The list was kept by The Rambling Man 17:56, 14 November 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are several issues currently preventing it from being Wikipedia's finest work. A quick review revealed the following:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from TBrandley ( talk) 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
TBr and ley 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) reply
|
The list was kept by Giants2008 19:32, 4 November 2012 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The list doesn't feature a professional standard of prose. What are "other appearances" referring to? And what is "which reached the top-five position" supposed to mean? The tense jumps from past to present and back to past, and there are spelling errors such as "later" instead of "latter". More awkward prose comes in the form of "to launch her career", "Rihanna lent her vocals on some guest singles" and "In the United States it was certified quintuple platinum for selling more than 5 million digital copies". Also, "The album earned Rihanna platinum certification in the United States"; how on earth can an album award a person a certification? These are just a few examples. The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan, with WP:PEACOCK words such as "making her just the seventh artist to earn this plateau" and "...which featured American rapper Jay-Z became massive commercial success" (which is, again, incorrect grammar). I am, quite frankly, embarrassed to see this with the bronze star. By the way, all the WP:FANCRUFT crap in the first paragraph of the lead is utter nonsense for a discography page. Look at any other FL discography page and you will notice that none of these have such information. Some references are also dead, others are missing publishers etc. and many are just bare URLs. This should be delisted ASAP as an embarrassment to the project. Also, why on earth is the Flanders region of Belgium included in the tables? The page also is not stable, jumping from different album titles for the most recent album and sales for Loud constantly changing on a regular basis. The lead also has nowhere near the required amount of referencing. Till 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NapHit ( talk) 14:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
'Comments
|
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:23, 1 November 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's somewhat showing its age. Worse, it is riddled with mistakes. Several things need to be fixed, including:
That's just from the first table... The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
! scope="row"
even if there are no row headers?Comment I'm a lot happier with the list now, great work Raime. I'd like to hear from some other reviewers, but it's in much better shape than when I nominated it. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 18:30, 21 November 2012 [4].
The major easy-to-spot issues:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Delist woefully outdated, no inline citations in lead, not clear what is referencing the table, which fails MOS:DTT. NapHit ( talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong delist. Yikes. Look at those references. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't know how hard/easy it would be to find appropriate references for the lead, but delist until it has some. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 19:20, 4 November 2012 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's outdated, and contains numerous dead links, and bare URLS.
TBr and ley 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 17:56, 14 November 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are several issues currently preventing it from being Wikipedia's finest work. A quick review revealed the following:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from TBrandley ( talk) 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
TBr and ley 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) reply
|
The list was kept by Giants2008 19:32, 4 November 2012 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The list doesn't feature a professional standard of prose. What are "other appearances" referring to? And what is "which reached the top-five position" supposed to mean? The tense jumps from past to present and back to past, and there are spelling errors such as "later" instead of "latter". More awkward prose comes in the form of "to launch her career", "Rihanna lent her vocals on some guest singles" and "In the United States it was certified quintuple platinum for selling more than 5 million digital copies". Also, "The album earned Rihanna platinum certification in the United States"; how on earth can an album award a person a certification? These are just a few examples. The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan, with WP:PEACOCK words such as "making her just the seventh artist to earn this plateau" and "...which featured American rapper Jay-Z became massive commercial success" (which is, again, incorrect grammar). I am, quite frankly, embarrassed to see this with the bronze star. By the way, all the WP:FANCRUFT crap in the first paragraph of the lead is utter nonsense for a discography page. Look at any other FL discography page and you will notice that none of these have such information. Some references are also dead, others are missing publishers etc. and many are just bare URLs. This should be delisted ASAP as an embarrassment to the project. Also, why on earth is the Flanders region of Belgium included in the tables? The page also is not stable, jumping from different album titles for the most recent album and sales for Loud constantly changing on a regular basis. The lead also has nowhere near the required amount of referencing. Till 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NapHit ( talk) 14:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
'Comments
|
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:23, 1 November 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's somewhat showing its age. Worse, it is riddled with mistakes. Several things need to be fixed, including:
That's just from the first table... The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
! scope="row"
even if there are no row headers?Comment I'm a lot happier with the list now, great work Raime. I'd like to hear from some other reviewers, but it's in much better shape than when I nominated it. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 18:30, 21 November 2012 [4].
The major easy-to-spot issues:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Delist woefully outdated, no inline citations in lead, not clear what is referencing the table, which fails MOS:DTT. NapHit ( talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong delist. Yikes. Look at those references. Bruce Campbell ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't know how hard/easy it would be to find appropriate references for the lead, but delist until it has some. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 19:20, 4 November 2012 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's outdated, and contains numerous dead links, and bare URLS.
TBr and ley 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply