Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pussycat Dolls discography/archive1

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 Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].

Pussycat Dolls discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i have been working on improving the article, its formatting, sourcing, prose etc and i believe that it is of good quality. have also had the article peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks solid. I made a few super-minor edits of my own, but other than that, this looks great. No complaints; happy to immediately support its nom. Nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I'm looking at "Promotional singles", all of which is sourced to ref [3]. I looked at ref [3]. I can't see any of this section referenced by this. Can you explain? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forgot about those! positions couldn't be sourced by allmusic or billboard so removed and added notes. Mister sparky (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Debut single.." reads a little odd to me starting the sentence this way. Their debut single?

changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...number one in a number of countries..." I always dislike "in a number of" because to me it's totally redundant...

changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The album peaked at number five on the US Billboard 200[4] and within the top ten of the majority of countries in which it was released and it was certified..." x and y and z... too many clauses for me.

changed Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3x in the lead uses a different x from the rest of the list.

missed that one! Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see references in numerical order (you have, for instance, a [4][1][2] and an [8][7]).

changed, it does look better. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop is overlinked in the lead.

removed the second. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just me, but the alt text seems a little weak, you could describe, for instance, what they're wearing.

added a brief description Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive release - where is this cited?

added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be "featuring Missy Elliot" rather than "with"?

all of the say "with" for consistency. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles now completely unreferenced?

added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Video album.

added Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Kloss and Lee more significant than Kahn (i.e. redlink vs no link)?

joseph kahn is linked two cells above. Mister sparky (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those dab links came from a section that a very annoying ip added without me noticing, been removed so dab links no longer exist. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source. Good raise 17:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replaced with everyhit.com and chartsplus. Mister sparky (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose stricken. Switching to neutral.~~ Good raise 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again. After researching everyHit.com, I fail to see how it meets the criteria. Good raise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would fail WP:RS by the about section. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also, everyhit.com has been cited by British MPs during policy discussions: [2]. Mister sparky (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also by Reuters and even in Norway. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that we should be using everyHit.com, especially since better sources do exist. Sadly the reliable sources noticeboard thread on the source has not produced any feedback that could persuade me. Remaining opposed. Good raise 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh well. if its use in various undoubtedly reliable sources will not alter your opinion then i fail to see how anything will. nevermind. Mister sparky (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no outstanding issues with this, looks solid. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.