Talk:Justin Bieber/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This should be um, interesting. I'll take up this review - I mainly focus on copy editing issues but given the coverage of this article I should leave some initial comments within 48 hours. Thanks! Jaguar 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're too busy, I could review it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Smuggums, but I have a free day tomorrow at college. I can review this GAN tomorrow morning. I don't know why I say 'within 48 hours'! :) Jaguar 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why either :P. Good luck to those who worked to get this up to GA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave down the initial comments now. Jaguar 12:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting ;) ,, Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    It is well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]


  • There are many references in the lead, but this should be acceptable for a article with a large enough scope.
  • I don't see any copy editing issues in the lead, so it complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria.
  • "As of May 2012, Bieber had sold 15 million albums" - isn't this outdated? Could this be updated to this or last year? I'm sure he's sold much more since then!
Working on it. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "he was named by Forbes magazine in 2012 as the third-most powerful celebrity in the world. However, he has since fallen to number 9 on the list" - since when? As of what year did he fall down that list?
  • In the bio, it states he has been active from "2008-present", but he started YouTube in 2007. Do you think that could be changed? (Sydthewriter)

Early life and career[edit]

  • "Interested in hockey, soccer, and chess, he kept his musical aspirations to himself." - do you think this could be moved to the Personal section? It seems a bit out of place in his early life section as it just jumps from his parents' ancestry to his interests!
  • "At that point, Bieber and his mother moved to Atlanta temporarily, also the home of Usher and Braun, to record and get counseling from Braun. Braun became Bieber's manager" - upon when did he become Bieber's manager?
  • "My World was eventually certified Platinum in the US and Double Platinum in both Canada and the UK" - along with the rest of the article, it might be best to refer to this as the United Kingdom
  • "On March 7, 2013, Bieber fainted backstage at London's O2 Arena after complaining of breathing problems throughout his performance and was taken to the hospital" - is this suggesting a hospital in specific? Or it could just say "taken to hospital"?

Public image, fans and social media[edit]

  • "As a result, Usher, Braun, Bieber's bodyguard Kenny..." - Kenny who? It sounds a bit informal here.

It is Kenny Hamilton. (Sydthewriter)

  • There could be more to add in the 'YouTube and Twitter' section, it doesn't have to be a lot, but you could say that Bieber now has 45+ million followers on Twitter as of 2014? There is more to mention here, but it's just a suggestion?

Personal life and other ventures[edit]

  • The 'Voice and influences' section is very short. If possible, can this be expanded a little to convey more information? For example how did The Beatles, Tupac etc, inspire him?
  • Other than that, the prose in the whole section is good and meets the GA criteria!


Does this section have to be here? It's only two bullet points?


If possible, can this section be expanded? Did he win more than just the Diamond Jubilee medal?


  • Ref #100#98: [1] redirects and is not a reliable source. This is the only faulty one I have found, every other citation is in place and meets the GA criteria.
I think you are talking about ref 98. Is it? Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I had no idea why the search engine said it was ref 100! Jaguar 13:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Lots of refs here need to be replaced for lack of credibility. Concerning many problems here have not been raised. We have Verify credibility problems, inconsistent citation formats and lacking reliable references. Do the people here have experience with GA reviews? -- 16:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for nearly five years and so far have reviewed 33 GANS... I'm more than capable Jaguar 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This is very concerning - we will have to look at all this a bit closer. -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

