Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana discography/archive1
Source: 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:15, 28 October 2010 [1].
Santana discography
Santana discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): T 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello,
Peer reviews:
T 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: Nominator created this page but didn't transclude the candidacy, it was transcluded by another user 22 October. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail
This list is nowhere near featured standard. Examples:
- User hasn't addressed issues from peer review such as "Unofficial albums". Nominator stated at peer review stating "i dont know" and they are "from the template" (presumably
{{Santana}})
- well i don't know what it is, its from the template, should i delete it know or what?-- T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well i don't know what it is, its from the template, should i delete it know or what?--
- "Collaboration albums" section – all unreferenced
- well why should i add references? in the main article its already stating that santana contribute there.-- T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well why should i add references? in the main article its already stating that santana contribute there.--
- "Guest appearances in videos" section has "???" in some director cells
- "Guest appearances in songs" seems completely unreferenced. All information must be verifiable.
- is amazon a good reference or not? if it so i will do it-- T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- is amazon a good reference or not? if it so i will do it--
- "Singles (by country)" section – all unreferenced
- again: for what? what references? what should it brief?-- T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- again: for what? what references? what should it brief?--
- "Singles Certification" section – sales unreferenced
As such I suggesting this is quick-fail oppose closed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll reply in one statement. Everything needs to be the featured list criteria as it doesn't meet "the requirements for all Wikipedia content" especially, in this case, "verifiability, citations, reliable sources". However you cannot just remove information that is not referenced because to pass FL a list must "comprehensively cover the defined scope" which means include all the major relevent information. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you rambo, i am goin to do that, if you want you can have a look there-- T 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you rambo, i am goin to do that, if you want you can have a look there--
- I'll reply in one statement. Everything needs to be
- Oppose - Informations clearly missing with no explanation why, some information isn't referenced where it could be challenged (eg Directors), the references are messy, there is no content included in the video section, these are just a few of the problems I've noticed. Talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean with references are messy?-- T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what content should it be? its T 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well usually the references and books are separated which is what I meant by it looking messy plus 36-42 are notes not references. and I would've thought if the Videos section were to be included there would be a description of some kind but instead (lets stay on the actual article which is up for nomination) its the equivalent of a see also section. Talk) 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you very much, you helped me alot :)-- T 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you very much, you helped me alot :)--
- well usually the references and books are separated which is what I meant by it looking messy plus 36-42 are notes not references. and I would've thought if the Videos section were to be included there would be a description of some kind but instead (lets stay on the actual article which is up for nomination) its the equivalent of a see also section.
- what do you mean with references are messy?--
- Comment—the link to Food For Thought leads to a disambiguation page. No dead external links. And could you please get a slightly less colorful signature? Ucucha 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you, and no i won't change my sig :D-- T 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you, and no i won't change my sig :D--
- Oppose - I only read the lead, but it is not written to a professional standard. It contains basic grammatical and punctuation errors. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- since I'm not a giant in english, I will try to find the mistakes-- T 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- since I'm not a giant in english, I will try to find the mistakes--
- Oppose The lead is not well-written or developed. Santana had a big hit and has released many albums, the lead should discuss in depth allot of their success and or criticism. I would suggest at least 3 full paragraphs.--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The lead is extremely short considering what Santana has released. It is also full of technical errors. On reading the opening, I am confused as to whether this is the discography of Mr Santana or his band (or both?). ]
- both, because he is just the guitarist of the band, he wrote only a few songs.-- T 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- both, because he is just the guitarist of the band, he wrote only a few songs.--
- Oppose - lead is poorly written. Most of "Guest appearances in songs" is unsourced and most of the entries in that table omit the pretty basic info of who the album was actually by. Most of "singles" is also unsourced. Asterisks in the Germany column under "singles" are not explained. Unfortunately not of FL quality at the present time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 October 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.