Talk:Riskykidd

Discography
Should we move the discography to its own page or just put it into tables here? Thoughts?

Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If better formatted, it could be moved to a separate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will continue working on it in my sandbox Ktkvtsh (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discography moved
The discography for Riskykidd has been moved to Riskykidd discography

Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Riskykidd discography into Riskykidd
This discography article fails WP:NLIST on its own with national charts as the only sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see Ktkvtsh has gone ahead and performed the merge. Not much else to do here, closing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

GA nom
Hi I'm not so sure that this article is ready for GA. It's rather short (278 words) and a vast majority of the body is missing references to reliable sources. From my experience, 800 words is usually the minimum, though there is no hard cut off. The criteria for good articles can be seen here. I think this currently fails criterion 2 and 3. Two for the missing sources, and 3 because it doesn't go into enough detail about the activities. For example, I'm surprised that Eurovision, which is probably his most impactful endeavor, only consists of one sentence. Luckily there are many many articles out there about the Eurovision participation and from what I've seen, they typically include tidbits of bio that would be great to add here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding what Grk1011 said. I'll also note that the article has been concurrently brought to peer review, which I noticed yesterday while closing the merge discussion. I'm active at PR every now and then, and would be happy to provide comments for improvement over there. Since the article in its current state will most likely be quick-failed by a GA reviewer, I'd recommend that you withdraw the nomination, Ktkvtsh, and focus on broadening the scope of the article at PR. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will go withdraw that now. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your notes. This is exactly what I needed to know. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi I just gave this a once-over since I saw the alert that it had been nominated. There are many sentences with no references that you might want to pre-emptively address before someone takes on the review. If you look back at the peer review, I'm not sure if any of the comments from Z1720 were addressed. Grk1011 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)