Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Rihanna discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [1].

Rihanna discography

edit

Rihanna discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: JohnFromPinckney, WikiProject Discographies, Ericorbit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...

... well, I was quite proud of getting this to FL standards 18 months ago. Now it's something I don't quite want to put my name to. I must admit, that my involvement in the article since it was promoted has not been great, but I'm always wary of being too involved in my promotions and try not to WP:OWN them.

What do I think is wrong? Well, it's gone through a lot of changes since its promotion diff and its current dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna_discography&diff=394796874&oldid=273946162 (be aware, this URL may be a strain on some computers). Not that an article should sit stagnant, but I think many of these changes have neither benefitted the article nor kept it inline with the FL criteria. To top it all off is the reformatting per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and ACCESS that nobody has really explained. This was the main reason I wanted to nominate this, but looking deeper I've found plenty of other issues with it, too:

FL?#1 and #2 Prose and Lede (I'll bunch these together because it's practically the same):

* The prose no longer leans towards a professional standard. * There are frequent sentences wedged in via parentheses "It spawned the number one singles "SOS" (number one in three countries) and "Unfaithful" (number one in two countries)" is a stand-out example. * Sentences such as "Her debut album Music of the Sun had distinct Caribbean reggae rhythms" indicate either that the album has been deleted from the catalog and all copies in the world destroyed, or that somehow the recorded music has miraculously changed its style. * Take a deep breath: "It was certified multi-platinum in several countries following a number of re-releases and seven singles including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella" which became the longest sitting number-one single on the UK Singles Chart of the 21st century (at that time)." -- I can't say much about this until I get my puff back, but when did songs get arses to sit on? * "Other singles included the top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Hate That I Love You" with Ne-Yo." -- implies all three singles featured Ne-Yo * "Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded produced three more singles including two number-one singles, "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia", and the top-twenty single "Rehab"." -- Huh? Who? What? I fail to see how this sentence is an improvement on the original "In 2008, Good Girl Gone Bad was re-released and retitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. It featured three new songs, "Take a Bow", "Disturbia", and a rerecorded Maroon 5 song, "If I Never See Your Face Again" — all were released as singles." * "The album reached ... the top-twenty elsewhere." -- Where? * "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al, AFAIA shouldn't be hyphened, and whenever these are used, it's done so in a very misleading way: "top-twenty single "Break It Off"", (top ten in some places); "top-thirty single "We Ride"" (Didn't make top 40 in some markets); "top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" (top five in certain countries); and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" (number 1 in the majority of the charts we give) and "Hate That I Love You"" (top 20 in most of the charts we show) * What is "US D/E"? * What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes * Why does GRC link to a non-specific page?

I have run through the lead and semi-rewritten it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FL?#3 Comprehensiveness: * The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography * Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Just stick to the main US chart, like it is with all the other countries.

Loud will be released in two days, and if I remove it now some IP will probably add it back. I'll leave that for now. As for component charts, I don't really see the issue, unless you want consistency with charts (ie the same ten charts used throughout) like at Lady Gaga discography. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FL?#4 and #5a Structure and Style:

* Is it necessary to plaster "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" or whatever before each and every table? Any halfwit knows what they are. Bold face is being used in vio of the MOS, too. It's especially bad on entries such as "All of the Lights" :Urrgh, this new discography style drives me around too. I believe that the bolding of row headers has ceased now, though.... Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FL?#5b Files: * The current infobox image being used File:Rihanna LGOET 16-08-5-2.png, although being more recent, is of poorer quality than the previous one File:Rihanna-brisbane-cropped.jpg. It's in the wrong file format for a photo, it's blurry and all sorts of wrong colors. I know that "high quality images" is not a requirement, but when her style hasn't changed much between the two pictures, there's no real need to backstep.

I agree. Image changed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FL?#6 Stability:

  • There's all sorts of discussions scattered around MOS talk pages, article talk pages, FL talk pages, meta talk pages and no one is in agreement with these changes ACCESS are insisting upon, even with the best of intentions. Nobody likes them, nobody understands them, and applying them to articles is premature. It's not exactly stable.
I am willing to convert it back, but I will need some backing as there is a whole crew of the DISCOGSTYLE waving their wands left, right and centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't do that. It seems that concessions have been made on both sides, and FLC, MOS and ACCESS are now in somewhat of an agreement. I'll just strike the concern. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

  • "In 2007 Rihanna released her most successful album to date, Good Girl Gone Bad" -- This should certainly be sourced
  • The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals?