Gaining over 300,000 views in the past 30 days, this is one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. The prose is generally good and is most places it meets the GA criteria. The stability of the article is always questionable, however I don't think by any means that it is fair to criticise a GAN by its stability - this is one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia so I think we can rule this one out. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until all of those issues have been addressed. In the current standing the article doesn't meet the GA criteria, a couple of sections needs expanding first and a few prose problems stand in the way but other than that everything looks acceptable! Jaguar 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar,  Done All issues have been addressed. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We need a second opinion here please - !! --Moxy (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If an article is unstable, it automatically fails GA criteria. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree - but the unstable problem its about bad NEWS being added all the time. I am more concerned with the references - we have credibility tag - inconsistent citation formats. We are using sources like "IMDb" and "CrunchBoard" a job board and "Pencilsofpromise" a company that builds of schools and "thehollywoodgossip"- we have sources credited to "" etc.. lots of work here just in the refs. -- Moxy (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Fail this article, just took a quick look. Gross unreliable sources are being added, incorrect citation style, unclear prose (even for GA standards) as well as BLP violations. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention, four dead refs. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well Bieber is still on hold. The article isn't unstable as in it should cause a problem - it is protected and only autoconfirmed users can edit it. That creates a stability acceptable for GA. Like I always say in all my reviews, I mainly focus on copy editing issues. If any of you have suggestions on references then feel free to add them in the review! Jaguar 17:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That does not mean it is stable. And the issues with the references are a problem - technically, a full reference even as a dead-link is allowable, but its really an issue for most and should be checked against archival sites and only as a last and final resort be allowed in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • We people to use edit summaries - as we need to know when someone is removing refs and the theses statements now need sources. Or the fact that numbers are changing because of change of refs - like the fact sales have changed because we are using statisticbrain or forbs is this right?-- Moxy (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Replaced or removed Youtube or other unreliable refs. Also fixed dead refs. Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whats going on no edit summaries - as per edits like this how many refs do we need to find to replace those removed. In this case the source was fine just not labelled properly...we can use youtube if the source in the holder of the this case they are.-- Moxy (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The number of albums changed as it is now referring to only studio albums. It is correct.Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I will see what SilkTork has to say and then perhaps give a review myself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

  • Doing a second opinion. The decision to list or not remains with the original reviewer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria[edit]

  • There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Images and captions are OK. Note that there are four images of the subject performing. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, a GA criteria, it is advised against using multiple similar images. Consideration could be given to reducing the repetitive images by 50%, and as part of ongoing development, searching for a greater variety of useful images. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The prose is not professional, using casual language such as "run-ins with the law", and awkward statements such "and finally contacted Mallette, who was reluctant because of Braun's Jewish religion", "Bieber was soon signed", and "Justin Timberlake was also reportedly in the running to sign Bieber", but is otherwise clear and readable. This, again, is debatable and borderline, some reviewers would ask for a better overall standard, but GA doesn't ask for professional quality writing - only that it is clear and concise, and without obvious errors, and I think that on the whole the prose just meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No section appears overly long or too detailed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The main aspects appear to be present. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Appears reasonable neutral in tone and coverage (though, looking at the editing history, that can vary!). SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • MoS. The opening paragraph of the lead doesn't adequately define the subject, per MOS:BEGIN, a GA criteria: we learn he is a musician who was discovered on YouTube, but not why he is notable. The lead does not summarise the most important points in the article, per MOS:INTRO, a GA criteria. There are several short sub-sections and short paragraphs; MOS:BODY, a GA criteria, has this advice: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." The Filmography section uses tables, per WP:EMBED, a GA criteria, tables are best reserved for complex situations. This is mainly borderline and debatable stuff - nothing that by itself would significantly prevent listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There's been occasional short edit wars in the past two months by established editors. In such circumstances it is common to wait for a month to see if the article is stable before listing. If persistent edit warring by the same individuals is holding up the listing of an article, then such editors can be warned, and if they persist, they can be blocked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is richly cited to a range of acceptable newspapers and magazines. Though some statements regarding marriage, pregnancy, low income, single parenthood, etc, need supporting by close inline citing as this is a BLP article - I have marked some I spotted. The sources I looked at are acceptable. And the citation methods are fine, as all that GA requires is that statements are cited to reliable sources, and an appropriate reference section is used. See Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#.282.29_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable for more information on what is and what is not GA criteria for citations. There is occasional misunderstanding on this point, with reviewers sometimes asking for more than is actually required. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OR. When there are unsourced statements there is a question mark over where the information came from. When the statements tagged as needing citing have been cited, then this criteria will also be met. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • The article appears to be close to meeting GA criteria, and the initial review looks solid. I think I vary in some places from the reviewer, but that is to be expected, as there is a fair degree of interpretation in the criteria. I think the initial review should be allowed to continue with a little bit less haranguing, and a little bit more support for the reviewer. At the end of a review, if there is some doubt about the accuracy of the outcome, a GAR can be done, or the article can be renominated. If anyone wants a follow up on this, please ping me, as I am not watchlisting this page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 DoneCitations have been added whereever were marked as needed and I am working on reframing the lede. Shane Cyrus (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Honestly speaking, as Biber isn't a movie star, there isn't much to estblish notability in the lede. The second paragraph in the lede has been improved and establishes notability. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's some things I would address in the lead:
  • "is a Canadian pop musician, dancer, actor, and singer-songwriter" → "is a Canadian singer-songwriter, dancer, and actor"
  • ref#2 (All music) should read AllMusic.
  • is ref#5 (Inogolo) reliable?
  • "Braun arranged for him to meet with entertainer Usher Raymond" → "Braun arranged for Bieber to meet with Usher Raymond IV"
  • "His debut EP, the seven-track My World, was released in November 2009, and was certified platinum in the United States." would read better as something like "Bieber released his debut EP My World in November 2009. It was certified platinum in the United States."
  • "Bieber's first full-length studio album, My World 2.0, was released in March 2010" → "Bieber released his first full-length studio album, My World 2.0, in March 2010"
  • "Bieber released his third studio album Believe on June 19, 2012"..... any particular reason an exact date is mentioned for this release and not the previous ones?
  • "over 40 million followers on Twitter"..... is this from when Forbes listed him among the "World's Most Powerful Celebrities" of 2012?
  • ref#12 (Statistic Brain) seems questionable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done, I didn't change his number of followers, looks right? The pronunciation by Inogolo is right and the pronunciation hasn't been mentioned by many sites. Statistic Brain is the only source I found for studio albums, if it cn't be used, the detail has to be removed. But everything else has been taken care of. I would change it to 45+ but it refers to the time when he was listed by Forbes. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as the stability is in question, It was only edited by me, so it won't change now, it was just the process of getting the article up to GA. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork for those comments, they have been very helpful for the review. @Shane Cyrus:, have you addressed every issue SilkTork and Snuggums has mentioned yet? There are a few concerns and the GAN is still on hold for another few days. If you think you have addressed them all, let me know and I will double check and read through the article again. I guess the consensus is up to me? Regards Jaguar 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Jaguar, I think all concerns have been addressed - Shane Cyrus (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Shane addressed all my points on the lead, but I haven't gone into the rest of the article (will do so later- occupied at the moment). Wait until I've reviewed the rest of the article before passing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
We'll wait till Snuggums has finsihed that part of the review and once they have been addressed I'll make sure the whole thing meets the GA criteria! Honestly this is beginning to feel like a FA candidate! Jaguar 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment – The tables for awards and filmography needs further formatting per WP:ACCESS and WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I believe if we have an artistry section that should give more weight to the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio, Can you be more specific? Per the articles you suggested, the tables look just about perfect. Shane Cyrus (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No they are not, they are missing the WP:ACCESS parameters. Take an article like Priyanka Chopra for example and see how the parameters are coded for her filmography or the awards section for Josh Hutchinson. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued review from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

