Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive4
- 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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Michael Jackson videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive2
- Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive3
- Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive4
- Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive5
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has improved greatly from its previous failed nomination... Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from In actu
edit- Oppose I'm unsure of the scope of this list is it every video that Jackson has been in as a person or every video he has been in as a solo artist. Normally, these kinds of lists are only for someone's solo career. For instance, I would expect Paul McCartney discography to not include records from his time with The Beatles or (maybe) Paul McCartney and Wings.
- The citations are inconstant. Some inline cites have years while others do not. Per CITEVAR people can use whatever citation method they want, but this one leaves me confused. Which inline style are you using?
- mvdbase.com doesn't seem like an RS
- 147 and 148 appear to be the same citation. I would really like timestamps inside of the commentary
- PR Newswire isn't a RS
- There is inconstancy over if outlets are linked or not
- MOS:ACCESS problems --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TompaDompa
edit- Oppose A cursory glance reveals that the prose issues which were my main objection last time around largely remain. WP:FLCR requires professional standards of writing, so this is a dealbreaker. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing- multiple opposes, no comments addressing. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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.