Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 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 16:33, 27 September 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Quidster4040 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the Featured List criteria. The list similarly follows a format to the list of New York Cosmos seasons, which is a FL-list class article. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 3b alone. There's virtually nothing here that isn't in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Same reason as The Rambling Man.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:10, 22 September 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 16:33, 27 September 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...the article was in a bit of a mess beforehand, and I want this to be the detail list it should be. I've spent a lot of time putting the songs into a chronological order in the format of table, as well as fabricating a completely new Lead. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded on 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) by User:Legolas2186

• Oppose – Simply basing on WP:WIAFL 3a criteria. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's 3a? WP:WIAFA only has 3 (no 3a,3b,3c,etc)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oopsie, I meant WIAFL. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's real helpful, like I can improve it with that. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It fails other points also. This doesnot pass as a standalone list as TRM pointed out. Suggest withdrawal. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, "it fails other points also" is not helpful. How does it not pass as a standalone list? So you are saying it should be re-directed or removed altogether? And it doesn't matter if I withdraw it or if someone closes it, it will still result in a "not promoted". Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question(s): What is this article? It appears to be a cross between Rihanna discography (which lists notable songs involving Rihanna, whether on her albums or not) and the five articles for her album Music of the Sun, A Girl like Me, Good Girl Gone Bad, Rated R and Loud (each of which lists all the songs released on the respective album). This list seems to duplicate and consolidate the five lists from the album articles into one list. Is that a useful thing to do? Do we do this for other artists? Is such a list worthy of FL status? And if yes to the above, don't we need more references for the list contents?

  The whole point of this list to list every song she has ever done, not just her album songs. Yes, other artists do have this, see List of Mariah Carey songs, List of unreleased Mariah Carey songs (now re-directed), List of Celine Dion songs, List of unreleased Michael Jackson material, List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, List of songs by Elvis Presley, List of The Beatles songs, List of Christina Aguilera songs. Basically, if you type into the search bar "list of songs by" or "list of unreleased songs by" it will return results for a multitude of singers. I asked NikkiMaria, who I am sure you know is very prominent in the Featured process, what sort of things I should include, so what you currently see in this list if an expansion upon what was suggested by her. To my knowledge, there aren't any lists of songs that are currently an FL (excluding discographies, which are all about chart positions) apart from the List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material lists. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "Love the Way You Lie" in the lede lacks quotation marks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• No good reason to split this alphabetically. One single list is fine.

  People on here really need to make up their minds about things. When this was listed for Peer Review, I was told to put them into a table format, (which I might add, took me hours), now you are saying it shouldn't be, which I disagree with. This is much more clear and concise to how it was before, a mess. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  Sorry, peer review and FLC are different things. All I'm saying is merge them into a single table if you wish to list it at FLC. And don't forget MOS:DTT which requires row and col scopes to be added for screen-reading software. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Won't that eliminate the ability to skip to O for example using the box at the top? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but on a list this short it's not an issue. Alternatively use some code like I use in my sandbox for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are each of the list entries referenced? I see some of them have in-line references, but the others? Where's the evidence that each song that hasn't been released has ever existed?

  What? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  I don't see in-line references for every item in the list. How do I know they exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I'll source each and every one tomorrow. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First and last para of the lead entirely unreferenced.

  So FAs don't include references in the Lead, but FLs should..? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  So FAs expand on the content of the lead in the main part of the article. You don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I've never been through this process before. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Over-categorisation, don't need Rihanna and Rihanna songs...

  What? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon!

  You don't need both categories. Rihanna songs is a more refined category of the Rihanna category so you only need to use the former. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I don't get where this is in the article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You have Category:Rihanna and Category:Rihanna songs. The latter is a subset of the former and a more accurate category. You don't need the "super category" of Category:Rihanna here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall seems to be an un-useful fork of Rihanna discography, no reason for this list to standalone.