* Crap like www.rihannanow.com and acharts are not Reliable sources

  • Ref 55 needs attention

I know it might seem a bit pointy based on current discussions dotted around the site, especially considering that some have named this one, but there are plenty of other issues with it, besides the DISCOGSTYLE/ACCESS factor. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist You're right, the article totally sucks. In fact, <sarcasm>it should be deleted right away</sarcasm> (although I don't see what your problem is with ref 55, and you didn't say what attention it needs). <sarcasm>I hope you'll be nominating the other discographies that have been adjusted for conformance to WP:ACCESS so we don't have to look at ugly bold face headings for the 3 days it might take to get the CSS changed, or <shiver!> suffer table captions on tables. Delete it now, quick, before somebody sees it. Or, you know, has it read to them by their screen-reader.</sarcasm> struck by JohnFromPinckney 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stricken any concerns with ACCESS and DISCOGSTYLE, you patronising little wanker. Care to address any of the other 30 points I raised? Maybe I've spent too much time on elsewhere, because I can't help but think of the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" at this point. Ref 55 has three refs in one. They should be separate. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Itemized comments on nominator's points
  • For me, the lede is about two paragraphs too long. It was even longer, until somebody did some pruning in the last month or so.
I once tried to address what I think is an oversized lede by trying to separate it into an actual, short lede followed by the TOC, followed by whatever analysis we had, but my edit didn't fly. Even better (IMO) would be an emphasis on the discography rather than the career arc or commercial success of the artist. There's an enormous and refreshing difference when I look at The Beatles discography. The intro there doesn't say anything about which single was the 12th number-one song or how many units were sold. And that's The Beatles, fercripessake.
  • The text has been written by a committee of fans (which I think partially explains the difference I mention above), so not only is there a lot of new stuff added every week, for every release (or every rumored release), there's also an abundance of insert-it-here and oops-now-that's-changed. Over time, the overview gets lost. It needs rewriting by one individual who speaks standard English.
BTW, and FWIW, this article suffered from the attention of one fan-editor in particular who, while eager to contribute and aware of all the latest miscellany relating to Rihanna, had a poor grasp on the differences between an encyclopedia, a newspaper, and a gossip rag; had no idea how to format a reference citation (or when one's needed); and exhibited generally disorganised and unconcentrated behavior. The results were often sloppy, and my "contributions" to this article are perhaps best summarized as "janitorial". Also BTW, Matthew, it seems you notified me before anyone else, which is both appreciated (by me) and depressing (to me).
  • I think "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al., are fine (correct, even) when used as adjectives. "It's her second top-forty single..." but "it's her first single in the top ten."
  • What is "US D/E"? I suppose this is a rhetorical question, as it's linked, and you mention "US Dance/Electronic" five lines lower down.
  • What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes. True, but then, neither are SWI, GER, or UK. Would you like them better if they were "BE-V" and "BE-W"? Also not complete ISO codes, AFAICT, but close, and clear enough, no? Or would you prefer the official but lengthier BE-VLG and BE-WAL? Personally, I wish all the discogs used ISO-3 codes exclusively, but that's a task I'm saving for after the acceptance of WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
  • Why does GRC link to a non-specific page? I don't know why, especially as there's an IFPI Greece.
  • The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography Do you mean Loud, the album due out next week, or particular songs or singles?
  • Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Yes: we had the info. With refs, even. Okay, it's not a good reason, but that's why.
  • FL?#6 Stability: Any stability problems on this article are not related to WP:ACCESS, to "all sorts of discussions scattered around", nor to your unproven claims that, "nobody likes them, nobody understands them, etc." The article might be considered unstable because it is constantly being edited by people who have little comprehension of or interest in the concept of verifiable references (and who don't know what an edit summary is). As long as Rihanna is charting and selling big, this page in the encyclopedia anybody can edit will keep churning random numbers in and out of the peaks and certs columns.
  • The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals? They're included because WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests they be included. There has been some discussion about excising that suggestion but consensus was lacking on complete removal, so we settled for a downgraded mention with cautionary notes. The sales figures now shown in the article weren't vetted in the FLC from 18 months ago because they're newer. If you insist sales figures be always current at every instant, then you'll have to doing some loud arguing in more places than just here. Newspaper circulation figures would be equally unusable, like automobile sales for current models, video rental numbers for movies, population figures for coutries where people are still reproducing or dying, etc. The figures are what Billboard/Nielsen reports. They invariably say "sold". That doesn't make me sure, but it's what we've got.
  • References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind Yes! MoS says date formats should be consistent within the refs (even if they're different from article text). Yet I see people consistently (well, often) adding publish date as, say, November 4, 2010, with an accessdate like 2010-11-04. I get the impression that the ISO style isn't even welcome here on WP anymore. And if that's the case, we ought to get a bot to go sweeping though all of article space. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably because most readers of Wikipedia are human, not machines. Despite your concern, though, ISO throughout refs or human-readable throughout refs, either acceptable. But no mixtures, as you've identified. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about The Beatles discography Lead. It would be nice to use that as some sort of template or example for other discogs, but unfortunately, I don't think that it could be replicated/rewritten for Rihanna's discography. I know what you mean about fans editing the article and adding information that shouldn't be there. For the first few months I tried to keep up with it but it's an uphill battle, and sometimes bringing the page here for review doesn't hurt. Why did I notify you first? Because you're now the number 1 contributor to the page, save for the perma-blocked User:Iluvrihanna24. I'd already guessed that most of your edits were clean-up and ACCESS related rather than content adding, but I wasn't going to notify myself! :p I should notify User:Ericorbit though. I'll do that after this post.
