Talk:Vanilla Ninja
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
 | Vanilla Ninja received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
Article
I've completely written this. I think its fairly complete. Hedley 19:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Peer review
This article was on peer review from the 1st to 4th of June, 2005. The review can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vanilla Ninja. Hedley 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Main Page
In about 50 minutes time this article will be on the main page. Hedley 30 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)
Misc. Talk
That band sounds like it's name is from vanilla ice's song.. GO NINJA GO NINJA GO! ::Cyberman starts to breakdance:: --Cyberman 1 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
- LMAO!!! XDXD --Thorns Among Our Leaves 1 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
I have forgotten my Wikipedia rules for editing, I apologise, but I contend that this article is by definition POV or even worse is simply an exercise to see if it can be done ie. get your article on the front page of wikipedia. By definition, because, the article appears in the year they have had the pinnacle of their careers ie. competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. Had the article been one or two or more years later I would not be writing now. Contrast this article with that of Johnny Logan who won the thing two times and see if my challenge of POV is not fair.
Cyberman is a nay nay
is or are
I'm always confused about this - Vanilla Ninja is... or Vanilla Ninja are..? I'd say 'are', because we are referring to the band members. I don't know.. If they were called Vanilla Ninjas, it would def be are.
This is an American/UK English thing (see elsewhere in Wikipedia). I think it goes like: UK say "the Team are X, Y and Z" American "the Team is X, Y and Z". Your choice.
Featured despite objections?
Why did this article reach featured status despite the fact that two seemingly valid objections were left unresolved? The article still has very little info on the actual music of the band and the music video section is hogging a substantial part of the article despite being quite questionable in its interiety.
Both these things seem to me as being very easy to amend, so I'm even more surprised that they were disregarded from. Could someone explain this?
Peter Isotalo July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
Query regarding Featured Article Candidacy
Hi, Whilst I personally had little knowledge of Vanilla Ninja before reading this article, and thus cannot comment on their musical aptitude, I would like to know why articles about well-known bands such as the Red Hot Chilli Peppers are seemingly overlooked for candidacy? The reason I quote the RHCP article is because it exemplifies many of the required principles of FA candidates - for example in-depth and concise, stability, citation, well-licensed images. It just seems that articles about well-known bands, individuals or entities are overlooked in favour of articles like this, even when they meet all the requirements. I for one was astonished to see the excellent Titanic article on the main page when it had been preceded by the likes of "Our Gang" and "Military History of Puerto Rico" - no disrespect is intended to the authors of these articles. Is there an offical channel where I can query this issue?
Also, I agree with Peter, there should be unanimous support for a Featured Article on the voting page before it is thrust on to the main page. Clearly this wasn't the case here,as there were at least two valid objections, and I'm somewhat dismayed. Again, I'd like to know if there's an official channel where I can query these issues? Thank you.