  It's no different to any of the ones I listed above or the countless others. So by your reasoning, the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, if you can show me a featured list discography that should be delisted then fine. Showing me "tens of song lists" that you believe "should be deleted" isn't really my concern, this is FLC, a featured content process, not WP:AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not saying they should be deleted, I never did, you said the list shouldn't stand alone (assuming you mean this article shouldn't exist), which is what every other list of songs does. If you would have read the persons above comment, he asked "Do we do this for other artists?", so I gave him several examples of singers lists of songs. And when I have ever said anything about having an FL de-listed???? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I mis-read when you said " the vast majority of tens of songs lists should be deleted" then... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, in response to what you wrote first. I don't think the articles should be deleted, but you don't think this type of article should exist as a "standalone" list. You misinterpreted what i said. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 02:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevertheless, the point remains, I can't quite see why this should exist separate from the discography. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

There should be inline references in every table in order to cite the song, collaborating artists, and year. Five refs ain't enough. Ruby comment! 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:31, 12 September 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 18:11, 21 September 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): Rodrigo18 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think it's ready for the promotion.Rodrigo18 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

• There are multiple dablinks (single, heavy metal, What Lies Beneath (album), 2M)
• The writing in the lead is hardly up to scratch (short first paragraph, "informations", "As part of Nightwish Turunen" should have a comma, etc)
• Is Maailman Kauneimmat Joululaulut worth a redlink? Why does that get some information in the table, while others don't?
• Why are all the websites italicised?
• You don't need to link languages in the references, but links to articles on websites/publishers would be helpful (Allmusic, for instance)
• "Tarja's Official Website" Formatting?
• "So What...?!" Link?
• "MyWinterStorm.com. WordPress" Wordpress is not a publisher, it's software. What makes this site reliable?
• "Czech Official Chat- Week 36, 2010" Typo?
• What is "Mahasz", and why is it reliable?

This isn't a bad discography, but I do not feel that it is an example of our best work. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be withdrawn – This is the second current FL nomination for this editor, and the first, Nightwish discography, doesn't have any support yet. Per the FLC rules, "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Rodrigo, this gives the impression of throwing things at the nomination process and hoping something sticks. It may be a good idea to make use of peer review- at the very least, try and get hold of a copyeditor to work through the lead section and improve the writing a little. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 20 September 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 17:22, 15 September 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): P.s. (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a considerable amount of work has been done to not only include information on the creation of many popular standards and the context in which they were written, but on the impact that they had in the decades to follow and on music in general. User:Jafeluv and others have included hundreds of different citations for the article, and the page provides a fantastic resource for understanding the decade's influence on music, and seeing in one page many of the great songs that have arisen from that time period. P.s. (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• My initial though is "why isn't this a table?" Each listing contains a song, composer, lyricist, year, a description and refs. First of all with the current layout it is very difficult to find information beyond that of year. The main concern is that particularly sorting by composer or lyricist would be very user-friendly, as I would imagine many readers would like to know exactly which standards were written by a particular person. This would be easy in a sortable table.

  These were originally in table format (with just title, composer, lyricist and year), but IMHO the current bullet point format is far more usable now that each title has an accompanying textual description. It looks nicer, takes up much less space, and is less tedious to edit. A table could be sorted, but the fact that many songs have more than one composer/lyricist makes it difficult to find all works by a certain person with a simple sorting operation. Furthermore that would only list songs written by that person in the 1930s -- a reader wanting to know about all significant compositions by that person would probably find the information more easily by following the link to the composer's article. All that said, if you think a sortable list format would be useful I can put together a version in that format so we can compare which one looks better here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig links and image licenses check out good.
• Ref 115 (from Music of Puerto Rico) is dead.

  Removed. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit confused as to the inclusion criteria. The article states inclusion in one major fake book; is there consensus for what constitutes a "major"? Also, is there consensus in the jazz community that inclusion in a major fake book as a standard would indeed make most people agree to it being a standard. And perhaps more important, is the term standard so subjective that if the list was composed by another person, it would contain different songs?

  The inclusion criteria is a tricky topic, I admit. (It was discussed earlier here, and some further thoughts here.)

  Fakebooks are collections of standards, and for the most part there's no question that the songs listed in them have been recorded by a significant number of performers. However, if a fakebook is the only source for a song's standard status, it may be worth reconsidering its inclusion here (and I have removed a few titles from the list in cases where I could find no other source to support inclusion). 'Major' may be an ill-defined term, but I don't think many people would disagree with associating it with the Real Book and the New Real Book, at least. In case someone has access to another important collection, additions are of course always welcome.