  • If "top-twenty" is correct usage for adjectives, that's good. I wasn't sure so brought it up just-in-case. Yes, the question about "US D/E" is rhetorical, but it's extremely likely that someone else won't know what it is, especially an IP visitor without pop-ups and such. If there's a way of making it more understandable, then it should. In other discogs I've contributed to I use simply "VLG" and "WAL" to identify the two different Belgian charts. I'd prefer BE-V over BE-F, since the latter is completely made up. I also try to use the correct "SUI", but "SWI" ( and "GER") seem to be the preferred choices, even though they is incorrect. Some fights aren't worth taking on at article-level, instead leaving them to review processes such as this. I would also like to see ISO-3 codes be used thoughout the WikiProject (perhaps ISO-2 for UK and US), but I think "UK" is preferable over "GBR" because it leads to issues of people saying, "but the UK includes Northern Ireland, and Great Britain doesn't, and anyway, there isn't a Great Britain Top 40."
  • Yes, I was speaking of Loud. If it hasn't been released, it cannot be a part of a discography, which is a catalog of releases. Before it is released, it could be argued that it doesn't technically exist.
  • If we're to keep sales figures on the page, it should be made clear that they are correct to a certain date so that people using the site are not misled with information that they assume to be current. While the page is nominated here, it's a good time to check the references used, see if any can be updated, etc etc. My concern that they weren't vetted during the FLC is basically the same as yours at the link you gave. They're usually back-calculated based on certifications or based on shipments.
  • It used to be that citation templates automatically formatted dates in the ISO format. That's been discontinued, and If I'm right, ref dates should now be formatted in the same fashion as dates are written in prose in the article. That doesn't mean they ISO dates can't be used in references, it's just that because ISO dates are rarely used in written prose, it makes it appear that they are out of favour. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My issues were resolved. My only comment is the fact that the paragraphing is a little awkward. Good job fixing it :)Delist There are allot of "Citation Needed" tags, there are unsourced material. The lead isn't very well written and some chart positions and certifications are not completely referenced. Also, as per John above me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with much of your demotion argument, want to distance myself from John's comments, and back every word of your response to him. However, further to the comments you have already struck, I'd suggest that stability be left out of this. The fact that a group of editors have decided to focus on one WikiProject (albeit with commendable intentions) does not mean that all of that WikiProject's featured lists should be demoted for failing to comply straight away. —WFC— 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, perhaps. After all, it's not like there are edit wars on the page, it's more from concerns being raised elsewhere. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • More on references:
    • Several dead links.
    • Failure to comply with WP:DASH in dozens of titles.
  • As noted, bold captions fail WP:MOS.
  • Blank cells are a no-no for me, try an em-dash in those ones.
  • I take it, from an access point of view, that the very small font used to describe the image in the infobox is acceptable? We do have a bold link in the infobox "caption" which I thought contravened MOS too?
  • Matthew has made a good job of reviewing the list in detail, but one bit of prose jumped out at me, that a particular release peaked in the top 40 of "most other album charts". That's some claim to go unreferenced
  • Yes, and it's vague as to whether it means most other Billboard album charts, or album charts of most other countries. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it needs a lot of work to remain "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per nominator.--Cannibaloki 03:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - There are a number of dead links and non-sourced material. Afro (Talk) 08:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to follow up at the users requests there are still problems with the citations, easily fixable they just need to use {{Cite web}}. Afro (Talk) 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CT citation templates are optional, and citation formats may be mixed, as they produce the same result. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I agree its optional but it does present an Inconsistency with the format. Afro (Talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an inconsistency, as it is formatted the same way as the output of the citation templates. Inconsistencies that are relevant are things such as AE vs BE spelling and visible formatting. This is not actually an issue. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say an article complying with the MOS is relevant as this is in the MOS, They do of course look the same on output but input there still remains the inconsistency. Afro (Nice Beaver) 02:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, a mix of citation inputs is OK, as they all produce similar formats. This is a non-issue. Can you point me to the part of the MoS that states that we must use a citation template throughout? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'll drop this point on the basis of WP:IMPERFECT. After looking over the article I notice that some of her singles went Platinum in the European Hot 100 Singles, I'm just curious if its a good idea to include these in the selected Peak chart positions. Afro (Nice Beaver) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that all the IFPI certifies in a few countries together, so that sales from different countries are added together. I'm not too sure though, I'll get others to have a look here. The European Hot 100 is different as it takes into account the singles charts of most (or all?) of mainland Europe, rather than just the IFPI ones (I think). We already have 10 charts, and the Euro Hot 100 is a kind of averaged out chart. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
European stuff
There's a little bit of confusion here, but maybe we can clear that up. Afro, her singles can't have gone platinum, as there are no European awards for singles. Probably you meant albums, which the IFPI does certify. And specifically, they say:

