Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandy Moore/archive1

Mandy Moore
Self-nomination - meets all the criteria - properly sourced, detailed, covers all angles on the subject matter, properly styled and written. Mad Jack 06:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about passing Image:Moremoore.jpg off as fair use with the photoshopped logo on top of it. Suggest a new image for the article intro :). RN 06:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article where I took the image seems to have gone from the net. If I e-mail, which has a scan of this cover, and ask for permission to use it, would that be fair use? I like the picture and the Cosmopolitan cover is explicitly commented on both in the caption and in the article following, which I believe qualifies it for fair use. Mad Jack 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Surely a better image of Mandy Moore is available for the introduction than the front cover of a magazine? Cheers -- darkliight [&pi;alk] 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object image problems as mentioned above. Please see Boilerplate requests for permission and look for fansites or mailing lists to get images that people would be willing to license under a free, reusable license.  Some pictures of her at Flickr might be a good place to start, although some of them seem to be uploaded by people who are not the photographer.  Jkelly 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean all the images or just the header? The screenshot and album cover uses are exactly the same as in FA Lindsay Lohan, so I presume those are acceptable. As for the header, I know Lohan's page uses a Vanity Fair scan, though not in the header. However, the caption on the Moore image specifically discusses the cover, and the cover is later discussed in the article. Would that qualify as fair use, or are magazine cover headers strictly forbidden? Mad Jack 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really arguing that anything is "forbidden" (see WP:FUC for some rules, if that's what you're looking for). In an evaluation of what Wikipedia's best work is, however, I can't support an article that has a spuriously watermarked, noisy magazine cover as the showcased image.  Who are we advertising here?  I'd vastly prefer a freely-licensed fan image, but even a screenshot would be better than that cover.  Jkelly 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did just get e-mailed permission from one of her fan sites to use this scan and any other (in exchange for an external link to their site at the bottom... :) ) So I can almost certainly find a good image to use. Two things - would you mind withdrawing the object until I can find a good image (shouldn't take too long) and, can I use this image elsewhere in the article? (probably around the section where the cover is discussed in the article) Mad Jack 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be a pain, but it isn't clear to me why the objection shouldn't stand as long as the image is still showcased in the article. Also, the person who scanned the image has no ability to alter the magazine cover's licensing; only the copyright holder can relicense an image.  No new copyright opportunity is created when someone scans something.  If you are going to use the magazine cover to illustrate a point made in the article, don't use an image with a weird watermark on it.  Jkelly 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll look for a new image now Mad Jack 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection struck. Jkelly 01:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've just downloaded and inserted a picture from the site that appears to be fine in terms of allowed usage (it has been properly credited to the site and no other owner of it was credited elsewhere). Mad Jack 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) :Or not, still working on it. Mad Jack 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, pic should be good now. Mad Jack 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've gotten a good scan of the Cosmopolitan cover - straight from the Cosmopolitan website. Should be good for usage later down in the article, to illustrate the related text. Mad Jack 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any chance the new intro pic (which looks much better by the way) can be cropped a bit? Almost half of it is black. I'm not sure if this is allowed given that the image is copyrighted though. Cheers, -- darkliight [&pi;alk] 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, of course I can crop it - but I am not sure if I'm allowed to. The whole gallery of images from this music video is here - I wasn't sure if any of them were better - http://www.mooreofmandy.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=9 - you have to log in to use it - you can use my logname/password "mikell222" and "gorbest". Mad Jack 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also this pic - but I think it may be too much of a close up. Mad Jack 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - We already see celebrities on TV 24/7. Let's feature an article about something not so well-known. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any article should be eligible for featured status, regardless of topic. This is hardly an actionable objection! TheGrappler 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is not a valid, actionable objection. Featured article status is given to any article that fits the criteria. It doesn't mean this article is going to be on the front page - it's not "competing" with any other article. The more FAs Wikipedia has - the merrier. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween III: Season of the Witch, where this is addressed. Mad Jack 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So... does anyone have any legitimate "Support" or "Object" votes to give here? (I.e. not by people who think we have too many entertainment FAs, obviously) Mad Jack 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object images should not be given hardcoded sizes (eg 315px). 7 fair use images is far too many. what is stacy's surname? no citation for this: "attended Park Maitland School (for elementary school) in Maitland, Florida, Bishop Moore Catholic High School and Lake Brantley High School in Altamonte Springs". poor writing eg "She was signed with the record company" should be either "She was signed to the record company" or ""She signed with the record company".  please have entire text copyedited by an outside source.  there is even spelling errors: "interpration" ?  