Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/30 Seconds to Mars 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 21:17, 6 July 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Dear87 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured list candidates/30 Seconds to Mars discography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/30 Seconds to Mars discography/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because am working to elevate their standard that quality. Since now, I thank anyone who devotes a little time to give me suggestions on this discography. Dear87 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by 30 Seconds to Mars" FLs don't begin like this. See Dream Theater discography as an example of a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)
-
- General
- This needs a lot of work to compare to other discographies
- Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the tool at the right (first link)
- Lead
- Like Dabomb stated, do not start lists out like that.
- Do not bold what is not the title of the article: most of these can't do that so don't bold anything at all per MOS:BOLD and WP:LEDE
- The lead needs to be expanded and formatted a bit further like other FL discographies.
- Albums
- Why is there a Band column? With the expansion of the lead there will be no necessity for this.
- Singles
- What verifies the last 8 chart rankings?
- What verifies the 2002 single?
- Other sides
- Aren't these more like remixes or mixtapes?
- B-sides and other tracks
- Both of these sections need to be in a table format
- Podcast and Music Videos
- Do not use small font for table column headers.
- Soundtrack
- Capitalize show
- References
- The references need to be formatted properly and there is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers.--Truco 503 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor errors that I fixed. I will come back and look at it closer soon. --Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal The nominator is not a significant contributor, and the article is clearly not ready for FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A peer review would be much more appropriate for an article to this standard. It has many, many issues. I'll see what I can do to help out if you start a PR. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now the page is okay, right? I improved the page and now it can be on featured list.--Matthew Riva (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work on improving it. It still has many issues though. The lead section for example, is much too short. Things like "Debut studio album" in the tables are useless, titles of albums should be boldfaced with ''''' on either side. EP should be Extended play. Labels go in the same column as Album details. Tributes are not notable, per MOS:DISCOG, etc. I recommend you Withdraw this and take it to peer review, it will be much easier. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.