  The term 'standard' is subjective and naturally some people tend to use it more liberally than others, so lists compiled by different people probably would have some differences. However, inclusion on the list is based on evaluation of the sources and not on personal opinions held by editors. Therefore I hope that the inherent subjectivity of the term doesn't pose too big a problem for the list. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, the article looks good, although perhaps the lead is a bit on the short side. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  TBH I wasn't expecting this to go to FLC just yet, there is still some expansion to do and maybe a peer review would be a good idea as well. In any case, thanks for your comments, Arsenikk. Some responses above :) Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – As far as I can tell, the nominator had never even edited the article prior to the FLC. Normally one of us directors would withdraw this FLC for that reason, but it appears that Jafeluv, the primary contributor, has responded to comments above. If you're watching this, Jafeluv, do you want to take this FLC on or would you feel more comfortable having this come here at another time? I need to know whether or not to review this, not to mention if it should be left here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's okay, I would prefer to finish expanding the list first -- the 1938 and 1939 sections as well as the lead still need some work and as I said above it would probably be a good idea to take the list to peer review before FLC. Jafeluv (talk) 07:30, 15 September 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 10:12, 12 September 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because a long time ago, I was looking at how close the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season is to FT status. This list was the only page that prevented the 2002 AHS FT, so I wrote a lead and adding several images and did some minor copyedting. Last week, Titoxd (talk · contribs) gave this a copyedit and one comment, which I just addressed today. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I winthdraw this nomination. I have no desire to adress any of these issues for now, and instead working on other older storms. I may re-nom this at a later date though. For now,any help is welcome. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• Preliminary comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Non-breaking spaces when expressing values and units. This is rampant throughout the article.
   • Should I put them in the time. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Consistency: "Tropical storm" or "Tropical Storm" Cristobal (in the image caption)?
   • The second option, Tropical Storm Cristobal. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Consistency: Stick to either present perfect tense or past tense. Don't mix both. You say the season "began" but it "ends"; the first storm "attained" peak intensity but it "becomes" an extratropical cyclone; Cristobal "attained" its minimum pressure but "attains" peak winds, etc.
   • Switched to past. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Are the UTC time conversions really necessary?
   • Yes, per project standards. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Do the usage of dashes here meet WP:DASH?
   • If I understand it, yes, so there is a non-breaking space in between the single dash. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Tropical Depression Seven... the storm" so which was it? (This also occurs in the lead: "The season's last storm, Tropical Depression 14")
   • It was a TD. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. You have an image two images to which the caption is simply "Storm path". Couldn't get more vague if you tried.
   • Blame Template:Storm path, every time you put a track map on with the template. Should I remove the images? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Just add a | and a caption.Jason Rees (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Nope, both images still have captions reading "Storm path". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Consistency: Either use commas in four-digit numbers of don't, but don't mix them.
   • A brief glance suggests that the times are pressures are all consistent. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     • For Tropical Depression Eleven you have a kilometre conversion of 1,150 km; most others do not have the comma. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Consistency: Why are some conversions given to the nearest 5, some to the nearest 1; some to 2 decimal places, some to 1?
   • Because of the source and unit. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     • I'm not buying that. Most pressure conversions to inHg are given to two decimals, but at least one I saw (Cristobal) is given to just one. All your distance conversions appear to be rounded to 5 miles or km, but for Tropical Storm Gustav you somehow have 20 miles (32 km). Either be specific with the conversion or use a standard rounding off. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Lead: "(2002 USD, USD)"?
    • Fixed. YE 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
11. Lead: Is there a need to keep repeating (2002 USD)?
    • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - As far as I can tell, all the hurricane timelines are written in present tense. — Ines(talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since most of the article was in past tense, I switched it to past tense. If you really want me to change it to present, ill do it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Still some issues. "Tropical Storm Cristobal is absorbed into a frontal zone" for example. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: October 14 entry has "Cape Gracias a Dios". Should this not be linked? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "In fact, Hurricane Lili, the last system to reach named status". The "In fact" is just excess wordiness to me, because I'd hope that we're dealing with facts.
  • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• En dash needed in "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale", if our article is any indication. This occurs twice in the lead.
  • I decided to remove the second once, but fixed the first one. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you're trying to put a non-breaking space in, not an en dash. It's causing some formatting to appear on the page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't need two Hurricane Lili links in the lead.
  • Good call per WP:OVERLINKNIG.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• For all listings after June, en dashes are needed to replace hyphens after times.
• September 7 (second listing for that day): "The depresio also attained its peak intensity...". Typo in the second word?
  • I think I fixed this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
    • Apparently not. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What storm is the last photo showing?
  • Added, TD14. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't see this; I'm thinking it wasn't added back the second time you went through the comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• November 30: Since the first listing in the timeline said "began", doesn't it make sense to finish this one with "ended" instead of "ends"?
  • Good call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• Some of the references have the date before month, and some have month before date (in access date). It doesn't matter that much which way you do it, but they should be consistent throughout.
• If those are all caps in ref 12, remove them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any of the fixes that have supposedly been made in response to the comments. According to page history, the article hasn't been edited at all since my review. Maybe the edits weren't saved? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, I forgot to hit the "save page" button XD YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Comments

