This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Good job to everyone involved in getting the article to GA, though I did want to request one change due to its awkwardness. I read in the GA review how numbers should be spelled out, etc etc, and I wanted to make it clear that, according to our MOS (in fact, many published manuals), numbers 9 and under should be shown as numbers (see WP:ORDINAL) and 10 and above are spelled out. However, when talking about chart positions, and in accordance with MOS:HASH, it's quite normal, and far less "strange looking" to list songs by "No.", instead of writing out "number". Most chart positions on outside websites are shown as, say, #1 or #2. On Wikipedia, this would translate to No. 1 or No. 2. "Number one" and "number two" is very difficult for a reader to translate as a chart position; someone skimming the lead/article who is interested in chart figures would miss these spelled-out numbers entirely. Now, instead of being bold and simply changing this, perhaps this is something that requires consensus, simply because the article has now seen three formats: #1, No. 1, and number one. Because we're dealing with guidelines (not rules), it's therefore up to discussion as to which format would be more preferred. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the "No. 1" format myself because like you said it makes it easier to read but I wasn't sure because another editor who reviews GA articles changed half of them to "number one" so I did the rest for the sake of consistency. I'm fine with either depending on what the consensus is. Hassan514 (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The style for old style reviewers are to spell. everything out regardless of the MOS:HASH. It was done this way because many readers could not understand the simplicity of No.1. As I explained in my review; I didn't think it would be enough to fail the article, but my personal taste when reviewing said article is to see it spelled out. You will find a great number of the reviewers will move to that same frame of mind. Changing it to the No.1 will not change the articles status so it is fine to go to that mode. Thank you Canyouhearmenow10:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm an associate of Nadia Ali's general manager. Is there anything that we can do to have her current info box picture replaced with a more current one?
Done – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
#c-TWolosin-2012-11-29T01:00:00.000Z-Issue_with_File:NadiaAlibyTamaraSusa.jpeg){kind=link}