Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Maroon 5 discography


 * 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008.

Maroon 5 discography
Previous FLC

This is a self-nomination. All comments from previous FLC have been addressed, and that's why I'm re-submitting the list for FL. After working for the past few days, I feel that it now meets the FL criteria. I would appreciate some suggestions for improvement. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The third paragraph of the lead does not have a reference.
 * It seems the reviewers in the previous nom had problems with the different colors. I see there's only a rainbow in the infobox, so I'm OK with that.
 * You link to RIAA certification, but you don't say what it means. Also, what does "Platinum" mean? I would like to see that explanation, in the lead.
 * Instead of saying "Label: J Records, Octone Records" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear.
 * Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.

That's all, I think. Noble Story (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've addressed all your comments. I've linked RIAA certification in the album and single tables, where the link takes you to an explanation of platinum and gold records. Hope this helps. However, I think you're mistaken that "chart" is only a noun, because "chart" is a verb. RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick little note. This discog is built based on other discogs, specifically featured ones. Simply linking to RIAA is standard. "Label" is the standard field, and the dash and note about charting is used in all discographies as well. Chart in this case is a verb. To chart is to appear on the charts. Hope that clears up any confusion. Lara  ❤  Love  13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support After a fresh look, I'd say the discography is looking pretty nice. I'm still not a fan of the points column, and would still recommend taking it out, but that won't stop me from supporting. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support As much as I hate this band, I must say that this is looking rather excellent, what with the sales figures and all. Any, what is the "Points" in the Singles table? It seems specific to one chart (UWC) and since that chart already has a column, I'd say this Points column is unnecessary and would suggest its removal. Two columns for a single chart seems to give undue importance to the UWC. Combine the two adjacent Sophie Mullers into one row. One word of advice, if you've moved around the chart columns (top alphabetize), error might have crept in. Just check it briefly with the original sources. indopug (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.