Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/AC/DC discography/archive2
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Contents
AC/DC discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/AC/DC discography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/AC/DC discography/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): VAUGHAN J. (TALK) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list showing the discography of Australian rock band AC/DC. The list was created in 2006 by Gsmuk (inactive since 2012), expanded and first nominated for FLC in 2008 by No-Bullet (also inactive since 2012). The first FLC nomination ended up not promoting. 15 years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard this past week, to make it look like the discographies that is currently an FL (e.g. Daft Punk's or Slipknot's). This is my first FLC nomination, so I can tell it can get a bit hectic at times, so all types of feedback are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude
editTake 1
|
---|
|
Take 2
|
---|
|
- That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed these concerns (most are copy edits). For the singles I decided to tackle their popular singles per certifications. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment following the above edits. In the lead you now have both "AC/DC has" and "AC/DC have". I honestly don't know whether in Australian English band names are treated as singular (like in the US) or plural (like in the UK) bit whichever it is it needs to be consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quite correct, Australian English typically follows standard British usage and treats band names as plural. Notwithstanding this, I've left any "AC/DC has" that are part of titles in references. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment following the above edits. In the lead you now have both "AC/DC has" and "AC/DC have". I honestly don't know whether in Australian English band names are treated as singular (like in the US) or plural (like in the UK) bit whichever it is it needs to be consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed these concerns (most are copy edits). For the singles I decided to tackle their popular singles per certifications. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review
editImage review and source review 1
|
---|
Image review : Passed
Source review 1
|
Ping me once you have addressed above. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: I think everything has been addressed. There are some comments from shaidar cuebiyar mostly on the source review. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, Vaughan J. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review 2 and spot checks
|
---|
Source review 2
Spot checks
|
Ok on the first pass. Taking a second look to make sure I don't miss anything and as a due diligence did spot checks for verifiability. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: I believe everything has been sorted out. Thanks for the review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like everything is in order. This passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like everything is in order. This passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
editReviewing prose. Hopefully this gets traction, and attracts more reviews needed to promote.
Prose review
|
---|
|
- That's about all I got. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pseud 14 Just saw this the day after you sent the review, but I pretty much got everything done. Thanks for taking this review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 16:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Support on prose. Good luck with this FLC! Pseud 14 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: Thanks for your comments.
- Well done, Vaughan J, I see this FLC's in safe hands.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Just maybe one or two more supports and we're all good to go! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 04:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
magiciandude
editRef issue
|
---|
Thanks to the List of best-selling albums article, I've become a fan of Back in Black. That said, the source for Billboard doesn't state it is the 2nd best-selling album of all-time. It seems you are sourcing the article I mentioned, but we can't use Wikipedia as a source. You would have to find a source that explicitly calls it the 2nd best-selling album of all-time or re-write with whatever the source says. I'll take a look at the rest in the meantime. Erick (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Vaughan J.: Just checking in to see if you saw my above message. Erick (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magiciandude: Just saw it. Sorry for the wait, but I'll get into it soon. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magiciandude: Just fixed the Billboard ref to a ref that mentions the 50 million copies. Thank you for the review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my only concern being addressed. Do you think you could review Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame in return? Erick (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get onto it today or maybe tomorrow! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my only concern being addressed. Do you think you could review Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame in return? Erick (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status
edit@FLC director and delegates: Not to bother you guys, but I need a status update for this FLC. It's now been inactive for almost 2 months. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur on this request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There unfortunately has not been enough review to be comfortable promoting; additionally only one person has supported on a content review. --PresN 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: After two more supports (which makes it 3 supports now), what's the status like now? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 03:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.