Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Gerrard/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 01:39, 21 January 2008.

Lisa Gerrard
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article because I think it meets the FAC criteria.

Glitter1959 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959


 * Oppose Not of appropriate length (too short), and only one reference. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently rated start class, which seems justified by its referencing.--Grahame (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not wishing to pile on but this article is too short and inadequately referenced. May I suggest you try for good article status?  You'll get a full review there on what is missing for GA status.  I'm afraid it's well wide of the mark for FA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the above. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based on comprehensive. The articles mentions 1961 when she was born, and the next section deals with 1981, missing 20 years right there. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for now. I guess the article needs a little more tweaking before it is a featured article.Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme
 * It needs far more than a little more tweaking. See featured article criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowball oppose, mostly for the severe lack of references. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball oppose too short, unreferenced--Kiyarr lls ton 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There are some references on the page now. I'm going to add more later.

Glitter1959 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
 * You'll find it helpful to read WP:CITE. What you did is add unformatted URLs to the "References" section; instead, you should correctly reference which statement is sourced by which reference by way of footnotes while using the correct citation template.  It sounds more confusing than it is, honest. :)  You obviously have reliable sources available to verify your information, so it's a matter of correctly formatting it.  If you need any help, just let me know.  Good luck! María ( habla  con migo ) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Maria. Someone kept on deleting the references on the page. And I am now having trouble putting them back. Grrrr.

Glitter1959 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
 * 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.