I've done some cleaning of the "Early life" section. Lots of the content was either unreliably sourced or not supported by given sources. However, I still recommend failing this article. More to come. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Life and career
Career beginnings and My World
  • The first two sentences are quite a mouthful. Let's cut them down to something to like "Marketing executive Scooter Braun first discovered Bieber through his videos in 2007. Braun was impressed with the videos, and contacted Bieber's mother Pattie about wanting to work with him."
  • "However, after praying with her church elders and receiving their encouragement, she permitted Braun to fly Bieber, then 13, to Atlanta, Georgia, to record demo tapes. A week after arriving, Bieber sang for R&B singer/songwriter, Usher." is also rather lengthy. It would read better as something like "However, church elders convinced her to let Bieber go with Braun. At 13, Bieber went to Atlanta, Georgia, with Braun to record demo tapes. He began signing for Usher one week later."
  • Nothing about church officals' word can be found in ref#8 (, though it is contained within ref#23 (New York Times).
  • "Antonio 'L.A.' Reid" → L.A. Reid
  • I did some ref fixing
  • "At that point, Bieber and his mother moved to Atlanta temporarily, also the home of Usher and Braun, to record and get counseling from Braun. At that point of time in 2008, Braun was hired as Bieber's manager." would read better as something like "Bieber then moved to Atlanta with his mother to pursue further work with Braun and Usher. Braun became Bieber's manager in 2008."
  • You mention "Love Me" and "Favorite Girl" charting within the Top 40 of Billboard Hot 100, but what about in Canada? Not that including Billboard is bad, but Canadian chartings should be more of a concern since Bieber is Canadian.
  • ref#37 (Cambio) is a questionable ref at best
My World 2.0, Never Say Never, and Under the Mistletoe
  • How did "Baby" chart in Canada?
  • "'Baby', the lead single from his debut album, My World 2.0, which featured Ludacris, was released in January 2010 and became an international hit." would read better as something like "In January 2010, 'Baby' was released from Bieber's debut album My World 2.0. The song features Ludacris, and became an international success."
  • "Bieber collaborated with Sean Kingston on his single "Eenie Meenie" which also appeared on Bieber's debut album." → "Sean Kingston appeared on the album's next single "Eenie Meenie".
  • "The second single from My World 2.0, 'Somebody to Love',"..... third single. Be consistent.
  • The span of "Baby" being the YouTube's most watched video needs to be cited- no support of it is found in ref#52 (TV Guide). Also, not everyone is going to automatically know that PSY's Gangnam Style dethroned the video for most views. Include those by name.
  • PopCrush (ref#53) is a highly unreliable source as it lacks evidence of credibility or any viable credentials.
  • Zap 2 It (ref#55) is a blog and another highly unreliable source.
  • Singers Room (ref#56) comes off as questionable. It wouldn't hurt to include a link from MTV itself here.
  • "It was released on Black Friday in the United States"..... give a specific date. Seeing to it that Thanksgiving is just an American and Canadian tradition, and Black Friday is an American custom, those living in different countries might not automatically know which day this refers to.
Believe, Journals, and Justin Bieber's Believe
  • the "title" field in ref#66 (Bieber's Twitter) shouldn't just read "status". Fill in something from the tweet like "My single is next month".
  • Mike Posner co-writing the "Boyfriend" belongs in the song's article, not here.
  • Put quotation marks around "mature" in "Intent on developing a more mature sound" for a more neutral tone.
  • "Entertainment Weekly praised Bieber's evolution"..... praised his musical shift or musical change.
  • Put quotation marks around "intense" for the comments Rolling Stone made for a more neutral tone.
  • "He hosted and performed on February 9, 2013." needs a citation
  • Hollywood Gossip (ref#85) is highly questionable
  • Hollywood Life (ref#86) is also highly questionable
  • refs linking to MTV should read "MTV", not "" or ""

 Done _ Shane Cyrus (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, Everything highlighted by XXSNUGGUMSXX has been Fixed. - Shane Cyrus (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not finished reviewing the article. Wait until I'm done. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now resuming.....