no citation for this: "The album will be released in late 2006 or early 2007.", even then it can be considered crystal ball stuff, "will be" released is a bit strong. she had her own tv show yet it barely gets a passing half-sentence mention? there should be paragraphs devoted to it, otherwise article fails on comprehensiveness. what about critical appraisal of her performance in "how to deal" and "chasing liberty". place commas correctly: e.g. "Moore has also appeared on the television series, Entourage, " is wrong. again, no critical appraisal of her performance in "american dreamz". citation for this please: "The couple were together for sixteen months, hardly spending time together due to Moore's film schedule; Roddick ended the relationship in March of 2004. ". albums box remains unclear whether the blanks mean those albums were released in the UK or the info is just not known. selected filmography is chronologically back-to-front.  are the Interviews used as references? in which case they should be listed in a "References" section. if not, the most useful/interesting ones should be listed as External links (without making the list of links too long).  "Two of her latest films were considered by some critics to be a change of pace into darker roles." yet this is never further expanded on in the main body nor cited. which critics? please provide quotes.  similarly provide quotes backing up and giving evidence for the many statements that "some critics" or "many critics" think this or that littered throughout the article. they help add some "spice" to the rather flat writing as well, which is far from brilliant prose. Zzzzz 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I needed some actual concise criticism beyond the image copyright stuff. Anyway, I believe I've fulfilled all the requests. I lowered the image size into 275px and removed two of the images - leaving 5 (Lindsay Lohan has 6). I don't know Stacy's maiden name - but would like to find out. I sourced the school stuff. Copy-editing - done. You're right, will be released is a bit presumptive - removed. There is very, very, little info available on the internet about the Mandy Moore show. Basically what is in the article is what's online. It appears to have been little seen/noticed and little commented upon anywhere. Overall - it appears to be of little notability to Moore in general. But I added a bit of info I could find on it. Added critical reviews of Moore's performances in early films. Fixed commas. Added critical commentary of American Dreamz and her performance. Fixed up Roddick stuff. Fixed filmography and interviews. I "&mdash;"-d the figures on the albums, which are unknown as far as I can find. Added various critical commentary, as said above. I hope that does it? Mad Jack 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * dont like the grammer of "She is to have an album out in 2007" - change to "she plans to have an album out...". and if the dashes in the albums box means "unknown" would be better to use question marks instead. would like to see some deeper research into the tv show, stacy's surname etc, but apart from that its improved. cheers. Zzzzz 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not add that sentence and I'm changing it. Some other editor just did and I would have changed it anyway - it is not encyclopedic at all. Are you asking for Stacy's maiden name? Of course, she goes by "Stacy Moore" now and I switched it around to say "Stacy and Don Moore" (as opposed to "Don Moore and Stacy"). I've seen almost every profile on Mandy Moore and her mother's maiden name has never been mentioned, so I just don't know. And I've added a little note about the music charts. Mad Jack 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This leans pretty heavily on scans of articles at the "Moore of Mandy" fansite as sources; could alternative sources be found for those? (Results of a citation spot check are here). --RobthTalk 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources cited are the magazine articles themselves. "Moore of Mandy" is just one place where these magazines can be viewed free of charge. I suppose it's not necessary to even link to a site where they could be viewed (i.e. offline citations are obviously allowed), I just thought "why not"? Mad Jack 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I was slightly confused when a link that I assumed was taking me to an online article dropped me off on a photo album page, but I agree that it's good where possible to give people the best available online option for an offline source. --RobthTalk 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment On first pass, the article appears well referenced, but on closer examination, some of the sources appear to be personal websites, and not all statements are referenced. The first reference says Seventeen Magazine, but links to a personal website.  Where do I find a reference for this:  Moore was born in Nashua, New Hampshire to Stacy (a former newspaper reporter) and Don Moore (a pilot for American Airlines). Moore has Irish and Cherokee heritage on her father's side.  Sandy 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to explain - Seventeen Magazine is where the reference itself is to. The personal website just has a scan of the magazine. This is the same thing with all the links to the personal website - it has scans all of the magazine articles that the article references to. I didn't think I needed to source her birth place, but I can do that. There, I've added a note about the magazine references and why the links are there, since it seems to confuse so many. Mad Jack 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone may correct me, but I believe that is a copyright violation of Seventeen Magazine's material, meaning that source shouldn't be used. Sandy 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure. The site says "Welcome to the Moore Of Mandy Photo Gallery. All photos are copywritten by their respected owners. Some photos have been watermarked with the Moore Of Mandy website name. Photos that are watermarked with the website name, in white or black, are owned by the webmaster or have been watermarked by permission. Tagged images are copywritten material by their respected owners and tags should not be removed out of respect of the copyright holders. Tagged images are not owned by the webmaster, unless otherwise noted, and are to be kept tagged for protection. Some scanned images may be tagged. Which means, the webmaster has scanned the images, but are still copywritten and remain protected with tags. Although many tagged images are not legally owned by mooreofmandy.com, they are hosted here and tags should not be removed. No copyright infringement is intended. If there are photos that belong to anyone on here and they were not credited or want them removed contact me via email and I will remove your photos immediately. If you have the desire to want to use any photos and or graphics from this gallery, please ask for my permission by emailing me at webmaster@mooreofmandy.com and by giving credit to www.mooreofmandy.com." Mad Jack 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)