The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I found a few issues with current criteria. I believe these can be fixed relatively quickly...
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Don't start with "This is a list..."
The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
What makes asapblog or realitytvworld WP:RS? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Probably needs renaming to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants or just List of Survivor (U.S.) contestants similar to main article which would distinguish it from contestents on Survivor (UK TV series). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep and thank you for making the suggested changes in a friendly and professional manner. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because...
... well, I was quite proud of getting this to FL standards 18 months ago. Now it's something I don't quite want to put my name to. I must admit, that my involvement in the article since it was promoted has not been great, but I'm always wary of being too involved in my promotions and try not to WP:OWN them.
What do I think is wrong? Well, it's gone through a lot of changes since its promotion diff and its current dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rihanna_discography&diff=394796874&oldid=273946162 (be aware, this URL may be a strain on some computers). Not that an article should sit stagnant, but I think many of these changes have neither benefitted the article nor kept it inline with the FL criteria. To top it all off is the reformatting per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and ACCESS that nobody has really explained. This was the main reason I wanted to nominate this, but looking deeper I've found plenty of other issues with it, too:
FL?#1 and #2 Prose and Lede (I'll bunch these together because it's practically the same):
* The prose no longer leans towards a professional standard.
* There are frequent sentences wedged in via parentheses "It spawned the number one singles "SOS" (number one in three countries) and "Unfaithful" (number one in two countries)" is a stand-out example.
* Sentences such as "Her debut album Music of the Sun had distinct Caribbean reggae rhythms" indicate either that the album has been deleted from the catalog and all copies in the world destroyed, or that somehow the recorded music has miraculously changed its style.
* Take a deep breath: "It was certified multi-platinum in several countries following a number of re-releases and seven singles including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella" which became the longest sitting number-one single on the UK Singles Chart of the 21st century (at that time)." -- I can't say much about this until I get my puff back, but when did songs get arses to sit on?
* "Other singles included the top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Hate That I Love You" with Ne-Yo." -- implies all three singles featured Ne-Yo
* "Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded produced three more singles including two number-one singles, "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia", and the top-twenty single "Rehab"." -- Huh? Who? What? I fail to see how this sentence is an improvement on the original "In 2008, Good Girl Gone Bad was re-released and retitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. It featured three new songs, "Take a Bow", "Disturbia", and a rerecorded
Maroon 5 song, "If I Never See Your Face Again" — all were released as singles."
* "The album reached ... the top-twenty elsewhere." -- Where?
* "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al, AFAIA shouldn't be hyphened, and whenever these are used, it's done so in a very misleading way: "top-twenty single "Break It Off"", (top ten in some places); "top-thirty single "We Ride"" (Didn't make top 40 in some markets); "top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" (top five in certain countries); and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" (number 1 in the majority of the charts we give) and "Hate That I Love You"" (top 20 in most of the charts we show)
* What is "US D/E"?
* What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not
ISO codes
* Why does GRC link to a non-specific page?
FL?#3 Comprehensiveness:
* The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography
* Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Just stick to the main US chart, like it is with all the other countries.
FL?#4 and #5a Structure and Style:
* Is it necessary to plaster "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" or whatever before each and every table? Any halfwit knows what they are. Bold face is being used in vio of the MOS, too. It's especially bad on entries such as "All of the Lights"
:Urrgh, this new discography style drives me around too. I believe that the bolding of row headers has ceased now, though....
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
FL?#5b Files:
* The current infobox image being used
File:Rihanna LGOET 16-08-5-2.png, although being more recent, is of poorer quality than the previous one
File:Rihanna-brisbane-cropped.jpg. It's in the wrong file format for a photo, it's blurry and all sorts of wrong colors. I know that "high quality images" is not a requirement, but when her style hasn't changed much between the two pictures, there's no real need to backstep.
FL?#6 Stability:
Sourcing
* Crap like www.rihannanow.com and acharts are not Reliable sources
I know it might seem a bit pointy based on current discussions dotted around the site, especially considering that some have named this one, but there are plenty of other issues with it, besides the DISCOGSTYLE/ACCESS factor. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
Right now it needs a lot of work to remain "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Sales in the following countries will be considered eligible for inclusion towards the award: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
The week's most popular albums complied from the official sales charts of 19 European countries, ranked on a weighted-point system based on IFPI World Rankings and country size. Digital download sales are included in certain European charts provided.
Follow-up -- OK, outstanding issues for me are:
So there's a few things that need resolving before I'm comfortable saying "keep". Matthewedwards : Chat 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Tentative delist - some idiot keeps changing the order of the charts to put the US singles first...even though Rihanna as not an American artist. The vandalism takes too much work...this article is going to be a nightmare to keep on the featured list! (
mikomango (
talk)
05:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))
reply
Revisit
Matthewedwards : Chat 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep SEeing all the different improvements by the concerned editors, I do want the article to retain its FL status. Minor overhangings are not noteworthy in its bronze star polishing. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 07:27, 1 December 2010 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a list that does not meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria of inline citations. While it does include a well cited stub quality article (the lead), the list is uncited though it does contain general references see Just the the list without the lead. A request to add incline citations to the article was reverted. The list content seems to have been taken by copy and paste from existing small articles with no validation. While this article might be a good canidate for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs if the un-cited content was removed, it does not meet the criteria for a featured list. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [7].
The list was nominated 3 years ago, it has a number of dead links which I have taken the time to mark accordingly. I feel its lead isn't engaging nor is it comprehensive to define the scope of the article. It also fails a number of MOS guidelines, including internal consistency and MOS:TEXT. Afro ( Talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
De-list
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delist: the lead is very short. Nergaal ( talk) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 01:42, 4 December 2010 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's showing its age, but hopefully a few fixes and the bronze star stays:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I found a few issues with current criteria. I believe these can be fixed relatively quickly...
