Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Led Zeppelin discography/archive2

< 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 18:14, 17 May 2011 [1].

Led Zeppelin discography edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I improved some things after the first nomination, including some peak chart positions, which were wrong. Also reassessed small things like spaced em-dashes, newspapers not in italicface, references missing and organisations not wikilinked. I hope it passes this time. Happy reviewing.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • References are inconsistent. For example: Ref 1 says Allmusic but Ref 2 says Allmusic.com. A few more instances throughout.
    • consistent now
  • Ref 6 publisher is wrong. (Billboard → Prometheus Global Media)
    • I think you meant Rovi Corporation and not Billboard. Changed.
  • Many online sources are italicized. Please fix them.
    • I think you are referring to "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which is a book, so I thought it should be italicized. Changed.
  • Ref 35 RPM should be italicized (it is a magazine)
    • True, forgot to do that.
  • Ref 14 vs Ref 36 inconsistent publisher and work.
    • done
  • Ref 40 Zobbel. I don't think it's reliable.
    • Me too, but I'll ask at WP:RSN soon
  • Ref 41 ChartStats. Is it reliable?
    • Don't know. Will ask.
  • Ref 37 publisher missing
    • I think you mean the work. Fixed.
  • I'm doubtful about the usage of "digital songs". Do you mean Promotional singles?
  • Yes, they are promotional singles, but aren't all music download promotional singles?
Not really. Now the table looks neat.
  • "released on Atlantic Records..." → released "by" Atlantic Records?
  • Expand US -> United States on the first occurrence.
  • Provide the abbreviation for Recording Industry Association of America in brackets (" including eight-times Multi-Platinum from the Recording Industry Association of America....") Similarly, CRIA too.
  • Usage of times; and "times" → inconsistent
  • from "the" RIAA and "the" CRIA (inconsistent too)
  • "One example is the live album How the West Was Won..." → can you tweak this sentence a bit?
  • You have not mentioned anything about the singles.
  • The notes A, C and D need references
  • A: It was discussed here; I took the first one to prove that it is a studio album. I have no problems to remove the note, but the reader should understand, that some sources claim that it is a compilation album.
  • C: I removed this.
  • D: Is already in the lead.
  • "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart, albums not released in a particular territory, or chart information is not available. → isn't this a bit too long?
Novice7 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. I believe I fixed most of these items.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "music downloads", as I could not find any sources, that these songs were only released as a musical download. I simply merged it with "Singles".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it, as the source backs up the information, that their catalog, including Mothership, was released as a musical download. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – All the issues I pointed out were taken care of. Also, the discography has improved a lot too. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "which produces seven digital downloads and were released...". Should be "produces" be "produced"? Also, "were" should be "was", unless this is describing both albums in the sentence.
  • forgot to change, after I had added a sentence. done
  • "in the iTunes store including." Cuts out rather abruptly, I'd say.
  • done
  • "was one these songs released in digital stores." Missing word.
  • done
  • Note below several tables: "denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." Conflict between singular and plural here; either change "releases" or "was". This isn't the first time I've seen this at a discography, and I hope it's the last.
  • oopsie. done
  • Note C: "This songs were released as a music download...". Change first word to "These". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album, often called Led Zeppelin IV, is their most commercially successful album. It received a 23× Platinum certification from RIAA, the third-highest of all albums." — Can you mention that "Stairway to Heaven" came from this album? I think we can safely say that it's one of the all-time classics of rock'n'roll. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is really that important to add this. It is already mentioned in the third paragraph.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the album tracks "Darlene", "Ozobe Baby" and "Poor Tom" listed in the singles discography? None of those songs were released as singles. Piriczki (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the section, infobox and lead beginning.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:

"GER" has no meaning. I could accept it in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER is not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using it. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason to oppose, only because you don't like the abbreviation. "Oppose" simply means, that you think this list is against the criteria. "GER" is simply and understandable, whereby "DE" not. This is just a disco and not a list about some sport competition, like you said. You can put any abbreviation you want, but it must be understandable for readers.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The merging of singles, promotional singles, and other charted songs is not good. It doesn't let the reader know which is which. Separate. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that, but since there are so many of each, it is best to just have each separate sections. That's my main concern. Other than that, I think the page is missing very little to become an FL. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, but now there are needed columns that are not needed. For example, in the "Singles" section, no song charted on "US Digital", but the chart is still there. Please remove it from that particular table. Same thing goes for "Charted songs" and "Music downloads". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it ok so? In the "Charted songs" column, if I'll remove the columns, only one column remains. So I decided not to delete it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One one column should remain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if it only charted on one chart. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Specially with the new expansion in the lead. Congratulations! A job well done. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "eight digital songs" I've never heard them referred to like this, are they "download-only" songs?
  • yes, download-only songs, MP3 downloads; reworded.
  • Also not clear what a "charted song" is when other singles etc have "charted".
  • A charted song is a song which charted in any charts, but was not released as a single. Singles are released songs, but not vice versa. It is not usual that songs get charted.
  • I'm confused. What format did these "items" chart as? Singles? Albums? EPs? How did they chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how; on Billboard (magazine) it says, that Billboard 100 ranks top 100 songs based on "physical sales, digital sales and radio airplay", so either they were charted digital or per radio airplay. They haven't got any format I deplore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including 8× Multi-Platinum " -> "including eight times multi-platinum"
  • Not sure why you suggest this; I think it should be consistent with all others. But I reworded it.
  • It was a general comment to make sure that the prose was excellent rather than full of grammatically incorrect figures. There are still other instances of this in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for following instances of that phrase.
  • done
  • When was LZ IV released (for the benefit of the lead)?
  • done
  • "the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2 and the " not the same title as you used for the album in the table.
  • done

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd still like to know what a "charted song" is compared with singles, EPs etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded it to "Other charted song"; they are simply songs which are not singles but were still charted. They were charted per airplay, because music download was invented in 1993. I think you know what a single is, so I can not explain it further. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:53, 9 May 2011 (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/Led_Zeppelin_discography/archive2&oldid=1089913601"