Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martha Stewart/archive3
Martha Stewart[edit]
This article was a former featured article removed because of a couple problems with neutrality and applying too much focus to the ImClone scandal. The section on ImClone has been moved to it's own article, and the neutrality issue is no longer a problem, so I think it's time to resubmit it. --Alex 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Object I believe Wikipedia:Inline Citations (as per WP:CITE) are now required in WP:FACs. It can be a nasty twist if you are not used to such a thing, however. Also, trivia sections almost always attract great opposition at FAC. RN 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: Alex, have you read this before? Honestly, I think the Martha Stewart article needs to be a lot of work before this can even be nominated. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I think there would simply be too much work for you to do in order to get this up and running in the near future. (If you really want an elaboration, just ask). Also, has this article been nominated for an FA in the past? If so, where is the archive of the old FA?--P-Chan 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was featured as part of the brilliant prose batches - see [1] RN 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unduely strong? Yeah maybe you've right, but it's suprising that a person with so much coverage, fame, controversy, history and money surrounding her would have an article so small and incomplete. (But yes, the prose is nice I agree with you there). :) --P-Chan 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. RN 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --Alex 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- To RN and Alex: it's nice to know that standards have improved over time. I'm a little suprised as to how much of a improvement there has been. For example, I dug this up from the Martha Stewart Archive and.... wow. [2]. (Yeah I agree with you Alex, you did add a lot to the article.) :)--P-Chan 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --Alex 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be discouraging at times. I wouldn't think too much of it though - if you want to try for something less involving there is good articles now that is basically the same requirements as what featured articles used to be, so you can nominate yours there once you think it meets the good article criteria. (Good articles is, unlike WP:FAC, not a formal process, but the status is still basically close to a featured article). I'd also recommend taking a look at the article assessment table. RN 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. RN 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unduely strong? Yeah maybe you've right, but it's suprising that a person with so much coverage, fame, controversy, history and money surrounding her would have an article so small and incomplete. (But yes, the prose is nice I agree with you there). :) --P-Chan 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was featured as part of the brilliant prose batches - see [1] RN 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Alex, you may also want to get it peer reviewed along with the GAnomination. It should hopefully help you scope out what content to focus on. The biggest thing you have to do right now is expand on the content. I can see every section in the article doubling in size, and act as headings for subheadings. (Make sure the pictures are properly sourced and have encyclopedic value, as you don't want to have 10 pictures of her smiling.) Best to you! --P-Chan 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've expanded it a bit, andhow to I submit it for a good article?--Alex 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, there's like hardly any difference from last time. I think you might be rushing things too much here. Building up a quality article takes a lot of care and is not something that can be done overnight. If you put it up for a GAnomination, I'm certain it's going to lose, but at least you might get some feedback from the one user. I suggest, instead that you go through a peer review first. And during that peer review say that you are trying to shape this article into FA status. Also, try to invite people who are knowledgable about the topic to peer review your article. The feedback that you will be getting, hopefully will move the article forward. If you have any questions feel free to ask.--P-Chan 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- First, I'm not a dude my friend! second, I was just stating that I had tried to expand it a little, I didn't mean that I though it was already in featured article shape. thanks for you imput anyways! --Alex 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops! (Oh man I'm such a dork.) Err anyways.. maam, here is the info that you're looking for.
- Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations
- If you're looking to do a peer review, you can find instructions here: Wikipedia:Peer review
- If you need any help, just ask!--P-Chan 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops! (Oh man I'm such a dork.) Err anyways.. maam, here is the info that you're looking for.
- First, I'm not a dude my friend! second, I was just stating that I had tried to expand it a little, I didn't mean that I though it was already in featured article shape. thanks for you imput anyways! --Alex 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, there's like hardly any difference from last time. I think you might be rushing things too much here. Building up a quality article takes a lot of care and is not something that can be done overnight. If you put it up for a GAnomination, I'm certain it's going to lose, but at least you might get some feedback from the one user. I suggest, instead that you go through a peer review first. And during that peer review say that you are trying to shape this article into FA status. Also, try to invite people who are knowledgable about the topic to peer review your article. The feedback that you will be getting, hopefully will move the article forward. If you have any questions feel free to ask.--P-Chan 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)