Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2011

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:11, 25 April 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): InverseHypercube (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it presents an interesting topic, is well sourced, stable, and maintains a high standard of prose. There may be a question as to its comprehensiveness, as it is not an exhaustive list. However, I believe that it succeeds in presenting a substantial list of the most common misconceptions, and in that aspect it is comprehensive. It has many media files, and overall is very informative and pleasant to read. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you consult with regular editors of the list before nomination? According to [2], you have only made 9 edits to this page.—Chris!_c/t 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some editors suggested I nominate it for FL after I incorrectly nominated it as a good article. For what it's worth, I did add an item (the one about entropy) to the list, and I have participated in several discussions on the talk page. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking. If they know about this, then it is fine.—Chris!_c/t 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a few months ago. Anyways, I am a frequent reader of this list and have had it in my watchlist (I presume the "discussing with editors" thing is about confirming stability of the article). It remains quite stable from what I can see. InverseHypercube 00:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For I feel that this is a very interesting list, it meets the criteria, and it should be easier for all to read. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There are three dead external links.
• Some references need access dates (11, 15,...) and/or publisher information (61, 62, 63,..., 229). Please check all references.
• Not sure whether this list belongs in category "Science activism".
• The lead should be expanded and could then get its own image.
• What does "main topic must have its own article" mean? With Myth of the Flat Earth it is obvious, but with say the Vikings it is not.
• "misconception and its reference(s) must be present in the topic article" Why do you require the reference to be present in another article? How does it influence this list and what happens if an editor removes the reference in that article?
• How do you define "modern rather than ancient or obsolete."?
• Possibly change "Human body and health" to "Medicine" which is more in line with the other sciences (physics, chemistry,...).

bamse (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (by Mrwojo):

• Cleanup tags should be addressed: {{dubious}}, {{page needed}} (×3), {{POV-statement}}.
• References need cleanup (expanding on what bamse said above about missing information):
  • inconsistent date formatting (ref #1 has "Retrieved 2010-12-02", #3 has "Retrieved 18 March 2011", #5 has "Retrieved July 31, 2010", and so on)
  • several web references are nothing but a title and a URL: 64, 68, 69, 73, 74, 95, 109, 110, 122
  • some web references list the domain as the title when an actual title exists: 111 ("disabled-world.com"), 197 ("Google Books"), 221 ("worldwidewords.org"), 229 ("CSMonitor.org")
  • unformatted references to Mythbusters episodes (italics, quotation marks, other information): 51, 57, 67
  • apparent references to Wikipedia: 31 (de.Wikipedia), 203 ("Erratum")
  • Snopes is referenced several ways: as a work (italics), as a publisher, or neither; as Snopes.com or as Snopes; with authors or without
  • 26 ("Poland 1939"), unusual formatting (quotation format, author's name)
  • 135, 136; should "Nature" and "National Geographic" be titles rather than publishers?
• I didn't closely examine the content of the references but a few jumped out at me:
  • 35 ("Sloane") seems to be citing an Australian court case to make a claim about US law
  • 43 ("US Patent 7112771"), I would regard a patent's claims as a primary source
  • Some of the websites don't seem like WP:RS, such as 109.

Although I addressed a few unlisted reference issues in recent edits, many more remain. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article seems to follow two styles when discussing misconceptions:

1. Mention the misconception followed by the actual facts. (eg: It is a common myth that an earthworm becomes two worms when cut in half.....)
2. Not mention the misconception directly at all, and provide the actual facts which imply at what the misconception is. (eg: Sharks can actually suffer from cancer. The myth that sharks do not get cancer was spread....)

This inconsistency is seen throughout the article, but the latter seems to be the more prevalent method. I personally prefer the first because it doesn't leave any room for doubt about what the misconception is, but either way make the article uniform. 122.255.43.250 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the suggestions. I am working on improving it. InverseHypercube 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• needs more work I was really skeptical before opening it, but it did not look that bad after. Still the intro at least needs to be improved, and "common" needs to be defined clearly - i.e. what makes the list not wp:OR. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support, but there are still several things that need to be fixed.

• The lead should be expanded to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
• There are still 3 dead links on the page.
• There is some inconsistency between the use of "to" and "—". i.e.: between 11 to 24% of Americans, and exceed 30–50 miles.
• There should be some information on the misconceptions about HIV and AIDS.
• There is need for a reference for Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees[86] or any other modern-day primates.
• 30–50 miles per hour regardless of the distance — also include kilometers per hour
• There should be more information on how Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), armour (B) (American: armor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), sabre (B) (American: saber), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), pediatric (A) (British: paediatric), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
• There are several contractions in the article.

—CrowzRSA 17:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:49, 24 April 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a detailed and neatly formatted list with everything being well referenced. Everything here flows greatly and nothing is repetitive. This is formatted with the proper formatting which is at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Ref 29.2: "[[[Prometheus Global Media]]"

done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The single peaked at number 3 on the Hot 100 chart and was also certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America.[1] — delete the ref, cause it is below.

done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you click the arrows after "Guest singles" and "No.1 Single" in the infobox, it doesn't link me to the sections.
  • "music download" in the "Compilation albums" sections needs to be linked.

done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You could add the one and only video "Live: Inside Job"[4]
  • "Peak charts" column: New Zealand should be ahead Norway.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about this—alphabetically, should New Zealand come before Norway or NOR before NZ?—indopug (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always done NOR before NZ. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• No list of music videos? There's at least one. More research is needed.
• There's no need to separate his singles decade-wise.

Comment keeps things organized so there isn't a huge gap in a table with maybe only one or two charts when a song charted in a differenct decade. For example, "Dirty Laundry" is the only single to chart on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, therefore the rest of his singles won't need that column. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't highlight no. 1 singles in the infobox.
• MoS errors in the lead: Billboard Hot 100 → Billboard Hot 100. number 3 → number three.
• Copy-editing: "After five years of absence from new material, Henley's third studio was released in 1989", "Although being his" etc. Needs significant rewriting as well: "features the Top 5 single on the Billboard Hot 100, "Dirty Laundry"", for instance, is completely redundant to the next sentence.
• Remove "Records" (Geffen Records → Geffen) from the tables.

done EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, records in the early 80s were released in CD but not vinyl? Really?

done, I wasn't born in the 1980s, so I'm not 100% sure how music was released back then. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't list re-released items, so "The Boys of Summer" (UK re-release) should go.
• Citation does not support I Can't Stand Still charting at #24 in the US. Chart positions need to be checked throughout.

The above are just an indicative sample of problems in the article. Fixing these specific issues alone will not make the article FL-worthy.—indopug (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now - intro is really short and completely lacks refs. Nergaal (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "... Eagles ..." or "... the Eagles ..."? infobox caption vs lead. Be consistent.
• No mention of the guest singles in the lead opening para.
• It should be made clear that he was a solo artist in parallel with being in the Eagles (if that truly is the case).
• "on the Billboard Hot 100," not in italics, "Billboard 200" Billboard only in italics, "U.S. Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks" suddenly it's the U.S. Billboard... consistency in format please.
• " the Top 5 single" 5->five.
• "—" denotes releases that did not chart -> + "or was not released in that territory".
• "It's So Easy" 2002 featured single - prove it existed.
• Music videos is unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:45, 24 April 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): —WFC— 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Want to know who Watford's all-time top appearance maker is? Oldest and youngest players? Or are you simply hankering to see the flag of Saint Lucia in a football article? For all that and more, read on...

There were outstanding issues from the previous FLC a year ago. In terms of redlinks, over 50 articles have been created in the last year, while four (bluelinked) players have joined the list. To keep myself sane while I did the cross-checking yesterday, I did a complete count. As of this morning, the tally was 265 bluelinks, 51 redlinks, and 22 players who don't meet our notability guidelines; more than 5 in 6 notable players have articles, and that tally is rising. I've taken the other comments from last year's FLC on board too, as well as experience gained from a subsequent FLC and FLRC save, and subsequent reviews of other lists. In my view, the result is more useful, comprehensive and easily verifiable. —WFC— 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• In the table, Refs in Notes / Refs should be decapitalized. Also, I'm unsure if this should have the spaces or not; I don't work much with slashes myself, so I wouldn't know what the MoS prescribes.
  • Done.
• Bibliography should be in alphabetical order, I believe.
  • I've done this, but could you point me in the direction of the MoS for it for future reference?
• Spell out RSSSF as the publisher in references 59–60 and 62. I can live with FIFA being in abbreviated form, but RSSSF is something that many people aren't likely to recognize at first glance. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, as you're the second person to raise it. —WFC— 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Meets FL criteria. Incidentally, I looked in WP:FOOT and it doesn't mention anything on alphabetizing bibliography sections. I may have been wrong on that one; if so, it wouldn't be the first time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

