Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rachelle Ann Go discography/archive1

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) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rachelle Ann Go discography

Featured list candidates/Rachelle Ann Go discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After working on Rachelle Ann Go's list of songs and awards, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography which spans her career as a pop artist in Philippines and her transition into musical theater. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"She then released her studio album, Unbreakable in 2011, which" => "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable, in 2011, which"
"In 2014, she debuted on the West End revival" => "In 2014, she debuted in the West End revival"
Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
One source is in Tagalog ... that's not a problem, of course, I'm just giving notice that I don't know Tagalog.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
4. It is navigable.
5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support Dank. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennat

The image looks good, and its from commons so no problem.
I will know look over the sources, this might take a while.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers from this revision [2]
1. Good
2. Good
3. Good
4. Good
5. Good
6. Good
7. Good Consider archiving it though
8. Good
9. Good
10. Good
11. Good
12. Good
13. Good
14. Good All have been checked
15. Good
16. Good
17. Good
18. Good
19. Good
20. Good
21. Good
22. Good
23. Good
24. Good
25. Good
26. Good
27. Good
28. Good
- Support Good job on thisQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the source review and spot checks OlifanofmrTennant. Ref 7 has been archived. Much appreciate your time and effort. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

I don't think, with the previous comments, you will need my support, but I'll add mine anyways @Pseud 14: I hope we'll see this at WP:FTC soon! 750 h+ 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 02:40, 17 May 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.