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Don't start with "This is a list..."
The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
What makes asapblog or realitytvworld WP:RS? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
|
Probably needs renaming to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants or just List of Survivor (U.S.) contestants similar to main article which would distinguish it from contestents on Survivor (UK TV series). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep and thank you for making the suggested changes in a friendly and professional manner. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because...
... well, I was quite proud of getting this to FL standards 18 months ago. Now it's something I don't quite want to put my name to. I must admit, that my involvement in the article since it was promoted has not been great, but I'm always wary of being too involved in my promotions and try not to WP:OWN them.
What do I think is wrong? Well, it's gone through a lot of changes since its promotion diff and its current dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rihanna_discography&diff=394796874&oldid=273946162 (be aware, this URL may be a strain on some computers). Not that an article should sit stagnant, but I think many of these changes have neither benefitted the article nor kept it inline with the FL criteria. To top it all off is the reformatting per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and ACCESS that nobody has really explained. This was the main reason I wanted to nominate this, but looking deeper I've found plenty of other issues with it, too:
FL?#1 and #2 Prose and Lede (I'll bunch these together because it's practically the same):
* The prose no longer leans towards a professional standard.
* There are frequent sentences wedged in via parentheses "It spawned the number one singles "SOS" (number one in three countries) and "Unfaithful" (number one in two countries)" is a stand-out example.
* Sentences such as "Her debut album Music of the Sun had distinct Caribbean reggae rhythms" indicate either that the album has been deleted from the catalog and all copies in the world destroyed, or that somehow the recorded music has miraculously changed its style.
* Take a deep breath: "It was certified multi-platinum in several countries following a number of re-releases and seven singles including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella" which became the longest sitting number-one single on the UK Singles Chart of the 21st century (at that time)." -- I can't say much about this until I get my puff back, but when did songs get arses to sit on?
* "Other singles included the top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Hate That I Love You" with Ne-Yo." -- implies all three singles featured Ne-Yo
* "Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded produced three more singles including two number-one singles, "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia", and the top-twenty single "Rehab"." -- Huh? Who? What? I fail to see how this sentence is an improvement on the original "In 2008, Good Girl Gone Bad was re-released and retitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. It featured three new songs, "Take a Bow", "Disturbia", and a rerecorded
Maroon 5 song, "If I Never See Your Face Again" — all were released as singles."
* "The album reached ... the top-twenty elsewhere." -- Where?
* "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al, AFAIA shouldn't be hyphened, and whenever these are used, it's done so in a very misleading way: "top-twenty single "Break It Off"", (top ten in some places); "top-thirty single "We Ride"" (Didn't make top 40 in some markets); "top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" (top five in certain countries); and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" (number 1 in the majority of the charts we give) and "Hate That I Love You"" (top 20 in most of the charts we show)
* What is "US D/E"?
* What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not
ISO codes
* Why does GRC link to a non-specific page?
FL?#3 Comprehensiveness:
* The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography
* Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Just stick to the main US chart, like it is with all the other countries.
FL?#4 and #5a Structure and Style:
* Is it necessary to plaster "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" or whatever before each and every table? Any halfwit knows what they are. Bold face is being used in vio of the MOS, too. It's especially bad on entries such as "All of the Lights"
:Urrgh, this new discography style drives me around too. I believe that the bolding of row headers has ceased now, though....
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
FL?#5b Files:
* The current infobox image being used
File:Rihanna LGOET 16-08-5-2.png, although being more recent, is of poorer quality than the previous one
File:Rihanna-brisbane-cropped.jpg. It's in the wrong file format for a photo, it's blurry and all sorts of wrong colors. I know that "high quality images" is not a requirement, but when her style hasn't changed much between the two pictures, there's no real need to backstep.
FL?#6 Stability:
Sourcing
* Crap like www.rihannanow.com and acharts are not Reliable sources
I know it might seem a bit pointy based on current discussions dotted around the site, especially considering that some have named this one, but there are plenty of other issues with it, besides the DISCOGSTYLE/ACCESS factor. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
Right now it needs a lot of work to remain "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Sales in the following countries will be considered eligible for inclusion towards the award: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
The week's most popular albums complied from the official sales charts of 19 European countries, ranked on a weighted-point system based on IFPI World Rankings and country size. Digital download sales are included in certain European charts provided.
Follow-up -- OK, outstanding issues for me are:
So there's a few things that need resolving before I'm comfortable saying "keep". Matthewedwards : Chat 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Tentative delist - some idiot keeps changing the order of the charts to put the US singles first...even though Rihanna as not an American artist. The vandalism takes too much work...this article is going to be a nightmare to keep on the featured list! (
mikomango (
talk)
05:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))
reply
Revisit
Matthewedwards : Chat 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep SEeing all the different improvements by the concerned editors, I do want the article to retain its FL status. Minor overhangings are not noteworthy in its bronze star polishing. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 07:27, 1 December 2010 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a list that does not meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria of inline citations. While it does include a well cited stub quality article (the lead), the list is uncited though it does contain general references see Just the the list without the lead. A request to add incline citations to the article was reverted. The list content seems to have been taken by copy and paste from existing small articles with no validation. While this article might be a good canidate for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs if the un-cited content was removed, it does not meet the criteria for a featured list. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [7].
The list was nominated 3 years ago, it has a number of dead links which I have taken the time to mark accordingly. I feel its lead isn't engaging nor is it comprehensive to define the scope of the article. It also fails a number of MOS guidelines, including internal consistency and MOS:TEXT. Afro ( Talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
De-list
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delist: the lead is very short. Nergaal ( talk) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 01:42, 4 December 2010 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's showing its age, but hopefully a few fixes and the bronze star stays:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply