Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Godflesh discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Godflesh discography

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because is a comprehensive log of all that Godflesh have released and I hope to eventually include it in a good topic. The lead recounts the history of the band's main releases and is supported by many references, the structure of the discography is easy to follow and clearly labeled, and, because no one else really edits Godflesh articles anymore, it is currently stable and will remain so for the foreseeable future. After my other list, List of songs recorded by Godflesh, reached featured status, I have a little more familiarity with this process, and I hope the discography can improve with help from all of you. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lirim.Z

Comments from Lirim.Z

  • Change the tables to the proper format like here. Keep the note section, just change the details columns and remove the year.
  • The rest seems pretty good.
--Lirim
Support: Just corrected the style issues. The lead is good, the format using notes is something interesting i've never seen before, but it fits this discography well. Removed single details at Cover singles, the single details should be given in a proper article and not in a discography. --Lirim | Talk 03:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see any reason to split original and cover singles into separate tables. No other discographies do this that I am aware of, and the tables are only small so could easily be combined -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Good point, I made the change. Thanks! CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more comments:
    • Numbers below ten should be written as words (in the first sentence)
    • "one of, if not the, first industrial metal releases" - this seems slightly grammatically mangled to me. I would go for "one of the first industrial metal releases, if not the first"
    • "2001's Hymns was recorded" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, so maybe switch it round and have "Hymns (2001) was....."
    • There's a couple of places where you mention that an album/single "saw release". It may be pedantic but a record doesn't have eyes, so "received release" would be better
  • That's all I have at the moment. Excellent work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much; all your suggestions are now implemented. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Not all the tables have scope cols
    • I'm sorry, I don't know exactly what this means (I haven't worked with tables too much). Do you just want me to put something like ' ! scope="col" style="width:20%" ' on all the table starts where it isn't? CelestialWeevil (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly that. You have them in some tables but not all of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image needs alt text
  • Question: Any reason the infobox only has one of the two main members?
    • It's really tough to find good images of both members. They stand far apart and the concerts are dim. I composited two together for the main Godflesh article's infobox image, and I can do that here too if you think it's a good idea. But they probably wouldn't be from the same year. Is that fine? CelestialWeevil (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so. Both of them should be here since it's about them. You wouldn't want to have a page about the Beatles or another four-piece and only have 2 of them. Make sense? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Replied above. Thanks for the comments! CelestialWeevil (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BeatlesLedTV: Alright, I've implemented all these changes. I think I did the scope cols right, but you might want to check to be sure. Thanks for your help! CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Looks good. Once again, great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • One formatting issue to report: Ref 13 is missing a publisher, which should probably be formatted similarly to the other references to that site.
  • What makes The Sleeping Shaman (ref 41) a reliable source?
  • What makes Invisible Oranges (ref 53) reliable? It looks like a blog, very few of which are reliable.
  • The link-checker tool shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for the review! I added the publisher (whoops) and replaced the sleeping shaman reference with a press release from the festival. Because the Invisible Oranges source is an interview, I believe it falls under acceptability as per WP:PRIMARY. Regardless, I think I have another reference that could fit in place of it, though it's not as explicitly supportive. CelestialWeevil (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to replace the Invisible Oranges reference after all (with one from Revolver). If you end up thinking the IO interview okay, I'll add it back in as secondary support. CelestialWeevil (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher addition and new sources look fine, and I don't think the interview is necessary. I'd say this article has passed the source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 8 December 2018 (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_candidates/Godflesh_discography/archive1&oldid=872909259"