| Revision as of 19:54, 22 November 2009 editSuperFlash101 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,019 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 22 November 2009 edit undoSuperFlash101 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,019 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ::: '''Restart''', . Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. '''Images and alt text''' reviewed. ] (]) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | ::: '''Restart''', . Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. '''Images and alt text''' reviewed. ] (]) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? '''Every''' date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | :::::What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? '''Every''' date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Just checked bit into the history, it seems this was cut down to lower the huge amount of content at FAC right now, no? I believe every date/publisher inconstancy in the citations have been fixed and all other issues (except the sources, which the user has not responded about) have been resolved. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:04, 22 November 2009
Dan Povenmire
- Nominator(s): The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
After a copyedit and a GA review, I believe this article successfully complies with FAC criteria. It is well written, contains references to reliable sources, and follows all style/image guidelines. Now, something bound to come up is the sources. Here's what I've got to defend them:
- http://blog.al.com/entertainment-press-register/2008/05/disney_animator_sees_summers_i.html is a press site for news related to Alabama.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZEF33WPp4 are internet talk shows hosted by internet personality Piper Reese.
- http://www.resource411.com/411Update/Issue/Articles/Story.cfm?StoryID=1020 is a news website which is associated with Variety magazine.
- http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=1 , http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=2 , and http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&category2=&article_no=3534&page=3 are e-zine versions of the popular animation website Animation News Network, which is referenced in countless books.
- http://www.hopstudios.com/dtlink/listP.html is a website dedicated to alumni of University of Southern California and funds USC's official magazine, Daily Trojan.
- http://www.badmouth.net/comic-strip-war/ is a website co-published by award-winning writer John Marcotte and also features, as you can see from the article, Povenmire's official drawings.
Thanks in advance, The Flash 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: citation style is consistent. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- What? First off, why was the entire content of the FAC removed? Second, what are you talking about, "the citations are not consistent or correct"? Every date format is consistent(it's all ISO) but the works/publishers I understand (another user kindly fixed them). Could you please explain why this whole thing was "restarted"? The Flash 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just checked bit into the history, it seems this was cut down to lower the huge amount of content at FAC right now, no? I believe every date/publisher inconstancy in the citations have been fixed and all other issues (except the sources, which the user has not responded about) have been resolved. The Flash 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Restart, previous nom. Citations are not consistent or correct (inconsistent date formats and incorrect use of italics), and it's not clear to me that sourcing concerns have been addressed. Images and alt text reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)