Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Rihanna songs/archive1

List of Rihanna songs

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… I want to know what needs to be done to make the article/list become a Featured List.

Thanks, Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 00:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note have you list her unreleased (confirmed), live covers and soundtrack songs? Just a general note. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't done/released any of those three. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone continue this please? I feel like because it's at the bottom of the PR article no one really knows it is here waiting to be reviewed, and it really wouldn't take long. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MarcusBritish

Fix the References, they current use 3 date styles - Retrieved on 2009-11-29, Retrieved 25 December 2010, Retrieved February 15, 2009 - including the word "on" in one of those. Needs to be consistent: pick one wording and style, change them all to it. Possibly not your fault, but previous editors, either way a clean-up won't take 2 mins. Can't say much else, I don't how FLA criteria relates to music articles. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bradley0110

If you want this to become a featured list, you need to look at the Featured List criteria and ensure the list adheres to every point. For example, does it have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria"? I'd say no; the lead is a single sentence of 12 words. Hardly engaging. Does it "make suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour"? No again; a table format would suit this list as a way of dividing up song titles, year of release, album and featured artists. Those are just examples. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Belovedfreak

To be honest, there's not a great deal here for peer reviewers to comment on. The article is still very much under development and the amount of prose is very small. Presumably you're aware of the FL criteria, so what exactly do you want reviewers to comment on? You seem to be frustrated by a lcak of in-depth reviews, but PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". If you're looking more for help with actually writing or structuring the article, perhaps contact a relevant wikiproject or editors who have created similar lists? (By the way, you have a dab link in the lead, and just a suggestion - I would personally use "Barbadian" rather than "Bajan" as the latter is apparently a shortened form of the former.)--Beloved Freak 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I've never edited for intention of taking a list to FLC, and the criteria is just something to go by, so if people could explain what needs to be done to make it an FL, it would be highly resourceful. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]