Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Miley Cyrus/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 User:Ian Rose 10:44, 6 May 2014.

Miley Cyrus

 * Nominator(s): Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * General comments I probably won't have time to do a full review, but a glance out of curiosity reveals (no pretentions at completeness, I did not read the whole article)
 * Especially in the lede, the paragraphs seem long and blocky, and therefore a barrier to reading. This might not make a difference to her fans, but still.
 * I see at least one instance of a non-US usage, "hospitalised". Note that there are other problems with that sentence.
 * Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the US usage term to the sentence and corrected it. As for the lede, I divided it to 3 paragraphs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, suggest withdrawal
 * 1) OP is not one of the major contributors to the article. Have they been informed of this FAC?
 * Me, not having been a major contributor doesn't excuse the article's great work Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As it says at the FAC instructions page, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."—indopug (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * indopug is right. I made that mistake back in 2008 when I, not understanding the difference between GA and FA status, put Pokémon Diamond and Pearl up at FAC, even though I'd barely edited it. Needless to say, I was scolded and the candidacy failed. With that said, I think this article could very well pass. Tezero (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though, Me regularly editing the article but not being shown in that list, Top 6 editors of the article have already been informed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The peer review OP mentions, suggesting that it contributing to "very high standards", was closed in three days without a single response.
 * PR isn't necessary to nominate an article for FA, see Featured article candidates Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) References 181–191 are bare URLs. References are inconsistently formatted throughout.
 * Bare urls fixed Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not done Refs continue to be inconsistently formatted.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The personal-life section is full of short, stubby paragraphs.
 * Now combined to form one para Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:RECENTISM, as seen from the almost day-to-day journal of her life in the last paragraph of the Bangerz section.
 * No recentism found Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Estimates of her wealth through the years do not deserve a section of their own.—indopug (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a section now Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Indopug. Serious concerns over the lack of preparation this article has gone through (and misrepresentation of such by the nominator) as well as the lack of discussion with those who have done the majority of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The bare urls you are blaming me to misrepresent were added after the nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Continue as Indopug hasn't raised any points as how this article shouldn't be featured. It sounds like "I Don't Like It". Even if you do not like the person, you can't stop their article to get featured. As for the concerns raised by Indopug, the valid ones are resolved. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the PR, the nominator can close it any time and it is still valid, see [], the discussion also was inactive, If there are no concerns raised, opposition holds no value. I think the concerns Indopug raised were fantastic and he could be a superb reviewer. Hey Indopug, please become the reviewer. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards support: The prose looks fine, and I disagree with the charges of recentism; 2013–now has been the biggest period in Cyrus' career in years in both publicity and activity. I will note, however, that not all of the sources are completely formatted; many of them are missing authors and accessdates. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think all of them have authors and accesdates, however, Which? do you think do not have authors and accessdates? Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, the Pink News citation (237) should list Scott Roberts as the author, while Entertainment Wise (242) needs an accessdate. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment unrelated to my opinion of the article: This isn't the first time Indopug's made complaints without clear guidelines to fix. However, Shane Cyrus, you still ought to represent the article's history and your contributions more accurately. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I'll support; it looks like the sources without authors listed genuinely don't have them. I'm not well acquainted with pop music/fashion-related articles, so I can't speak to their reliability, but everything else looks to be in good shape. Tezero (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess this article is now ready to get reviewed and promoted. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. If there's even one lingering oppose, an article probably won't get promoted, whether it's a fair oppose or not. Tezero (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I see the peer review got no input. It would've been better to at least have commentary from a peer review before nominating for FA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose – Completely agree with Indopug's points and I would also like that it has extremely poor sourcing for a BLP (see footnotes like Justjared), reads like a diary entry, looks like a teenager's slam book and fails WP:FA? in very possible way. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, this comment of yours isn't supported by any guideline at all.
 * ✅ Indopug's points are resolved and justjared has been deleted.
 * Doesn't fail FA and doesn't read like a diary. Not sufficient criteria for strong oppose. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Listen Shane Cyrus, your overall attitude and belittling all the reviewer's comments all through out this nomination is extremely non-cooperative. You might think this article is FA worthy, however it does not pass WP:FA?, neither than brilliant, professional writing, nor has a cohesive prose writing to merit a professional encyclopedia entry. Coupled with your ignorant views, my oppose still strongly stands, whether you like it or not. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 18:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why was the peer review closed in less than two days when it received zero feedback from the other major contributors? I'm getting an impression that article was nominated only for the sake of awarding fan-favourite content, and poorly sourced, I must say.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said to Indopug, PR's aren't necessary for nominations. Please suggest ifany poor sources are found. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Calm down, everyone! Please list any poor sourcing if you find. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, the plethora of tabloids—People, Us Weekly, E!, Access Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter etc.—indopug (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * These sources are used in many already featured articles also. Is there any guideline saying that they are poor sources? Shane Cyrus (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely not use People or Us Weekly (in fact, I also stated this in the GAN), E! has medium-level credibility. Hollywood Reporter isn't so bad. Not sure what to say about Access Hollywood. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed People and Us Weekly, As for Access Hollywood, appears to be reliable. Shane Cyrus (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question is there any particular reason this article has both a section on her dating life while the same info is also being stated in the "life and career" section? I recommend one or the other, but not both. Also, Mirror (aka Daily Mirror) is a tabloid that shouldn't be used. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From now on, response will only be given to comments supported by guidelines. You can't remove everything in an article. Personal Life is an important section and it shall remain with Life and caareer. Both sections convey different topics. Shane Cyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nomination: This nom is taking over my life. I don't want any haters, I'm no one's enemy. Cyrus has too many haters for her article to ever get featured now. Sorry, if I caused problems to anyone! :( Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.