Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raven-Symoné/archive1

Raven-Symoné
Due to certain user's fine contributions, this article became unbiased, neutral and accurate. This article deserves to be Featured because of this. The finely written and this must not go unnoticed. This article really deserves to be featured someday.

Anonymous _anonymous           Have a Nice Day 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - see comments above Anonymous  _anonymous           Have a Nice Day 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ummm... people generally don't vote for their own nominations. &mdash; ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT - primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. As long as a concensus is reached, I don't think there is a problem with voting on your own nominations. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * object: I quite agree that a lot of work has been done on improving this; and kudos to everyone involved. However, I'm afraid I see a few issues:
 * The quality of the writing needs some work. For example, "As a baby, Symoné worked for Atlanta's Young Faces Inc. modeling agency was featured in local print advertisements." isn't a sentence; I wouldn't parenthesize "(she returned for the first sequel as well)", since that's another film role in its own right; "as the Raven Baxter"; "It became Disney's..." not start of a sentence, so no capital; but overall the prose just seems a little uninspiring -- too much like a simple list of works.
 * Template:Biography has a bunch of suggested contents for a biography, and while that's certainly not set in stone, this article just seems to hit the "works" section. I'm not seeing anything about her life, background, etc.  This is going to be frustrating to read, since that's exactly what got pruned out; but I feel you need more "meat" in the article.  It just needs to be neutral in tone, and backed up by references so that it's verifiable.
 * The formatting could use some work. There are two different table layouts used in "Discography", and a different layout again in "Filmography".
 * There are no references.
 * I'm not sure about the licence status of the picture. It's an album cover, and the licence on it specifically states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of album or single covers ... solely to illustrate the album or single in question ... qualifies as fair use ..." (emphasis not mine).  I think this is therefore unacceptable use under Wikipedia policy.  In any case, wouldn't you be better off with something more documentary of what she really looks like?  How about fair use of a newspaper photo?
 * The fair use image is acceptable in Wikipedia, but fair use images need rationales- see WP:FUC. See WP:FU for the factors necessary for an image to qualify as fair use. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep at it... I'm sure this will be the basis of an FA, but I think it has a way to go yet. — Johan the Ghost seance 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object- The lead is too short, and doesn't summarize the article, as set forth in WP:WIAFA. The article is too dependent on lists rather than "brilliant" prose. I doubt that this article also fits the comprehensiveness required by most FAs. For examples of some already-featured articles similar to this one, see Featured_articles next comment. In addition, the article lacks references, critera 2(c). It should have inline citations, generally WP:FOOTNOTEs. Finally, the article could use a copyedit to remove grammatical errors; for example, the first letter after a semicolon is not capitalized. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you meant Featured_articles; Mariah Carey looks like pretty much the ultimate example. — Johan the Ghost seance 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those would be much better examples (can't believe I missed it)! AndyZ t 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. No references. Too much dependent on lists. Lead is too short and does not summarise the article.--Dwaipayanc 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, per reasons above. I refer the nominator to Lindsay Lohan for an example of the FA standards.--Fallout boy 05:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object: There is too little of everything, except lists, and there is too much of that. The article is in no way comprehensive, doesn't make the case that this person is a significant event or responsible for significant actions, doesn't provide a comprehensive biography, and the subject is so young and culturally inactive that I doubt the article can be comprehensive or compelling for the next, oh, fifteen years.  Geogre 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object. Is this a joke? Anonymous, have you read the FA criteria? This article fails all of them: it has 2 paragraphs and an intro, and despite what Geogre said, it can become featured, as Raven has had a lengthy career (from Cosby until now); it has no refs, the image lasks fairuse rationale, the list goes on. If you are doing it in good faith, please take the time to read other featured articles on singers/pop stars, namely Mariah Carey (as already pointed out), Celine Dion, Kylie Minogue.... If you are doing this as a joke, you really shouldn't play around like this. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)