Sales in the following countries will be considered eligible for inclusion towards the award: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Billboard, meanwhile, does have have a singles chart, the European Hot 100 Singles, which we don't happen to currently include in this discog. Billboard also tracks European Top 100 Albums, which it explains as

The week's most popular albums complied from the official sales charts of 19 European countries, ranked on a weighted-point system based on IFPI World Rankings and country size. Digital download sales are included in certain European charts provided.

We pause now to count the countries listed by IFPI and compare that number (26) with Billboard's 19. They're different, so maybe some editors will think we can't use one or the other, although Europe is still pretty much Europe.
I've always felt a little funny using European data, cause it feels kind of ... fake or something, but I'm sure it's actually just as good as any of the country charts or certs. However, if we decide to add Eurpoean peaks, it seems almost obligatory to remove the UK, France, Germany, etc., peaks from the tables. For this article, that would leave 3 or 4 charts (AUS, CAN, US, maybe NZ) besides the EU charts. If we don't add the EU peaks, then by DISCOG guidelines we ought to remove the EU certs that are currently there. I'd personally just keep the individual countries, but others' opinions may certainly vary. There could be interesting arguments both ways. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I did accidentally mistake albums for singles. I'd agree with the suggestion to remove the certification at present if you don't wish to add the peak chart positions, I'd accept more opinions regarding this. Afro (Talk) 18:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like the MoS/Acccess stuff was cleaned up. Besides that point, the current conversion to WP:DISCOGSTYLE should be no reason do delist the article. Candyo32 10:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you do realise most of the comments are not about access don't you? Problems still exist, for instance, the three "citation needed" tags? The non-MOS compliant references? The unreferenced recent release? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have refreshed the prose and fixed several links. While the list is in no way perfect, I would appreciate it if reviewers could revisit and strike any resolved issues. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up -- OK, outstanding issues for me are:

