Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jessica Simpson 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 The Rambling Man 17:36, 28 November 2010 [1].

Jessica Simpson discography edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Novice7 (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After transforming the list from this version to this version, I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Everything is now understandable and there are no unnecessary information. Novice7 (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - "...platinum by RIAA. [1][2]" no space. For the Singles you don't use <br> for the US and AUS refs but you use <br> for the ref for UK. In Promotional singles you use <br> for US Pop, but not US AC. Rowspan completely messes up the sorting on Music videos. I'm not sure on bolding but I believe the excessive bolding has been fixed and is no longer necessary. Bit confused also you use sorting for the music videos, but not Album appearances, and Soundtrack appearances these surely fall under the same lines as the music videos. No publisher for Ref 8. Coding errors on Ref 13, 58. Ref 8, 24, 25, 39, 40 needs a language parameter. Ref 27s title is Japanese and needs to be presented as such, this also needs a language parameter. I'm not sure on the Verifiability of About.com with Ref 75 I am unsure on how notable the author is. Afro (Talk) 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issues are now fixed. About bolding, I have added "plainrowheaders" to the tables as per the new format. Novice7 (Talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 needs a language parameter. Ref 6's retrieval date needs to be consistent with the rest. Would amazon not be a better source than IMDB for "When You Told Me You Loved Me" in soundtrack appearances? Afro (Talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ref 23 and Ref 6. I couldn't find the soundtrack in Amazon. I could find it only in Imdb. Novice7 (Talk) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US:669,000" space needed, why is there an ndash in the certifications column for "Do You Know" and "Happy Christmas..." but none in singles? Also video albums, "Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson" and "Happy Christmas..." you reference the dates, however the other albums you don't reference the dates, shouldn't all these dates be referenced? Afro (Talk) 14:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sales. Is it okay if the dash in Do you know and happy christmas is removed? Should the singles have dashes then? And, I thought new releases need to be sourced. That's why I added ref for happy christmas and playlist. About the videos, as they do not have any chart history, the ref was added to show that they were released. If its a must to add ref, I'll add it. Thank You for notifying me though. Novice7 Talk 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the dash for Certifications and Sales was what I was alluding to, considering the dash is used in the table to denote items which failed to chart. Afro (Talk) 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? Novice7 Talk 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Here on Earth [61]" "Rugrats in Paris [62]" no space. "RIAA.[6][7][2]" 2 comes before 6. Ref 27 has no publisher. How reliable is Ilovethedowner.org? Afro (Talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the refs. Ilovethedowner.org is a website related to associate director John Downer. Novice7 Talk 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Caption - not complete so no need for a period. And what's USO/DoD?
  • Would merge first and second paras, and start second sentence with "Her..."
  • "The album sold about 1.9 million copies in the US produced three singles" - grammar?
  • Is it platinum (lead) or Platinum (list)?
  • I see "Gold" in the lead too. Consistency please.
  • "The album has sold 669,000 copies in the US" as of when?
  • "number sixty five" hyphenate the number?
  • lead and infobox disagree on music videos.
  • "Happy Christmas is scheduled for a November 2010 release" it is November 2010...
  • Avoid use of # for "number" per MOS.
  • Album Details->Album details.
  • Where are items that didn't chart anywhere cited (e.g. "Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson", "Sweetest Sin", "I Belong To Me", some promo singles etc)?
  • ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart" is that true for DVDs?
  • About.com is not WP:RS.
  • Reference titles need to use en-dashes where appropriate.
  • Avoid over-capitalisation of ref titles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a lot. Just one thing remaining. Should all the singles be included in the lead? I thought only notable should be included. Also, I'm sorry, but I could not understand what you meant through "Where are items that didn't chart anywhere cited (e.g. "Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson", "Sweetest Sin", "I Belong To Me", some promo singles etc)?". Please, can you make it clear? Thanks Novice7 (Talk) 11:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an item failed to chart in any of the charts you've used, then where do you reference them? How do I know they actually ever existed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetest Sin, Angels, I Belong to Me - all charted in the Bubbling Under chart. I did not include them, as the chart given is US Hot 100. Novice7 (Talk) 06:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following are unreferenced:

  • Happy Christmas
  • Playlist:...
  • Sweetest Sin
  • I Belong To Me
  • Pray Out Loud
  • My Only Wish
  • Last three album appearances.

If you're using Allmusic, use it specifically, not generally, for these. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • Mentions Simpson's genre(s) in the opening sentence.
  • "Simpson's debut single, "I Wanna Love You Forever" reached..." comma after title
  • Many instances you mention "x was certified x by RIAA" you need a 'the' before RIAA
  • The Do You Know certifications cell is missing
  • Spanning 'To be released' across an album's potential charting cells violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it implies that the album will chart.
  • '"—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart.' So if they were not released in that country but did chart, are they marked with a dash? How about '"—" denotes items which failed to chart in that country.'
  • Are the notes to the singles table needed. I can understand noting chartings on the Bubbling Under Chart, but a component chart is not really notable enough to have a footnote if it doesn't warrant its own column
  • Why not set out the DVDs table like the other album types?
  • There are many instances of unneeded italics. Only italicise publishers in print, such as newspapers and magazines.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As only two songs charted on the Country charts, there is no need to include the chart in the table. Right? Is it okay to remove the notes regarding the songs position in Country charts? I removed the new album information, as I see not much significance. I have only italicized the album name and Billboard. Novice7 (Talk) 06:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First question: yes, please remove the notes. As for the album, it probably should be included. The rules for italics also apply for references: I see Recording Industry Association of America and The Microsoft Network in italics after a quick glance. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a lot. I guess everything's okay now. I have not included details of Bubbling Under Hot 100 singles in the table. I hope it's right. Novice7 (Talk) 06:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's minor, but the slash (pop/country) interrupts with the flow of prose. Maybe pop and country?
  • I didn't notice the note for Do You Know before. Same as singles above.
  • I'm not sure what policy is around future releases, but I'd say that Happy Christmas needs inclusion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? And, the DVD table. Is there something wrong with it? Novice7 (Talk) 07:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DVDs table is still laid out differently than the others. Be consistent.
Another point: 'Album appearances' says to me 'albums by other artists on which Simpson features'. How about 'Compilation album appearances'? Are they even necessary? They are also unreferenced. Otherwise, good work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this or like this? I'm sorry, but I thought I followed the format for the videography section. Novice7 (Talk) 10:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DVDs are still a different format. For studios and compilations you have 'Title, Album details'..., but for DVDs you have 'Details'. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to Title -> Album details format. No certifications included. Novice7 (Talk) 03:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. One last thing that I missed (sorry) is that per MOS:ITALIC The Price of Beauty should be written in italics, not quote marks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Novice7 (Talk) 05:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments another quick glance...
  • Some tables have captions, some don't, and it's not clear to me why?
  • Avoid spaced hyphens in the reference titles (e.g. ref 27, 35, 38 etc) per WP:DASH.
  • ""—" denotes items which failed to chart in that country." can you prove that these items were even released in those countries?
  • And that note should be on every table that contains these dashes.
  • No need to relink formats in Video albums section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Removed captions and corrected ref titles. The dash representation has also been corrected. Novice7 Talk 11:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey, so everything looks good, only thing you should fix first is in the souring. It should be Billboard in italics, not regular "Billboard.com". Thats pretty much all the issues I see. I'm watching the page, so I'll have no problem supporting once this is fixed :) Nice job--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral
  • That lead is way too big, and the text is rather repetitive. Just an overview of Ms. Simpson's discography is enough, there's no need to write out every chart-placing and sales figures in prose form. Also note that as her career progresses, the lead shouldn't be getting longer and longer. I hope you can rewrite it so that it is at least a paragraph shorter. (see David Bowie discography for a model lead)
  • Not done: the lead is still very monotonous and repetitive. The whole lead is basically the following sentences repeated 4-5 times: "Simpson released Album in Year. The album reached number six on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold by the RIAA. The album sold 300,000 copies and produced three singles." I copy-edited it a little, but more is needed. Also, don't be shy to include info that isn't strictly chart/sales-related. For eg: which is her most acclaimed, award-winning effort; any changes in musical style between the albums; why did she shift labels twice; why country music?
  • Make sure you don't use the same word too many times. For eg: "album" is there 25 times, "number" 9 times, "US" 11 times...—indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not too long, there are several discographies that have a longer lead than this. CrowzRSA 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Novice7 has already shortened the lead.—indopug (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make similar columns of different tables of the same width, so that the article has a uniform appearance. For example, the Title column for all the tables should be equally wide. Same for Album details etc.
  • Not done: Have the tables apart from the two in the Album section been refashioned so?—indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The columns of the individual charts of Studio albums are of different widths.
  • The Studio albums table's Album details column is rather cramped. Can you widen it by merging the last two columns into a "Sales and certifications" column?
  • Compilation albums: wouldn't it suffice to add the D/E chart position as a note in the Album details, and remove the charts columns?
  • Studio albums: why is Canada not alphabetically listed?—indopug (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed almost everything. The only exception is the case of compilation albums where I tried to add it as a note, but the table gets messed up when I do so. Also, I've merged the sales and certifications columns into one. Novice7 Talk 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about now? Singles and promo tables have been corrected for uniform size, new information on lead too. I've tried my best to remove repetitions. Novice7 Talk 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more (please complete the ref I added). I still think the prose isn't great, so please try to find an independent copy-editor. But I won't be opposing any more 'cause I'll be off Wiki for the rest of the month. Another thing, per Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE#What_should_not_be_included, "Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases" should not be included. So please those from the Other appearances table.—indopug (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed singles which appeared on soundtracks. I'll contact a copy editor. Novice7 Talk 11:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the article and have run across a sentence that does not read well:
I was thinking of replacing that sentence with something along the lines of this:
Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead friend. Thanks a lot for helping me. Novice7 Talk 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I just noticed:
  • The album debuted and peaked at number five in the US and was certified gold by the RIAA.
Did it debut at number five in the US (which is what this says), or did it debut and then peak at number five in the US? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The album debuted at number five in the US. Novice7 Talk 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks very good now. One last thing though: combine the entries in the two small tables in 'Other appearances' into one. Otherwise, people are gonna think "huh, why isn't 'These Boots Are Made for Walkin' listed under Soundtrack appearances?" Anyway, that's minor, on the whole: good work!—indopug (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Novice7 Talk 16:26, 28 November 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_candidates/Jessica_Simpson_discography/archive1&oldid=1140259579"