Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Susan Boyle

Susan Boyle
Requesting review of article as has already attracted favourable attention and news coverage from The Washington Post. It would be good to encourage editors by showing what is possible on Wikipedia in a short time. Would like to review to A-Class. SunCreator (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could probably round up a couple of editors to look at this article. It's exceptional work for such a short time. But you should put it up for GA first. That's the usual order of things, and GA has more active reviewers that can give you pointers on how to improve the article. -Duribald (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As Duribald mentions, GA comes before A-class. Now, even though I have commented and edited this topic, I'll mention one thing.  The article has indeed come a long way in a short time; but, it is in no way ready for a GA review.  Stability alone would would cause the article to fail.  That's not meant to offend any editor, but until the issues of: 1.) her birth date, 2.) Nationality British vs. Scottish, 3.)the WP:EL issues are resolved, the YouTube links - are all resolved, the article won't pass muster.  This isn't to say that the article is bad, just to say that it does not meet the criteria of GA on the stability issue alone. (Good article criteria).  SunCreator, you've done some marvelous work with the Boyle article, but until the rapidity of editing dies down, it's going to be very difficult to get a good article assessment done on this.  Patience. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work so far, but I agree, this is quite unstable at the moment and unlike the articles on, say, Barack Obama and John McCain, there is no semi-protection keeping it stable. Hekerui (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, wait until after the media frenzy on her performance dies down a bit before adding. And personally, I wouldn't nominate an article without any pictures. I hope those going to her semi final performance have their cameras with them... 78.133.77.127 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictures do not matter. The main problem with the article are the Youtube links and lack of some information - and others used too much. (ie. Someone cannot be "48-49" years old, you are either 48 or 49.) Stability is a big problem before, as many articles have been denied solely on the stability issue. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Picture matters but only a little.
 * No issue with youtube links because there are none in this article and hasn't been for some days. Unless you think it's an issue there is no link?
 * The Date of Birth is a problem, but not one that has a solution at this point.
 * Stability is not such an issue as you might imagine - but still a minor one. Most of the edits are adding something and then reverted. Edits affecting the display of the article yesterday amounted to moving some commas, changing tense and adding some references. Vandalism and good faith improvements(adding picture, dob, american spelling etc which is later reverted) are quite within acceptability. See here. SunCreator (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the bottom line is: it's really going to come down to "who" does the review. I can't imagine there would be any shortage of takers on that one. ;)  Best of luck — Ched :  ?  14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized the youtube links were gone for so long. Sorry about that. --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)