Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/New York Dolls (album)/archive1


 * Support No issues. Great work done... --Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thnx ! BTW, I noticed you have an illustrator badge on your user page, and was wondering if you'd be open to doing an image/media check? It's a formality at these reviews just so that media files like images and sound clips conform to WP:FACR-->3. Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, All Images look good to go!!! --Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Supoort per above.--Lady Lotuss (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, a quick readthrough reveals no problems. All paragraphs comply per the criteria.--Diminished Detroit (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I see fair-use rationales in every file. Great prose.--Tassel Dim (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx!! Dan56 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

* Support Superb article. Dan is the best. Go Dan!--89.205.38.27 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A masterpiece of the written word, may I say. Graham Colm, since the article has 11 votes for support and no one opposes its promotion, I think it's about time the nomination is closed.--79.125.232.189 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, FAC is not a vote. Most of these supports are to superficial to carry any weight and without more substantive reviews, the prospects for this article's promotion are poor. Indeed, a run of line "supports" makes it more difficult to decide if a consensus has been reached. Graham Colm (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

* Support By seeing my user name, it's easy to conclude that I'm a Metallica fan, but I've got to voice my support for this album. It just cranks so much opinion, so much attitude, that it definitely deserves to be a FA. Good luck with the nomination.--Hardcore Metallica Fan (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser report
This is a note to the closing FAC delegate: Please review Sockpuppet investigations/Shane Cyrus for results of a sockpuppet investigation centered around the edits to this page. Multiple accounts have been blocked for socking on this page. Risker (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted -- tks for confirming that, Risker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck through all the sock comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So why would this particular FAC get visited by so many socks, and why two different groups of them? Why did they all vote in support? Who called for them to vote here? I think we need to ask these "why" questions to prevent future problems. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ermm... Yes, this is a worry. For the record, the nominator first alerted us to the issue here under the heading "Question about an FAC of mine". On reflection, my reply was not the wisest. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why were some votes deleted? I mean, not from the sock puppets, but from me, an admin and another user... we all gave thorough reviews to the article.  prism  △ 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the right page? Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's not rule out someone who is trying to hurt the FAC, even though the socks voted in support. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry!  prism  △ 21:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to apologise; it's an easy mistake, and one I have made at least once. Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)