Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Paramore discography/archive2
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 promoted by The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [1].
Paramore discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Paramore discography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Paramore discography/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has the enough potential to become a FL based on my past nominations. I have spent months working on it and finding reliable references. It has been peer reviewed in the past and I had nominated it for FLC some months ago but it didn't get promoted because of the little amount of comments. All the sources are good in my opinion, as well the lead and image (with alt text included). Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did the last time. Mm40 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: Right now, the lead feels weak to me. Looking at other recently promoted discographies, this one doesn't seem to measure up. For example, the two live albums are not mentioned in the lead at all. For comparison, Spice Girls discography had a lead nearly 3x as long with similar numbers for studio albums and the like. Lean oppose for now, but there's time to improve. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment: Quite a few of the UK chart sources could be replaced with this for the singles and albums which charted within the Top 75. Mister sparky (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know about this site. Removed those physical references of some positions and switched for this one. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks complete and everything is cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.