  • The WP:LEDE has increased in size to four paragraphs, each one dedicated to a studio album. If it carries on like this, there'll be yet another paragraph next month. Instead of detailing her career, which should be left to Rihanna, it needs to refocus itself to be an overview of her entire discography. I see no mention of any music videos, including her numerous collaborations with director Anthony Madler
  • It's been reduced a bit, so that's good; however, it still reads like, "she released X, it got to A in the charts. Next came Y. That got to B. Z followed, it got to C." I don't know if anything can be done about it though.
  • The article's references were checked when this was nominated 18 months ago. Now is a good time to make sure that everything is still verified.
  • Has this been done by someone unbiassed and uninvolved with the article?
  • I've noticed that a few chart positions been changed, so something's not right there. Either they were wrong to begin with, or they're wrong now.
  • Again, have these be checked yet?
  • "including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella"" -- quite a bold statement, since we only give a sample of 10 charts
  • "Rated R produced the worldwide top-ten hit "Russian Roulette"" -- again, with only 10 charts to look at, we can't be sure this was a worldwide top-ten hit. Show me it is in Uzbekistan and I might believe you.
  • Still there. We're only showing 10 charts, and while they may be number 1 in those charts, we can't say for certain that they were number 1 in all countries. Such bold statements need citations or rewriting.
  • "As of July 23, 2010, Rihanna had sold approximately 5.56 million album units in the US." -- this figure can be updated and sourced to last weekend's UK X-Factor show.
  • Hasn't been done yet
  • A number of refs are tagged as dead or CN
  • Still, as TRM noted above
  • Not sure about RS-ness of promonews.tv
  • Still not.
  • MTV vs MTV News vs MTV.com
  • Still in there. "Metro.co.uk" too, possibly a couple of others.
  • References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind
  • Still in different formats.

So there's a few things that need resolving before I'm comfortable saying "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "worldwide" POVs in the lead. I can't seem to find an updated sales figure; do you have a link? Ref dates should be uniform now. MTV things are fixed. Some are from MTV News, which is published by MTV, while others are straight from MTV. Promonews refs have been replaced. I'll keep working on the other points. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dead links or {{fact}}s any more. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Tentative delist - some idiot keeps changing the order of the charts to put the US singles first...even though Rihanna as not an American artist. The vandalism takes too much work...this article is going to be a nightmare to keep on the featured list! (mikomango (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Vandalism is not not sticking to a WikiProject's proposed style guideline. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:No personal attacks Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • exhales deeply and rolls eyes* Matthewedwards, gratuitously and superfluously using the word "idiot" to describe an Ameri--centrist user who constantly tries to frame a Barbadian artist as an American artist is the closest thing I have ever come to personally attacking someone on Wikipedia (before this very edit). Please know I consider your refusal to acknowledge the clear superfluousness of the word "idiot" in that context as a personal attack in itself. *sigh* Despite your thinly-veiled and unnecessary snarkiness, your point is wholly valid and thus I strikethrough my original argument for this page and vote for Keep. (mikomango (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Revisit

  • The Lede is still way too big for such basic subject matter. WP:LEDE says that it should be no more than four paragraphs, and that's for complex articles. Even though it's at three right now, it's obvious by the page history that all that's happened is that the line breaks of five paragraphs have been deleted. We don't need to know about her entire career on this page.
  • "Rihanna's fourth studio effort, Rated R..." -- Is "effort" really word choice of a professional standard?
  • "This broke a brand new record becoming the first time in Hot 100 history that an album's debut single reached number one after the second single." looks like it's been added as an afterthough. It could probably be rewritten a bit more concisely.
  • Otherwise the prose is pretty good now, and everything else seems to be in order.
  • As for updated sales figures, I'll watch the episode of The X Factor she appeared on last month. It tells you on there.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SEeing all the different improvements by the concerned editors, I do want the article to retain its FL status. Minor overhangings are not noteworthy in its bronze star polishing. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:22, 7 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/Rihanna_discography/archive1&oldid=1142601306"