Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Feeder discography

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Feeder discography edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that this list should be in the Featured Lists group of articles, because it is totally neutral, all claims are verifiable and have been citated accurately.

The tables have also followed other lists like these that have been featured, with the same styles throughout.Marcus Bowen 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All in all very good. There are a few issues to be resolved before this is featured, however:
  • The "Certified Sales" column should be removed as it is, because actual sales is different from certifications, which are copies shipped rather than copies sold.
  • "—"s should only be used in chart positions columns. All other entries for unrelated columns with no applicable information should simply be empty.
  • The external links in the "Japanese import exclusives" should be removed or made into references.
  • The "N/A"s in the "EPs" section should be replaced with "—"s. Also, the standard ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or..." note should be put below the table.
  • The roman numeral notes in the "Singles" section should be numbered as a continuation of previous notes, meaning that this note should be "III" instead of "I" and so on.

In general these are very minor, and I don't think that many of these will take too long to fix. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Prose needs plenty of fixing throughout - the word "band's" was written as "bands" throughout the article before I fixed it. The "comments" section under each table should be reviewed- in many places albums are in quotations. Also, "mini-album" and "mini album" are both found, pick one. Why are the Japanese imports in ".."'s rather than italics? In the lead, instead of saying "in the year 2004, they released...", (2004) could be placed after the album name. The third paragraph of the lead is very poorly written - "before releasing their singles compilation in 2006." should be in a different sentence. The intro line should probably be "This is a comprehensive listing of official releases by Feeder, a London-based alternative rock group formed in Newport, South Wales by song-writer Grant Nicholas (vocals, guitar) and Jon Lee (drums), being joined by Taka Hirose (bass guitar)." Tommy Stardust 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - I suggest you remove the wiki-links from the individual years in the lead and elsewhere (like in the comments); it detracts from other high-importance links. Also fix the prose in the EPs section; "first ever shows" seems oddly incorrect, and the comment for the Swim needs a complete rewrite. The note "IIII ^ Although a full band recording unlike the version that appears on Polythene, it is regarded as a single from the album by the band's official website." also needs fixing; also isn't roman 4 written as IV? What exactly is "Mainland Europe"? Tommy Stardust 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent work! Minor details: The first EP was released in 1995 (not 2005) and I think "committed suicide" is better than "took hin life" - especially in an encyclopedia article. Tommy Stardust 09:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed It may be worth separating Studio albums and compilations here; they're different things. (The 'EPs' section could be written as 'Extended plays' for clarity). Some years are linked to their articles, but others are not; this needs to be consistent. "It does not also include material recorded under a pre-Feeder alias, before they signed a recording contract, such as "Real", "Reel" or "Hum"." is unclear without further reading; was the material called "Real", "Reel" etc. or the alias? CloudNine 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good write. (Sorry for the delay in updating my vote!) CloudNine 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent discography article. Support. Spebi 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Overall a good discography, but a few issues remain:

    • United Kingdom is abbreviated as "U.K." and as "UK" seemingly at random. The article should be consistent with itself, as well as with other discogs (I believe every other discog abbreviates it as "UK").
    • The Japanese import compilations section seems odd. Why doesn't each entry have some information in it like every other table/section? All it says is the year and the title.
    • The Miscellaneous section also seems odd. The single table doesn't really work for me, since presumably the entires are of varying natures (songs on compilations, downloads, etc). The unfortunate side effects of putting everything into a single table is that it is confusing, and that some columns don't apply to all the entries. I would recommend splitting it up into subsections based on the type.
    • And, I hate to do this, but one of your main sources is Feeder Anorak fansite. Key word "fansite." Fansites aren't generally considered a reliable source. Drewcifer 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointers covered and article ammended accordingly, see users talk page for further information.Marcus Bowen 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work! I scoured the list a second time, but couldn't find anything else to complain about. Definitely worthy of being featured. Drewcifer 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Feeder_discography&oldid=171012508"