Wikipedia:Peer review/Young Divas discography/archive1

Young Divas discography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is ineligible for featured list status due to it's limited subject matter.

Thanks, Alex Douglas (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, why are you listing this for PR then? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this article will be the main article in a featured topic candidate, Discographies of Young Divas members; part of 3(c) of the criteria. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Walsh's comments

I'm sorry to be brief here, but really, this isn't an article at all. The lead looks fine, but that's all there is. This will never be considered as a Featured Article Candidate because there is absolutely no body text. For comparison, please see Nine Inch Nails discography; that is an article. You'll need to do more research and actually write some things about the discography. Start at your local library and start going through newspapers and magazines. Will need to go beyond googling. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I don't think this was ever intended to be an article. See Alex Douglas' comment above. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some clarification then, because to me his comments indicate it's supposed to be an article: "this article will be the main article in a featured topic candidate". Am I misunderstanding? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to "article" in the general sense. This list was taken to featured list candidates, but failed as being too short. As per the featured topic criteria, any article that is too short to be passed as a good article or featured article/list must be submitted to peer review to ensure its quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Ah, I see. To Alex: In light of Dabomb87's comments, I would adjust my feedback slightly to focus on the part beginning with "You'll need to do more research" if you're interested in expanding the article. If there are no other sources, then you don't really have enough to stand on its own as an article. Usually, discographies are not broken out from the main article of the artist unless they are extensive (again see Nine Inch Nails discography as an example). This may be a case of trying to force a Featured Topic from little article that really shouldn't have been broken off anyway. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was referring to "article" in the general sense, it's a list; all discographies are lists. Thankyou for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]