• Presumably, given your average of 19, 14 would be "slightly below average"?
• Plus opening sentence is confusing to a non-expert since you mention 14 tropical cyclones but then don't mention tropical cyclones in the breakdown of the average...
• "a month and a half " -> six weeks.
• "hurricane season, which occurred on June 1" -> "hurricane season of June 1"
• Don't think you need to link "flood"
• " The high rainfall amounts from" don't need "amounts".
• " which left about 400 homes with some form of flood damage" repetition of flood, perhaps, "damaging about 400 homes".
• (a) introduce the Saffir-Simpson scale the first time you mention categorisation, (b) there's a problem with the wikilinking - [[Saffir&enbsp;Simpson Hurricane Scale]].[11] ...
• Replace spaced hyphens with spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH.
• "1:00 p.m. EDT (1800 UTC)" vs "2:00 a.m. EDT (0600 UTC)" are the differences consistent?
• 1007 ->1,007
• "1;00 p.m. EDT" -> 1:00 p.m.
• "1013" -> 1,013
• "1580->1,580
• "Storm path" caption seems incomplete.
• 1002 -> 1,002
• Is John L. Beven II (ref 1) the same as Beven, Jack (ref 4)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 3 September 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 21:22, 9 September 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly straightforward list, a fairly new addition of the The New York Times Best Seller list which is published weekly. The addition of this category by The New York Times reflects the not insignificant market share of manga in the American comic book industry. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web sources from Anime News Network are currently inaccessible because its network host is conducting "emergency maintenance", according to ANN's Facebook page. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list should be split and have its sublists submitted to FLC. Its better then becoming a FL then being split and losing its status like Bleach did. Anywho, the list is well referenced with New York Times and Anime News network. I understand ANN is currently down. However, does each week need to be referenced by two sources? I'd rather see New York Times and an webcite archive of it. My position is neutral for now. If no editors find a reason to oppose, I will support this list for featured list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network is back, albeit slow, causing some items in the autochecker to time out. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Agree with DragonZero that this will need to be split, if not now then sometime in the future. There are already 272 references; how many will there be in three years? It's just going to become impractical over the long haul. I know we don't want to split lists into too many sublists, but this topic strikes me as ideal for yearly lists. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if the general consensus is that it needs to be split. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed with above, the list will become terribly unmanageable in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the list should be split. Otherwise it seems well referenced.陣内_Jinnai 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as is, agree with those who think it should be split. May as well start now since it will have to be done soon enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:32, 4 September 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 17:46, 5 September 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a top importance article related to India, and covers the most important points and is well referred. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick fail
  • Lots of unsourced content, embedded links, bare URLs etc
  • WP:COPYVIO in many parts:
    • National Aquatic Animal is from here
    • National Tree is from here
    • National Heritage Animal is partly from here
    • I haven't checked the rest of the content, but I will tag it for copyvio check.
  • —SpacemanSpiff 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait till I check it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not happy at all having a possible copyvio with so many other issues at FLC. Suggest you go to peer review before re-submitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 5 September 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 21:25, 2 September 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): Sufur222 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I have made vast improvements to the article since it was last a featured list, such as design, lead section and referencing (the references are far more consistent now). Also, as this is a discography, I have made sure that all chart positions possible are cited, in the correct manner. I now feel the article is far more worthy of featured list status than it was before, and on checking this list against the featured list criteria I feel it meets it to a very high level. Sufur222 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing director If this is promoted, don't forget to update WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – In a career not even spanning two proper decades, the lead is just excessive. Goes into so much intricate details and its a super case of WP:UNDUE. Plus it exceeds the allowable split of four paras. I strongly suggest a revision, a copy-edit and a resizing. This is just the lead, there are other outstanding issues like tables not formatted per WP:ACCESS etc and unreliable referencing. This is almost up to the FL mark, just another thorough check needed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Have reformatted through article extensively:

• I have formatted every table per WP: ACCESS.
• Have removed unnecessary information from intro and chopped it down to four paragraphs (although it's still a little long: however, I can sort this out).
• Have nit-picked every reference, making sure it is formatted in as much detail as is given to me (some of the more obscure websites were more difficult.
• Large copy-edit - checked carefully and corrected all grammatical errors.

