Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive2

AnOddName

Comments, leaning oppose on 1c

• No dab links (good). There's external link problems, though: refs 15 and 16 time out and ref 49 goes to the Hot 100's main page (not hers).
  • Done with ref 49 (now ref 53). Didn't understand what you meant with "time out". Both references look good to me. Decodet (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant that the sites wouldn't come up; the browser would just keep waiting, and waiting, and give up. No such problem now—external links all work. --an odd name (help honey) 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Edited alt text a bit; looks good.
• Citation publication dates bobble between ISO style and Month Day, Year, and some are missing publish dates. The accessdates are all ISO style. Add the missing dates, and I suggest you change all citation dates to one style, to avoid confusion.
  • I made all the dates YYYY-MM-DD style. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • A few more edits removed the rest. Some manually-typed citations (most use {{cite ___}} templates) were missed. --an odd name (help honey) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Done with all the manually-typed citations I've noted. Decodet (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• According to Tisdale, this was done for health-related reasons and not out of a belief in plastic surgery"—add the missing quote mark.
  • Done. Decodet (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 26 is used to cite things that just aren't there (anymore, at least) and the title doesn't match the current one. I don't see more poor cite use like this from a random check, but look for and fix this problem throughout.
  • Yes, you're absolutely right. Removed this reference and switched it for others. Decodet (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• NetGlimse (ref 44) was questioned in the previous nom, and appears to be a wiki-ish user-submitted content site, but is still used. What makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • I thought it has been removed but apparently someone returned with it and I've did not notice. Removed again and I'm looking for an alternate source.Decodet (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name (help honey) 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, infoboxes are not a requirement for featured article status, and some WikiProjects reject them outright, so I wouldn't advertise the box as a good point. I agree with the Opera project that they are redundant with a well-written lead—if an article is so hard to follow that it needs a box, it should probably be written better. In this case, though, there's no need to remove the box either. --an odd name (help honey) 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)