Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Is What the Truth Feels Like/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016.

This Is What the Truth Feels Like

 * Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gwen Stefani's third and most recent studio album. I believe I have expanded it to its fullest potential and also believe it contains everything a featured article should have. I am unable to produce any changes for the page until later next week, as it is currently only edit-accessible to admins. However, I would gladly make any recommended changes to it once the temp is up. Thank you to all! Carbrera (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal/closure Hi Carbrera, I don't think that this nomination is well timed. As the article is currently fully protected due to a content dispute and even a quick look at the edit history shows that it's been going through an intensive edit war, FA criterion 1e is clearly not met as the article is not stable. I also wonder whether there's consensus among editors involved in this article on whether it is in fact of FA standard? More generally, it's not a good practice to start a FAC when the nominator and other editors with an interest in the article are unable to respond to comments left by reviewers in a timely way. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate your concern with the article. However, I feel the edit war was justified as the user was identified as a sockpuppet of a heavy vandal on Gwen Stefani-related topics and articles. Additionally, I think you may see that I am the main contributor of the article  and I am the one who brought it to GA status. I'd go as far as saying I was the sole user who brought it to GA status, as the article was almost entirely rewritten for GA standard. That leaves the only concern being its temp protection, and I guarantee you the minute the article returned to normal, I would be there in a heartbeat to provide changes. Carbrera (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be the case, but the basic facts are that the article does not presently meet the FA criteria and you are not able to respond to any comments left in this review. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was recently removed from the block, as of today. Just thought I'd let you know. Carbrera (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we close this nomination? I'd like to withdraw it so it can receive a peer review and perhaps a copyedit after that. Carbrera (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.