Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Rihanna discography/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Giants2008 19:32, 4 November 2012.

Rihanna discography

 * Notified: WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The list doesn't feature a professional standard of prose. What are "other appearances" referring to? And what is "which reached the top-five position" supposed to mean? The tense jumps from past to present and back to past, and there are spelling errors such as "later" instead of "latter". More awkward prose comes in the form of "to launch her career", "Rihanna lent her vocals on some guest singles" and "In the United States it was certified quintuple platinum for selling more than 5 million digital copies". Also, "The album earned Rihanna platinum certification in the United States"; how on earth can an album award a person a certification? These are just a few examples. The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan, with WP:PEACOCK words such as "making her just the seventh artist to earn this plateau" and "...which featured American rapper Jay-Z became massive commercial success" (which is, again, incorrect grammar). I am, quite frankly, embarrassed to see this with the bronze star. By the way, all the WP:FANCRUFT crap in the first paragraph of the lead is utter nonsense for a discography page. Look at any other FL discography page and you will notice that none of these have such information. Some references are also dead, others are missing publishers etc. and many are just bare URLs. This should be delisted ASAP as an embarrassment to the project. Also, why on earth is the Flanders region of Belgium included in the tables? The page also is not stable, jumping from different album titles for the most recent album and sales for Loud constantly changing on a regular basis. The lead also has nowhere near the required amount of referencing. Till 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep now meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Pretty important points but does not look like something that cannot be resolved quickly, unlike this. Any of the regular users willing to help? Else I would say Delist. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist until many concerns are addressed. It is possible for them to be fixed, as said by IndianBio, by until this happens I vote to delist. If these concerns are addressed, I'll strike my delist. TBrandley 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - it appears that the issues with the articles have been fixed (or atleast most of them have). The article seems in pretty good condition, no reason to delist. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I resolved some of the issues and thanks to Eternal he also finished the most of them too. — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issues were resolved, so no reason to delist. VítoR™   &bull;&#32;  (D)  12:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvements. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 17:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per improvments.  Et  3   rnal  18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How on earth have the issues been resolved? The prose is pretty much the same. An example: "It became a worldwide success, peaking at number one in more than twenty countries including the Billboard Hot 100, where it stayed at number-one for ten weeks, becoming the longest-running number-one single of her career, in the United States." Many of the sentences are incomprehensible and the lead still does not have the required amount of referencing. And again, why is Belgium included in the charts? Till 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Belgium is amazing and you will deal! (And any chart can be included if damn well fit.) Why don't you, instead of bitching about it, fix the issues that remain (according to you) yourself? Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 05:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have to. Till 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvements made to the list. TBrandley 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Now looks fine to me - the lead now reads as well as you would expect it to. I Am Rufus  &bull;  Conversation is a beautiful thing.  15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's far from perfect, but it's adequate right now I think to weak keep. In two minutes I spotted three prose issues in the lead, but I don't have time now to do a full copyedit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.