"Since moving from a ground in Cassio Road in 1922, Watford have played home matches at their Vicarage Road stadium." Common knowledge to any fan of the club? Who knows. Needs a source.

Flabby language-"On its resumption" Its? The First World War or the Southern League? (Yeah, yeah... I know. But consider this a request to generally tighten the prose.)

"At the start of 1920–21, Watford joined the Football League Third Division, and transferred to the Third Division South when the league was reorganised the following season. They have played in the Football League ever since, with the exception of 1939–1946, when competitive football was suspended due to the Second World War, and the 1999–2000 and 2006–07 seasons, when they competed in the Premier League." Sources for any of that?

"His corresponding totals for Watford in the Football League (416 appearances and 148 goals) are also unsurpassed." Again, tighten up the prose, this reads as if his numbers were achieved at Watford, and are the highest in League history, which is not supported by the source.

Jackett: The source confirms his cap number... but not that he was a one-club man, as claimed.

Scope row and scope col markup is needed.

Why are there pictures in the refs and not with the table? I'm not sure pics in refs like this complies with MOS.

Courcelles 09:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone here? Courcelles 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the prose and referencing issues, but have left the table markup and the pictures: not particularly keen on working on those! Harrias ^talk 12:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the images to the right of the table looks much better now. I would to the scope col and row markup but I have no idea what they are. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:33, 23 April 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): DAP388 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it currently fits all the criteria for featured list status. DAP388 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Either choose the PR or the FLC. Also, the episode plots are a bit skimpy. Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Noted to user CTJF83 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • PR closed. CTJF83 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with the nom -- the season page matches all featured list criteria. Great job! 89119e (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Didn't realize the copyright problem for episodes 12 and onward. 89119e (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Fix all the DAB links here.

• Keep the dates in the refs consistent; don't mix American dating with Y-M-D formatting.

• Use {{Tv.com}} to format the external link.

• Reference 29 the URL shouldn't be showing.

• Every episode from 12 on down is a straight copy-paste from the IGN reference. For this reason, as a copyright problem, I oppose the article becoming a Featured List. Albacore (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose – I spot-checked the summaries for episodes 12 through 14 after seeing the above comment, and the analysis is correct. Episodes 12 and 13 are straight copyvios, and 14 is part copyvio, part an attempt at paraphrasing that's pretty plagaristic. I also checked episode 11, and that's a copyvio too. There's no way that this should be promoted, and it should be withdrawn or archived ASAP. There's just too much to do to fix it during an FLC. And please do fix it fully before this comes back. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:49, 21 April 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): 03md 05:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after a peer review I think is ready to become a featured list. Any comments are appreciated. 03md 05:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There will no doubt be some discussion over the title (e.g. should it include "(100 appearances or more)")
• Personal preference but I don't like links to our Category space being presented like that (I'd pipelink it, but I know you can't in that template) - similarly I don't like seeing the # link either, it's okay for those of us who know what that means, but it's confusing to non-Wiki-expert readers. I'd opt for not using the "see also" template, and write it out as you like, still indented and in italics, but taking advantage of pipelinking, e.g.

  "This article is about players who have made more than 100 apperances for Fulham. For a list of all Fulham players, major or minor, with a Wikipedia article, see the Fulham F.C. players category. For the current Fulham first-team squad, see current squad."

• Done.

• Lead image could be made larger, and could use alt text. I think the caption could be reduced too.

• Done - feel free to alter the alt text as I have not used it much before.

• "They initially played at Fulham Fields before a move to Craven Cottage in 1896. They played their first ..." merge.

• Is that what you meant.

• "pass the 100-appearance mark..." when did he do this?

