Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 21 September 2010 [1].

Linkin Park discography

Nominator(s): Neo139 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the featured list criteria. The list is a former featured list candidate (July 5, 2008), you can see the old discussion in archive1. The list is now complete and all the dead links have been fixed. Certifications are updated. And the style is the suggested in the Discographies WikiProject. Music video and video albums sections added. ... Neo139 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The article has almost no lead. The lead is supposed to have engaging prose, covering their entire career and giving the reader a broad overview. Also, you shouln't include so many certifications as it looks messy. Additionally, the size of the certifications should be consistent, considering some are small and some large. The big isssue here for me is the small and un-informative lead.--AlastorMoody (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I just added some lead at the beginning. Now all the certifications are in small. About not including all the certifications mmm, I wouldn't like to delete a certification considering it less important than other one. Also the idea of hierarchical importance in certifications it's messy because some of them are based on sales and some of shipments. At this moment Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE says to include Certifications and do not specify a maximum number, but it's a good topic for later discussion. Some discographies have lot more certifications than this one like the Michael Jackson discography. -- Neo139 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Woahh. Only ten charts should be in the singles, certifications should only be of charts listed, tables are out of whack, and lead isn't very sufficient. First of all, don't use Michael Jackson discog as an example to go by. Please go take a look at decent actual featured lists like Rihanna discography, Lady Gaga discography, or Kesha discography.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyo32 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some things. Now 10 charts on everything. Tables are fixed. About the certifications only of charts listed countries, I didn't find about that in WIkipedia:DISCOGSTYLE --Neo139 (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. This article needs alot of work. WP:LEAD, the lead does not accurately summarize the body of the article and is poorly written. Your references are a mess; None contain proper work and publisher fields, you use blogs. References shouldnt be sourced like this. You use multiple refs the same time but are not linked, a,b,c,d they are just reused. You have incorrect titles. WP:MOS. Your not using "en-dash", your using simple "-". WP:OVERLINK left and right. Linkin_Park_discography#Soundtracks does not need release dates, further, your release dates arnt sourced.

For the reasons stated above which i noticed in 5 minutes the article needs a few peer reivews rather then a FL nom. For reference on a proper FL please see Kesha discography(which i wrote) or Lady Gaga discography. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:58, 17 September 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.