Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tarja Turunen discography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:11, 21 September 2011 [1].
Tarja Turunen discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Rodrigo18 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i think it's ready for the promotion.Rodrigo18 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts:
- There are multiple dablinks (single, heavy metal, What Lies Beneath (album), 2M)
- The writing in the lead is hardly up to scratch (short first paragraph, "informations", "As part of Nightwish Turunen" should have a comma, etc)
- Is Maailman Kauneimmat Joululaulut worth a redlink? Why does that get some information in the table, while others don't?
- Why are all the websites italicised?
- You don't need to link languages in the references, but links to articles on websites/publishers would be helpful (Allmusic, for instance)
- "Tarja's Official Website" Formatting?
- "So What...?!" Link?
- "MyWinterStorm.com. WordPress" Wordpress is not a publisher, it's software. What makes this site reliable?
- "Czech Official Chat- Week 36, 2010" Typo?
- What is "Mahasz", and why is it reliable?
This isn't a bad discography, but I do not feel that it is an example of our best work. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be withdrawn – This is the second current FL nomination for this editor, and the first, Nightwish discography, doesn't have any support yet. Per the FLC rules, "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Rodrigo, this gives the impression of throwing things at the nomination process and hoping something sticks. It may be a good idea to make use of peer review- at the very least, try and get hold of a copyeditor to work through the lead section and improve the writing a little. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 20 September 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.