Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Infernal discography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:57, 20 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): $ĐШЧ • • • ► 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article because I believe that it is of a high enough standard to be considered for "Featured Article" status. I am the main editor of this article, as I have basically created the page from scratch (began on May 15 2009), with little or no help from any other Wikipedia users. I believe that the article contains verifiable information, and its layout, length and format suit the purpose of the article (Discography). $ĐШЧ • • • ► 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO this would be better submitted to Wikipedia:Featured lists. To be honest, there's not enough prose (IMO) to warrant treating it as an article rather than a list. Just my opinion; others may disagree. – iridescent 12:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) WP:FLC would be a better place for this. The references, by the way, need date, author and publisher info as well, and you should remove youtube refs. Apterygial 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Not enough prose to even satisfy DYK requirements; far better suited at FLC. Even so, as mentioned above, the references need to be formatted properly. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mostly per Julian Colton. Scattergun approach to referencing, and quality of references is questionable. Recommend WP:GA first. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per others, I suggest taking this to Featured Lists at some point. I would at first recommend a peer review to get it up to scratch. Please review other similar lists to see the kind of standard expected. Good luck! Majorly talk 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that this needs to be taken to FLC. Before that, though, the refs need to be formatted properly, the questionable sources (Youtube?) need to be replaced, and the dates should be delinked. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.