Wikipedia:Peer review/Selena/archive2

Selena
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I had performed a huge expansion on the article itself. While doing so, because the page is visited and is among the most traffic articles on enWP, a lot of criticism came along with it. The expansion was made back in July 2011. Ever since the expansion numerous prose errors were fixed, however, I am not a good very good writer. My proposal for the expansion was because the article did not include the major aspects and was not broad in its coverage. I am not here to criticize users who did put their time in having this article to become a featured article. Myself and the user who did nominate the article at WP:FAC are not the best buddies on here, we even clash sometimes. However, the article will be nominated at WP:GOCE once my other articles have been c/e. The article is currently a WP:FA, however, with my additions, it no longer meets the criteria and in order to lower tension and myself in the eyes on admins (in fear of being blocked), I have come to here. Sorry for this long message :)
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: PR is not the appropriate forum in these circumstances. This article underwent a FA review a year ago, with a decision to keep. If you think that the article no longer meets the featured article criteria, then your best course of action is to renominate it at WP:FAR, with an summary explanation. You are not in danger of being blocked if you made your edits in good faith in a genuine attempt to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I would like a review on what needs to be done. I just only explained the reason and history of the article. Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian. Since this already a FA, it should go to FAR (again). The language does not meet WP:WIAFA criterion 1a (a professional standard of English). The only possible alternative I see is to revert the recent changes and additions back to the version that passed FAR last year and work through the changes on the talk page. PR is for improving articles, but articles which are already FA have a special set of rules. I think something like the Hippocratic Oath should apply to FAs and changes in them - "first do no harm". Please also note that I have not checked the refs added, but there may well be issues there too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)