Public Image, fans, and social media
  • This section is better off simply titled "Public Image", which I've done for you
  • "Usher comments" → "Usher commented"
  • I did some punctuation fixing
  • "Bieber was consistently criticized for looking and sounding younger than his age"..... "heavily" or "frequently" would be a more suitable word than "consistently". Take your pick.
  • Again, ref's to MTV shouldn't read ""
  • "Some of his fanbase are known as 'Beliebers', which the Chicago Tribune included as one of the top buzzwords of 2010" would read better as something like "Chicago Tribune noted that Bieber's fanbase, "Beliebers", was among the top words of 2010". Not quite everyone will automatically now what a "buzzword" is.
  • ref#101 ( should read Chicago Tribune.
  • "The early Bieber fanbase developed on YouTube" would read better as something like "Bieber's early fanbase developed on YouTube"
  • Not that non-English sources are bad, but I can't really tell if ref#104 is supporting the info on Beliebers conversing with one another.
  • "Bieber's favorability ratings among Americans were 20% positive and 54% negative"..... include how the other 26% felt.
Legal issues
  • This sub-section seems rather small compared to the others
  • The "several run-ins" he had with the law before being arrested should be expanded on. Mention what specifically they were.
YouTube and Twitter
  • "Long before he released his EP, My World, in mid-November 2009," suggests that My World was released a while after November 2009. Try something like "Long before the November 2009 release of My World".
  • "is the second most followed handle" → "is the second most followed account"
  • I took a look at ref#125 (Twitaholic), and it says that the Biebs has over 51 million followers.
  • I'd go into how Katy Perry surpassed Bieber for most followed person on twitter in early November 2013, there was lots of coverage on this.
  • "His account acquires one new follower every two seconds"..... how are we supposed to know that these days? Remove this bit.
  • I'd split this first paragraph, it's rather massive.
  • The second paragraph is rather trivial, I'd remove it altogether.
Personal life and other ventures
Religion and relationships
  • is ref#142 (iVillage) really professional?
  • "Bieber is a practicing Christian" → "Bieber identifies as a Christian"
  • If known, I'd include the specific denomination of Christianity Bieber identifies with (i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) or even which sect of a denomination (i.e. Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist)
  • ref#143 isn't supporting the Rolling Stone comments
  • "Bieber made comments in a February 2011 interview to Rolling Stone. With regard to sexual abstinence during the interview, Bieber responded, 'I don't think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them.'" is quite a mouthful. Cut this down to something like "Regarding sexual abstinence, Bieber told Rolling Stone in 2010 'I don't think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them.'"
  • The bit on him breaking up with Selena Gomez only to reconcile and then break up again was a bit lengthy, I've trimmed it down for you.
Voice and Influences
  • Interest in hockey and chess is trivial in this case. I'd remove it.
  • Also, try expanding this section beyond one incomplete paragraph. Aim for a full paragraph or two.
  • "He has said that he isn't going to invest in something he doesn't like" → "He has said that he does not plan to invest in something he does not like." As a general note, avoid using contractions in articles unless part of a quote or title.
  • I also recommend trying expanding this section beyond one incomplete paragraph. Like before, a full paragraph or two should be good.
  • If the second section cannot be expanded beyond an incomplete paragraph, merge it into the first one.
  • For both sections, don't use rowspans per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. This is what I believe IndianBio was trying to say regarding WP:ACCESS.
"Awards and nominations"
  • This section should go above "discography section"
  • "Bieber has been nominated for 2 Grammy awards, received 1 Brit award, 2 NRJ Music Awards, 6 Billboard Music Awards and numerous fan voted accolades which include 7 American Music Awards, 11 Teen Choice Awards, and 7 MTV Europe Music Awards." needs to be cited.
  • This article definitely needs some major cleanup. I'd fail this article for GA. Let's see what IndianBio's comments are. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
3 reviewers on 1 article. Wow :)))) Anyways,  Done - Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually no- not all of it is done. For one thing, you haven't cut the trivial interests he has or expanded the sections I pointed out. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be fine if those paras are even 4 lines. Still searching but there isn't much. His interests are an important point. Should I remove them? If you also find any details on those paragraphs for expansion, do not hesitate, add it.. Anyways, the rest of it,  Done, If added too much, those paragraphs are likely to become blocky and a barrier to reading - Shane Cyrus (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns by Petergriffin9901 (suggest failure)[edit]

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up already. I suggest an immediate failure of the article. I just had to remove almost 7k worth of blogs and other unreliable sources. This article is littered with poor references and even worse formatting. That aside, for one of the most widely reported people on the planet, the article is poorly researched and really bare-to-the-bone. There are no prose, there is no meat to the article. Just a bunch of scattered facts and numbers.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 11:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the place on Wikipedia where such closures can be reported. The only argument here was that the article doesn't have meat to it while all concerns had been addressed. The article was failed 4 days before the date. I seeno major faults in the references. Please someone suggest where such issues are supposed to be reported. - Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Close - not listed[edit]

I'm sorry Shane, but this review is enough of a nightmare and it isn't going anywhere. The concerns are too extensive and it would require a lot of work to be done to attend to them all. The article in its current standing does not meet the GA criteria. I would recommend addressing all of those points and improving the sources before submitting another GAN. At the begenning of the review I did say it would be interesting but I expected nothing like this! If you want to save time, you can ask me to review it again once all of the concerns have been sorted out. Jaguar 12:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This should definitely go through peer review before renominating for GA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)