Seven separate adjacent citations for "Star Search" looks a bit messy. You might want to consider combining those into one footnote--there's no rule that you have to have a separate footnote for each cite, especially when you're just supporting a "several episodes" statement. Also, citations to YouTube should specify that it's a YouTube link. Overall, the references could stand to be consistently formatted. Compare the Ken Barnes/USA Today and Ann Powers/LA Times refs--the latter is better presented. Whoops--it's a dead link, too.
I've combined most of the Star Search ones - good idea. I've updated the dead link but I'm not presently up for converting all the refs. I try to use standard cite formats but somethimes it's just a matter of getting the ref on there. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"he sang Bryan Adams' "Heaven" and Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" to unanimous praise" is kind of fannish. Can you tone that down or find an appropriate direct quote to support that? Your treatment of Cook's endorsement of his performance a couple of paragraphs down is excellent in this regard.
Someone addressed this I believe. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording slightly to tone down an appearance of bias on part of the article, but the judges were unanimous in their positive opinions. I can't find a particular reference yet, but I think it can stand without it, short of someone finding a transcript. --MartinezMD (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
I see there's a bit of BLP info creeping in and getting weeded out, but that's probably par for the course for an article like this.
Indeed - he has a lot of fans. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Infobox image could be cropped better, and needs a good license--It looks like the latest version updated clobbered a good license. Should be relatively straightforward to fix.
I think I've corrected this. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
ON HOLD pending improvements. None of these issues are substantive, I don't expect you to have any challenges making these improvements. Drop me a line here or on my talk page when you want me to re-review per your improvements. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10/28 update
Thanks for addressing the issues. I agree, most of them have been dealt with.
Consistency in citation is still iffy. Citations should consistently have dates, publishers, etc. {{cite web}} and its sibling templates are great, and the article could shine so much more with just a bit more work.
Upon additional review, I think there's a few things overlinked (e.g., in "Billboard magazine's Fred Bronson notes "David fills a spot where there's a void. . . . He has innocence and humility."" why are innocence and humility wikilinked? See WP:OVERLINK
Imagine leads to a disambiguation link. Looks like there are some more that should be cleaned up, too.
Overall, the citation consistency is the only thing that I really see as holding it back at this point. The others are just more helpful advice. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinks have been removed; if there's more just let me know, I found a few others.
Disambig's fixed.
Cite formatting in process. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to #26 but needing to take a break for a bit. I'll fix the rest ina day or so if no one else does. -- Banjeboi 23:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks almost done. I see no reason that this couldn't be promoted tonight if someone else felt like doing the remaining few references. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did the last dozen or so. That should be all of them. -- Banjeboi 20:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your follow through. It's a good article. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements
That is a good list to work on. I started on it by toning down the "praise" comment, regarding #4. It would be inaccurate, however, to totally neutralized the judges' POV since it was indeed positive. As for #2, the Star Search references, I agree it looks messy. Unfortunately, I wouldn't even begin to know how to combine them without messing it up. Also, not sure about the image cropping and licensing issues. Any takers on those? --MartinezMD (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to a cropped image, someone did post a cropped image of the current one, but I removed it due to it being too blurry to be used to identify David. Aspects (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a better image is not a showstopper, but a better one would certainly improve the page. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been an ongoing concern - this guys photo has been taken by thousands of cell phones alone so it's just a matter of time before we get some better ones uploaded. I'll do a search to see if an imagebot can find one. I'll combine the star search refs in some fashion as well. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped image is too blurry After too many drinks fans of Archuleta only enjoy fleeting blurry memories of his performance. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagebit finds nothing new presently that isn't a copyvio. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
