Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Girls Aloud discography/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [1].
Girls Aloud discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Matthewedwards , WikiProject Discographies
I noticed the other day that the list had been vandalised by an IP who seems to specialise in changing chart positions in discographies to random numbers. I reverted the vandalism, but am still having trouble matching all of the indicated chart positions to the cited sources. The list has generally seen a lot of IP edits since it was promoted in January 2009 and needs checking through. JN466 09:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- As the original nominator of this page to WP:FLC, I approve of, and recommended, this nomination. Not necessarily for delist, but definitely for review. Other issues are:
- the WP:LEDE, which, for such basic subject matter, is too large at 4 paragraphs (I may be a guilty party in this; it was a bit big when it got promoted!)
- The Singles Collection is not a true compilation, just a box that holds the jewel cases of the singles and may not be suitable for inclusion
- I noticed two days ago that in June of this year, all the music videos, etc were deleted from this page and pasted into Girls Aloud videography. There are featured discographies that have more entries than this page or the videography page added together, and there is no reason for the split. There certainly wasn't any discussion. (And attribution per WP:SPLIT wasn't followed. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While its here, someone from WP:DISCOG should probably reformat the tables to meet ACCESS guidelines.
- Ref 12 needs to state it's PDF format. The date needs reformatting to be consistent with the rest of the references, too.
- The page was promoted in January 2009. Any releases after that date and their references should be fact-checked.
Not a "delist" !vote, but not a fully committed "keep" either, yet. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'm not convinced that vandalism denotes a need to delist an article. Perhaps semi-protection, but no real need to delist.
- Shades of POV in the lead "coveted" (according to whom?).
- Is it "Christmas Number One" or "Christmas number-one"?
- " It is taken from Out of Control, their fifth studio album, ..." weird tense considering this was some time ago. Maybe "It was.."
- No explanation as to what an en-dash means in the chart tables (ie. the standard "didn't chart or wasn't released" thing)
- Don't mix date formats in the references.
By no means unsalvageable but work needs to be done to keep it in-line with current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has any progress been made? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like it by the History. Afro (Talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist since no work has been done to save it yet. If I had time, I'd do it myself, but I'm sad to say I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I'm probably not going to have time to go over this before the time runs out. It would be easier for me to go through it all thoroughly without the pressure of a deadline. If anyone else wants to take it up though, feel free. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:39, 12 January 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.