Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marilyn Monroe/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2015 [1].
Marilyn Monroe edit
- Nominator(s): TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... Marilyn Monroe, a key figure in twentieth-century popular culture. I noticed that the article wasn't in very good shape and started working on it in July. It's currently a GA and has been peer reviewed recently. It would be wonderful to see it become a FA! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- Support all my concerns were addressed during the peer review. Well done, Susie! For the FAC coordinators, I did an image review there and found no copyright issues. I also did a spotcheck there of the references (after initial comments from other users) where I only detected a few verification issues. They have also been resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I gave the article a detailed review before the PR opened, and then read through it again a few days ago. It's very comprehensive, informative, well-written, neutral, nicely illustrated...yep, definitely worthy of being an FA. I commend TrueHeartSusie for taking on one of WP's most visited articles and bringing it to this standard. --Loeba (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, provided no problems are identified (I'm watching this page). I had a good look through this article at PR, and it strikes me as excellent; a highly valuable addition to Wikipedia for which Susie should be commended. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Indeed meets the criteria and an excellent effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This article on this well-known figure is, in view, definitely comprehensive, neatly written and covers the major areas of their life sufficiently. Great work! Z105space (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. The article was impressive then and is impressive now. Fully meets FA criteria in my judgement. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Also peer reviewed. My concerns about tone have been for the most part addressed, and I can let the rest slide as author's discretion. But enough about that. Masterful and thorough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord notes -- I note that an image review was carried out at PR but given the prominence of this article I'd like to see a double-check here pls, also looks like we need a source review; these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, will request it tomorrow! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- Ok, I've placed a request now! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
- 'Support – I wanted to take part in its peer review but I was a bit inactive then. Speaking of the article, it meets the FAC criteria in my opinion and thank you for working on such a figure. -- Frankie talk 19:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue - Mulvey listed in Sources section but not in References section (though I can see her name and quote in the body of text)
- Spot check pending. using this revision for listing of references in case they change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 296 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
- ref 206 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
- ref 22 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
- ref 1 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector - triggers a false positive due to the quotes. Looks good otherwise.
In sum, image and spot check all good, just a couple of very minor issues in reference aligning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Cas, I think we can leave those to be actioned by Susie post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.