Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pussycat Dolls 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 Dabomb87 00:33, 11 March 2010 [1].

Pussycat Dolls discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this for featured list because the previous nom was not promoted because of a sourcing issue which has now been resolved and also due to a general lack of interest. however, hopefully will get more comments this time around! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As I said with the first FLC I have no outstanding issues with this article. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I can't see anything wrong with it. The references are so nicely detailed and set out. Just one thing though – ref 21 is in Dutch. Nice job. Savvi72 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

Content requiring verification with tools in toolbox checks out fine.

Lead

Phrases like "was a UK number one" should be "number-one"

changed Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite true; "number one" should be hyphenated only when it is used as an adjective (e.g., "number-one single"). I've changed it back. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either state the singles charts that each single ranked in, or pipelink each country to that chart.

added Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studio albums

What verifies the 2010 album?

was added by a random editor, been removed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

Why not put dashes in the blank certifications cells?

added Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promo singles

Why not 'released as a promotional'?

other fl's have the sub-section titled as "promotional singles" Mister sparky (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note I am archiving this as unsuccessful as there is insufficient consensus to promote after a month, and the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks, so there is a low chance that the unresolved issues will be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey! i've been in hospital really ill for the past 2 weeks hence my absence :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Sorry to hear that. Since the bot has not run yet, I'll reinstate this FLC. Sorry about that. Will you be able to keep up with this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:O Thank you so much! and i'm much better now thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

Looks as though this is nearly there, after a long haul... I made a couple of minor edits, which I hope are OK. I don't know what a good discography FL looks like, I'm afraid (not my area) but I can't see any red flags preventing promotion from a presentational (as opposed to content) point of view. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I find the idea of a PCD DVD being an "Instructional exercise video" extraordinarily meritorious, it's beside the point when reviewing this list, and I think it's in a good state. Gets my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.