• Found the best ref I could for that.

• "Half back" is a dab link.
• "ordered by the year in which they debuted for the club and then alphabetically by surname" not true, initially 1905 has Threlfall ahead of Collins... There may be others!!
• "Int. country [nb 1]" remove space between text and note.
• "for 2002–03 and 2009–10 are" can we have "the" after "for" and "seasons" before "are" here please?
• Gibbon has no "Wales".
• I don't think "None" should sort between Netherlands and Northern Ireland. Probably should sort dead last or dead first.
• Albert Sewell's ref needs an en-dash.
• Same with fifth gen ref.
• Refs 1 & 3 have double full stop, you'll need to "trick" the template here...
• Refs 10 to 22 (ex 21) need en-dashes in number ranges in the titles...

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The 1902–03 season link would be better served as a link to that season's FA Cup.
• Players: "This list contains players who have made more than 100 appearancs for the Fulham". Remove "the".
• "The figure for league appearances and goals...". Should "figure" be plural? It's talking about two stats.
• No need for the repeat competition links in the second paragraph.
• The last three general references are formatted as if they were external links. Is this meant to be a form of shorthand? If not, I recommend formatting them just like regular citations.
• Reference 8 has a formatting glitch in the publisher.
• Authors have a mix of styles in whether the first or last name comes first. Pick one and stick with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – After almost three weeks, my issues remain unaddressed along with those of two other reviewers. At a time when FLC is pushing 40 lists, we can't afford to leave stagnant noms here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Source(s) for international appearances?
• Re bluelinks: Roberto Herrera seems to be an Argentinian dancer and Gary Barnett a player of American football; are you sure all the other links are correct?
• Several of the links to the Times Online multipage piece are wrong (the number range in the reference title doesn't match with the page the url points to).
• Please be consistent about whether you're using both work and publisher for references to the same work (e.g. #2 references Independent Online as a work without publisher but #6 does have a publisher). There's no real need to have both, for well-known works, but whatever you do, check they're correct: compare the publishers of #3 and ##11–20: one of them has to be wrong.
• It says the stats are correct as of 19 March, but the accessdates for the current players' Soccerbase pages are all 23 January...
• There are hyphens in the career dates column that should be endashes
• I'd call Trevor "Tosh" Chamberlain just Tosh Chamberlain, that's his common name

hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 15:53, 16 April 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i am a great fan of Beyonce, i have been working a lot on her discography and i sincerely want it to be promoted to FL. I started with this and ended up with this. I will be very happy to fix any issues you will post. Thank you. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral and moral support, because I'm involved in many ways with the subject and nominator, but I can comment. For some reason six discographies are listed now at FLC and I prefer to comment here about its issues, there are some of them: Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tbhotch. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're mostly welcome. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "and two months later, it was confirmed that the album would be released in June of the same year.[23] " – remove unnecessary comma Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album appearances: use [9] as ref for "So Amazing" Thank you very much for the reference Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Katrina CD is a soundtrack? For what film? Moved to album appearances Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 52, 53, 54 are not in the language you added. They are simply in english. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 62 is not Dutch; its German. There is a big difference between the languages. Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange titles, like ref 54 and 51. Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will add more comments if I'll find any.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Im sorry but im going to oppose this article for now. (Not to all concerned i was asked to comment here, this is in noway a violation of canvas as ive talked to this user maybe once and ive never edited a Beyonce article before.) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:LEAD#Length "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Current length is 6, it needs to be trimmed.
  • Beyoncé_Knowles_discography#Live_albums i really dont know what to make of this, 10 cols should be the maximum, anyone reviewing have any suggestions because its current form, to put it bluntly its a mess (no offense intended).
  • Beyoncé_Knowles_discography#Remix_albums US:14,000 ---> US: 14,000
  • Beyoncé_Knowles_discography#Other_releases Notes need sources.
  • WP:MOS#DATE Version: 2010-09-21 or Version: April 5, 2011, not both. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lead is needs a lot more to make it to FL status. The article is currently on its way, but is not there. As mentioned above, the lead compromises of too many short paragraphs. It is awkwardly structured as a summary detailing the overall success of her career should be placed last. For examples, see Madonna albums discography, Madonna singles discography, Mariah Carey albums discography, Mariah Carey singles discography, Taylor Swift discography. There is a lot of irrelevant information about Grammy Awards, which are better suited for List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé Knowles. First week sales of albums are not important. The lead should primarily discuss overall album sales and records. There is irrelevant information about the musical genres of I Am... Sasha Fierce. Not enough information is given about the album's success. The upcoming album is discussed too much, when there is not even a title or a single released. The countries for the peaks should remain the same and there should be ten at most. As to say, pick the ten most important charts and stick to them. Any other charts are left to to the album and singles pages. Some certifications don't have the countries the same as with the peaks. For example, in studio albums, the peaks has "AUS" for Australia, but the certification have "AU". Make them the same. There are also other minor issues with the lead and other sections. Bottom line the article is heavy need for a long peer review before it could be nominated again as there is too much to be done. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do you all mean that i should go into details about the chart performance of the albums as well as their respective singles? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce has only one discography page, compromising of both her albums and singles not like Madonna and Mariah Carey. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-writing the lead. When i first wrote the lead. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing. I thank everybody whose comments have been helpful. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:26, 2 April 2011 [10].

Nominator(s): Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets FL criteria. Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Bad start in the lead; don't write in boldface, don't start with sentences like "This is a list" or "The discography of"; instead start like this: "Five Finger Death Punch is an American heavy metal band formed in California. Its discography currently consists of two studio albums, one extended play, nine singles and five music videos."
  • Music videos: "Never Enough" unreferenced
  • Other appearances: "Hard to See", TNA Reaction unreferenced
  • The band's follow-up album War Is the Answer, was released on September 22, 2009 selling 44,000 copies in its first week debuting at #7 on the Billboard 200. — wrong punctuation: The band's follow-up album War Is the Answer was released on September 22, 2009, selling 44,000 copies in its first week, debuting at #7 on the Billboard 200.
  • War Is the Answer has gone on to sell over 340,000 copies in the United states. — United States

More comments later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The major issues is that the lead is unreferenced, even if some items should be referenced, most notably the sales.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • I agree with GreatOrangePumpkin. Many facts, like sales and band formation, are unsourced.
  • Please do not use "#" to denote number.
  • Begin with something like "The discography of Five Finger Death Punch, an American heavy metal band, consists of..."

—Novice7 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third one not done. It's okay though. More comments:

• Many online sources are italicized. They should not be. Only print sources must be italicized.
• For MTV references it should be MTV. MTV Networks (Viacom) and not MTV.com
• Back to tables, can you expand CD and DI on its first occurrence?
• If possible, add a column to the studio albums table (maybe "Sales and certifications"). Add the certifications from RIAA. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

—Novice7 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OK, nicely done, but peak positions should not be referenced in the lead, as they are already below. Ref 1 needs format=video.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose CFORK. It has 2 albums, 1 ep, and 9 singles. How can this not be easily merged into the parent article? Two albums does not make a stand-alone article. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:26, 2 April 2011 [11].

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at writing a FL, so please forgive me if I am making loads of elementary mistakes. I am nominating this for featured list because I have checked it against the criteria and one or two other FLs on similar subjects, and I believe that it currently meets them. The UK Indie Chart receives far less commentary than the singles and albums charts, so there isn't quite as much to say about it, but I have tried to make the lead as informative and engaging as possible. I have also tried to use as many online refs as I can find, but quite a lot of the number ones are cited using back issues of the the magazine ChartsPlus as offline refs. I hope that this is okay. A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose CFORK. The list has no other information than dates, name and artist. Being such a bare list, I see no reason not to merge it into List of number-one indie hits of 2000s (UK). The product would have somewhere between 100 and 200 entries, without any extra details => completely manageable. Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but why is that not also true for, say, Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.), Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003 or Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)? To be honest, I actually think that combining all the charts into one huge chart could conceivably work well, but I've got no information about what singles were number one 2000–2005, so the list could be largely incomplete. A Thousand Doors (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and nominate those for FLRC. If there are no reliable sources for 2000-2005, then simply get an article for 2006-2010 or something like that, and say that no sources are available before then. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.