Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2020

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 unsuccessful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is already follow the FL criteria. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - fails just about everything. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nominator has an open FLC which does not have support (in fact it has a number of oppose !votes) so should not have nominated another at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Apologies for piling another oppose to this FLC, but I agree with the two editors above. IMDb and MobyGames are unreliable sources and need replacements. I also think the lead could be expanded. For instance, it could mention how the How I Met Your Mother creators believe Spears' guest appearance saved the show from cancelation ([2]) or a brief part about the reviews of her performance in Crossroads. That kind of information would be helpful, although it should still be kept short and compact. Best of luck with your continued work on this list! Aoba47 (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Short prose. List is incomplete. Sources are bad. I could go on an on. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – obvious reasons. – zmbro _(talk) 03:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggest withdrawal not nearly enough citations (I only see 5 total), IMDb and MobyGames are poor sources to use, and one paragraph of prose doesn't really tell people much about her roles. Furthermore, this shouldn't have been split off from Britney Spears videography when what we have here looks bare in comparison to this (something people could actually work with). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the comments above --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Please could this nomination be closed? There may be grounds to ban this user from submitting FLCs as this is their third nomination of a FLC that is clearly way off the standard so they may lack the competence to participate in the process. No prejudice to a fellow user active in this space in guiding them through the process before submitting.Cowlibob (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has improved greatly from its previous failed nomination... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm unsure of the scope of this list is it every video that Jackson has been in as a person or every video he has been in as a solo artist. Normally, these kinds of lists are only for someone's solo career. For instance, I would expect Paul McCartney discography to not include records from his time with The Beatles or (maybe) Paul McCartney and Wings.
• The citations are inconstant. Some inline cites have years while others do not. Per CITEVAR people can use whatever citation method they want, but this one leaves me confused. Which inline style are you using?
• mvdbase.com doesn't seem like an RS
• 147 and 148 appear to be the same citation. I would really like timestamps inside of the commentary
• PR Newswire isn't a RS
• There is inconstancy over if outlets are linked or not
• MOS:ACCESS problems --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A cursory glance reveals that the prose issues which were my main objection last time around largely remain. WP:FLCR requires professional standards of writing, so this is a dealbreaker. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing- multiple opposes, no comments addressing. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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