The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
Michael Jackson videography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved greatly from when it was demoted. I have read through the concerns of the demoters and tried to address each concern thoroughly. I believe enough work has been carried out to deserve the FL status again. I have also expanded upon some things that weren't mentioned to best fit the format of the other featured lists of the same category; for example, Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. Thank you. Chase ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Update — Notified at the following talk pages: WikiProject Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, and WikiProject Lists.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Comment - before I review it, I should add that the lead is very short. Only five out of God knows how many videos are mentioned. Videos released in 70s, 2000s and 2010s are not at all mentioned. Many of his videos from 80s and 90s are also missing. I don't think that you have modeled the lead based on Gaga or Perry's videographies, 'cause they both have at least three paragraphs and they have been in the game for less than a decade as opposed to Jackson, who was active for over four decades. If you cover them properly, you might end up writing four paras. – FrB.TG ( talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment it's been over a month since the previous comment about the lead length, CCamp2013, are you going to address this? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Closing note: I'm going to close this nomination as stalled. It's a big shame, since it's a pretty good list, but it's been four months (which is way over time), several editors have stated that they want to see a lead that contains more information than this one with the nominator refusing, and I both agree and am unmoved by the contention that since it was the lead when it was first promoted 8 years ago it is above reproach. Additionally, although there are 2 supports, I do not feel that they were comprehensive reviews- just skimming the list, I see several minor tense shifts between rows, some grammar issues, and some reference problems (don't put an access-date parameter in a ref unless there is a url as well). -- Pres N 00:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC) [1]. reply
Michael Jackson videography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it has improved greatly from when it was demoted. I have read through the concerns of the demoters and tried to address each concern thoroughly. I believe enough work has been carried out to deserve the FL status again. I have also expanded upon some things that weren't mentioned to best fit the format of the other featured lists of the same category; for example, Lady Gaga videography and Katy Perry videography. Thank you. Chase ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Update — Notified at the following talk pages: WikiProject Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, and WikiProject Lists.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Comment - before I review it, I should add that the lead is very short. Only five out of God knows how many videos are mentioned. Videos released in 70s, 2000s and 2010s are not at all mentioned. Many of his videos from 80s and 90s are also missing. I don't think that you have modeled the lead based on Gaga or Perry's videographies, 'cause they both have at least three paragraphs and they have been in the game for less than a decade as opposed to Jackson, who was active for over four decades. If you cover them properly, you might end up writing four paras. – FrB.TG ( talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment it's been over a month since the previous comment about the lead length, CCamp2013, are you going to address this? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Closing note: I'm going to close this nomination as stalled. It's a big shame, since it's a pretty good list, but it's been four months (which is way over time), several editors have stated that they want to see a lead that contains more information than this one with the nominator refusing, and I both agree and am unmoved by the contention that since it was the lead when it was first promoted 8 years ago it is above reproach. Additionally, although there are 2 supports, I do not feel that they were comprehensive reviews- just skimming the list, I see several minor tense shifts between rows, some grammar issues, and some reference problems (don't put an access-date parameter in a ref unless there is a url as well). -- Pres N 00:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply