Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thug Ride/archive2

Thug Ride
Damn. This shit is dope!

Support. Damn, damn, bitches. This shit be bumpin. Rock this album every day and night. Put it on the front page of wikipedia so all the niggaz know the deal. BOOK OF THUGZ 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Major support. Can't nobody do it like White Dawg can do it. It's about time for this album to get more recognition, and I gotta say, the article is SLAMMIN! THUGontheline 03:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh geez, this smells like sockpuppetry! All of these contribtuions in the same time period?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the FAC is not a vote (is not AFD) and sockpuppetry here is a wasted effort. Raul654 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Object. This article fails WP:WIAFA on nine separate grounds:
 * The article does not represent our best work. It's short, poorly organized, and doesn't even have a complete infobox.
 * The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant." What little prose there is consists of one-sentence song summaries with boldface obscenities. (I know Wiki isn’t censored, but that doesn't mean our obscenities are boldfaced!)
 * The article is not comprehensive. This cannot possibly be everything there is to say about this album. There must have been some inspiration for the album, but that is lacking. There must be some information on sales figures, but theses are also absent.
 * The article is not factually accurate. How can an article be accurate when it doesn’t even have all of the facts in the first place? There are question marks in the article's main infobox.
 * This article is not neutral, and it is not written from a neutral POV.
 * The article itself is not the subject of edit wars, but its nomination here on FAC is quickly approaching edit war status, just look at the edit history of the main FAC page. Also, the fact that this nomination has already attracted two likely sock puppet votes does not help its case.
 * The lead section needs to be expanded. It does have three paragraphs, but two of them are one-sentence paragraphs which need to be expanded.
 * The article does not have proper subheadings, but it's probably because the sections the subheadings would subhead don't exist.
 * The article is too short. If this is all that can be said about the album, it would barely survive AfD, let alone FAC.

There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done here. RyanG e rbil10 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object. I'm not even sure the submitter knows the criteria for a featured article, since there is so much to fix here it's hard to know where to start:
 * No references. None. Nada. Zip. Ref 2c.
 * No inline citations either (no surprise). Again, ref 2c
 * The article does not exemplify compelling prose, ref 2a
 * The article is not written in a neutral point of view, ref 2d
 * The article is not comrehensive, ref 2b. How was the album received by critics? By the public?
 * The article is extremly short compared to most other FAs, ref 5
 * WegianWarrior 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong object with note. This FAC is stuffed with sockpuppet votes. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Object. You don't make an article featured because you like the subject, but because the article is good. This one isn't. DJ Clayworth 04:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment is this a good faith nomination? Andjam 07:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Object and move to close nomination. - FrancisTyers 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support I see a lot of fools talkin GARBAGE, talkin nonsense they know nothin about. The prose in this article is straight-up compelling. It's long enough, ha. It lets everybody know about this classic LP. Perhaps the haterz voting to delete are motivated by jealousy, wishing they could possess the bling and ladiez that come so easily to my man WHITEDAWG? Crunk Era 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, per above (and, uh....no.) --Mhking 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The song descriptions are actually really accurate. I think the article is really educational. BrowardPlaya 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has already failed once. See Featured article candidates/Thug Ride/archive1. --Maitch 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and what's the matter with you people? Why is this still here? I'm unlisting it now. FACers (the real ones, not the socks), have some initiative, c'mon. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC).