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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]


Ariana Grande discography[edit]

Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): U990467 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is very complete and in the good shape. I believe this satisfies the required criteria for featured lists. --U990467 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  •  Done: Revised.
  •  Done: Revised.
  •  Done: Revised.
  •  Done: Added.
  •  Done: Removed.
  •  Done: Revised.
  •  Done: Added.
  •  Done: Added.
  •  Done: Reduced.
  •  Done: Removed.

Great work with the list as a whole. I just have a few concerns with the lead. Once my comments are addressed, I do another run-through of it. My review will be primarily focused on the prose with the lead just so you know. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. --U990467 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good. I will support it. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FLC? Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Iridescent

Note that I'm not doing any fact-checking so taking all chart positions and dates on faith.

None of these are deal-breakers (although I really would do something about that image)—happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 10:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have revised the top and changed the image. --U990467 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Paparazzzi
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
This is only the lead by now. I will continue to review the rest of the list later. Paparazzzi (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • They are reissues. The former release was only made in digital download while the reissue was released in both CD and digital download format.
  •  Done
  •  Done Revised.
@U990467: These are my comments. Once they are addressed, I'm going to support this. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.--U990467 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't added yet the reference regarding "Put Your Hearts Up" release. Besides that, everything seems fine, so I'm gonna support this nomination. If possible, could you look at my FLC? Regards and have a nice day. Paparazzzi (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting. --U990467 (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source Review

A few points to fix before this can be promoted:

  • Hmm, those FLs were promoted in 2009/10, and without a source review, so I'm not inclined to let that be enough to swing it. The site isn't listed one way or another on the CHARTS page, so, not really helpful. Again, this appears to be some random German website with a text dump of UK chart listings. What evidence do you have that it's an RS? Are there any other sites that other FLs use for their UK charts? --PresN 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are other lists, yep. Which means that, if you're unable to show any reason why the random person's blog is an RS, then it's going to be a fairly widespread problem. Again: What evidence do you have that it's an RS? Are there any other websites or sources that other FLs use for their UK charts that you could use instead? --PresN 01:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally wouldn't characterize a discussion between two people, primarily about whether Zobbel is illegally hosting the material as having the reliability "proved". That said, the point was made that he's getting the information from UKChartsPlus... so why not just cite them? E.g. for [2], make the reference <ref>((cite magazine |magazine=[[UKChartsPlus]] |date=September 14, 2013 |issue=629 |url=http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/130914cluk.txt))</ref> (issue number taken from [3]). I'm much more comfortable using Zobbel's site as a "convenience link" with the actual data being sourced to the actual source. I'm a little disquieted that WP:MUSIC is apparently ok with citing random people's blogs as long as they think the information is true. --PresN 21:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done: Added some.
  •  Done: Thanks for your review. --U990467 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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