incorrectly points out..."? What does that mean?), photograph's toll free number needs to be pixellated, blurred or cropped out, arguments ("appears to be unbiblical according to Scripture") skirting original research and or POV ("many find humourous" - how many? Is there a survey?). Needs a lot of cleaning up before it approaches consideration. No offense meant to the nominator, who has done substantial work on this, but more needs to be done. Nominating this for FA is very premature. --khaosworks 02:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. I'd like to encourage the submitter to flesh out this article, because it is interesting, and the general topic of TV preachers, and late-night ones specifically, has a certain fascination. But the article just isn't anywhere near as complete as, say, Eugene Scott or Tammy Faye. There are no references at all, except to Thomas's own web site, and that makes the whole article come off as something subjective, written by one person who thinks Thomas is amusing. For instance, there is no reference to back up the statement that "He leads a very controversial broadcast in Christian circles, as most of his teachings are considered false." There is an external link to a third-party web site about him, but all that site really does is list a bunch of his quotes. --Bcrowell 14:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, not comprehensive. Neutralitytalk 19:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)