Oppose

• Lead details don't match infobox.
• I don't see where the non-charting releases are referenced.
• A lot of collaborations are unreferenced.
• "as of 29 December, 2003" it's now August 2011. Best you can do?
• Videos almost entirely unreferenced.
• MOS issues in the refs (e.g. WP:DASH).

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment -- Have addressed most of these issues, although some remain in need of work.
• Have made sure all lead details match infobox.
• Every release in the discography that did not chart now has a reference which states that the song was a single.
• Every single collaboration is now referenced in some form.
• The date there, specifying the sales of 50 Cent: The New Breed, is sadly the most recent only one I can find. However, I am still looking.
• Videos now all referenced, with given directors. (The directors given for "If I Can't" and "Stretch", however, are open to conjecture, depending on how you see the references. Also, I've discovered that there were two videos recorded for "Heat", but for now I can only find the director(s) for one.
• I'm not an expert on MOS - although the article reads well enough, I need more detailed information on what needs fixing if I am going to make these improvements.

All in all, I have made a lot of progress has been made on the article recently, and with a little more work it could be right up to standard. However, I really need more editors helping me on the page: over the last few months, I've probably done about 95% of the edits, and I'd freely admit I'm not perfect. I may look for extra help from other editors, as they may bring more reliable references and a better quality of writing, or perhaps you could suggest other routes for me to take.

Thanks for the help! Sufur222 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My friend, you should've taken this article to Peer review before nominating this article. That way, I could help you with prose issues and reference formatting. I'll list a few examples right now:

• "released on the record labels Columbia Records and Interscope Records"
• This sentence has no sources.
• "In this discography, music videos and collaborations are included as well." This should have been integrated into the very first sentence.
• "4 February, 2003" Inconsistent with other date formats used in the article. Pick one and stick to it.
• Why is there a colon after the date?
• That whole sentence is looooong.
• "After Eminem took an interest in his work" Who's Eminem?
• "peaking at number one on the US Billboard 200 and charted in the upper regions of many charts worldwide." You use "ing" in the first clause and past tense (ed) in the second. Ungrammatical.
• "commercially successful singles" Comma at the end, please.
• You have to split that sentence up, it's too long.
• "first four days of commercial release" What you do you mean by "commercial" release?
• The following sentence is also a monster.
• "50 Cent also starred in the semi-autobiographical movie"
• Billboard Hot 100 Overlink.
• "behind only the Kanye West album Graduation, selling 691,000 copies to Graduation's 957,000" Confusing to read.
• "It was later certified gold in the United States with domestic shipment in excess of 500,000 copies,[8] and produced three singles, including the international hit "Baby By Me", which charted in the upper regions of various national charts worldwide, and peaked at number twenty-eight on the Billboard Hot 100.[4]" Split and reword.
• Never use the word "currently" in an article. You could say "as of..."

You have some very long sentences in the lead that are hard to read. There is also some redundant words that should be cut out. Also, for the music videography, I'd recommend another column reserved for a very brief synopsis for each video. Also, references are footnotes too, so adjust the heading names. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Your advice is much appreciated. I have addressed every issue you have mentioned above (except for the video synopsis column), and have re-written and split up all of the overly long sentences in the lead: I have also removed every word or phrase that is not entirely necessary, and in some cases added more appropriate information. I feel it is of much better quality now. Sufur222 (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per everything above. The fact that you don't even know that 4x Platinum is not equivalent to 4 million sales is bad enough. Suggest withdrawal.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see what you're getting at (although it doesn't actually say "4× Platinum" anywhere on the page). Instead of requesting for the FL nomination to be withdrawn, why not ask me to fix the problem? This is what I have done - every sales figure that is only based on the certification given has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, don't think I haven't been reading the comments listed above, and I am constantly working on the article (virtually alone, I should mention, as no one else seems to want to help) to bring it up to standard. Sufur222 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also, I am perfectly aware that sales and certifications do not always correspond, and that 4× Platinum does not always mean 4 million sales - for example, Curtis is listed as having sold 1.3 million copies in the US, yet it does not have a RIAA certification. I know some things. Sufur222 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes #s 20 or 33 reliable?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, not a lot. Have replaced the aforementioned sources with hopefully more reliable ones - check them out if you wish, to see if you think if they are appropriate. Please mention any other issues with the article as well. Sufur222 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hip Hop DX → HipHopDX. I didn't check if you did or not, but remember not to use it for sales as it has been incorrect for such information in the past. SoundScan is the way to go. Otherwise, it's considered reliable for reviews, other news... —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:20, 1 September 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.