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

Rachelle Ann Go discography

Rachelle Ann Go discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Rachelle Ann Go discography/archive1

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

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)

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)

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

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

  Numbers from this revision [1]

  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)

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)