Freddie Mercury Wikipedia Article Needs YOU!

Hi Fans,
We have been trying to fix up the Freddie Mercury Wikipedia article so that we can hopefully make it a "Featured Article" or something like that.
Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury. Trust me, it is a lot better than many of the articles that have actually been featured on the main page. For instance, there was a featured Gwen Stefani article that acticle that actually had a trivia section stuck in it. Talk about crappy! I guess that her fans are very dedicated.

I would greatly appreciate any help here, although I hope that the content will remain relatively constant. Feel free to change the wording or to move sentences around. I think that it is vastly better than it was over a year ago when it was rated as a B article.

I would be interested in any new references that
you may have as well. I also do not know the authors of references 12, 14, 20 and 30. If anyone knows, that would be great. These came from Melody Maker, People and the NME.

With all honesty, that wikipedia article on Freddie Mercury is pathetic. Even the picture of Freddie Mercury at the top of the page is mediocre at best. I'll see what I can do, but unfortunatly I don't have the advantage of having time to spend on such an activity.

Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia?

I agree that the image at the top of the article does indeed suck. I believe that the reason behind why it involves the fact that you are not allowed to use copyrighted material.

Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential.

The photo at the top is very inappropriate and should be replaced with a biographical one such as the one that was there before. The other 'odd' photos of Freddie carrying a friend home drunk as well as him at college are also quite out of place for an article where people will first tend to go to if they want to find out information on Freddie Mercury.

EDIT- Sorry, the photo has since been replaced and is a lot better!!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential. [/QUOTE]

I doubt 10 million look at the Freddie page everyday. Nevermind the fact that anybody can edit the page, so the information is dubious at best.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential. [/QUOTE]

I doubt 10 million look at the Freddie page everyday. Nevermind the fact that anybody can edit the page, so the information is dubious at best.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with 'Freddie's #1 Fan Forever', but I don't agree with the 10 million people spiel. However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internet, therefore people might get the wrong idea when they read about certain topics. As fans of Queen we should help maintain an appropriate webpage for him, even if it could be tampered with in the nearby future. I'm doing it for Freddie Mercury's sake.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME] However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internet[/QUOTE]

It's also probably the most unreliable.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME] However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internet[/QUOTE]

It's also probably the most unreliable.[/QUOTE]

I never said it wasn't.

Why are there two pictures from the mid 60s, but none from 1970-1985 ??

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia? [/QUOTE]
"

I edited it. I added a Queen Archives link.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia? [/QUOTE]

....because Wiki isn't pathetic on every subject. And frankly, because the internet generation coming behind us is SO incapable of sitting and reading anything other than the latest Harry Potter, that if instant educational gratification is what they want, then the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.

I think they used to call it "public service".

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.[/QUOTE]

That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ok.computer wrote: [/QUOTENAME]the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.[/QUOTE]

That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites.[/QUOTE]

Yeah..why waste time making wiki accurate if someone else can just come along and delete your work?