Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pink 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:35, 21 September 2009 [1].

Pink discography

edit
Nominator(s): 03md 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded the lead to an adequate size, it is well referenced and accurate. I have not had the article peer reviewed as I have often had long waits for responses. 03md 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. There are also several dead links (not just Billboard either). It would be helpful if you could check the toolbox while waiting for reviews. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dead links now fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. The references are a mess. All references should have citation templates. Please change all references that don't like Reference 2 and 20.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation templates are not a requirement, although I agree that the references need a bit of work WRT formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What are the references for "Studio Albums" for Australia, France, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand and Ireland?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JD554:

Resolved comments from JD554
  • The lead section as a whole needs a good copy-edit for grammar and punctuation.
  • I need someone else to do that as it looks fine to me as the author
  • The lead section has too many paragraphs, some of these could be merged so there are only two or three. See MOS:LEAD#Length.
  • Done
  • Film titles should be in italics, see MOS:TITLE.
  • Done, I think
  • The fact she took her stage name from the film Reservoir Dogs should have a citation.
  • Added reference
  • I think you're trying to say that "There You Go" and Can't Take Me Home were both released in 2000. If so "in 2000" needs moving to the end of the sentence.
  • Done
  • In paragraph three you say "The album was again successful worldwide", but there is no mention before this about anything being successful.
  • Removed "again"
  • Instead of "native country" and "United Kingdom", say "Billboard 200" and "UK Albums Chart".
  • Done
  • "first number-one single", where?
  • Clarified
  • I think there may be a missing "and" from the second sentence of the fourth paragraph.
  • I'm not sure where you mean now I have altered the prose structure
  • The compilation albums link in the infobox doesn't work - rename the "Compilation" section to "Compilation albums" to fix this.
  • Done
  • Why are the b-sides listed in the infobox when there isn't anything in the article about them?
  • Removed from the infobox
  • I count more than 24 singles.
  • Altered figure to include promo singles, Feel Good Time and Lady Marmalade
  • The "Soundtracks" section in the infobox is for complete soundtrack albums recorded by the artist, not individual songs.
  • Removed section
  • You should include the labels and formats as well as the release date for all the albums.
  • Done
  • Done
  • There are no citations for the Australian, French, Swiss, Austrian, New Zealand, Belgian, Swedish and Irish chart positions.
are now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there aren't UK certification or sales figures for Pink Box then remove "UK" from the relevant column. If there are, then they should be there with citations.
  • Done
  • The "Sounttrack/Other" singles should be integrated into the main singles table, so should the single certifications.
  • Done with the soundtracks
  • References #1, #2, #21 and #28 should be in a separate "Footnotes" section.
not sure which ones you mean now cuz they've changed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the reference link simply to a search page. These should have specific instructions about how to get to the page which verifies the information. For example, you could add: "Note: User needs to enter 'Pink' in 'artists name' and click 'search'."
  • Non-print publications in references (eg, Allmusic.com, British Phonographic Industry) shouldn't be italicized.
  • Quite a few references need "retrieved on" dates.
done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #19 and #20 shouldn't be bare links.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #49 and #50 need the title parameter to be completed.
fixed, if i'm thinking about the same ones.... Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few problems need fixing here, looking at other FL-Class discographies and WP:CITE should help. --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed the majority of points, made a few notes and still have some things to sort out

These still need to be addressed:

  • Columns which are for the same thing (chart positions, certifications, etc) should be the same width even in different sections.
    • The "Album" column in the two singles tables have different widths, as does all the "Certifications" columns.
  • "Certifications" and "sales thresholds" should only be linked the first time, see WP:OVERLINK.
  • Has Pink Box received a certification? If not, the column needs removing.

--JD554 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Definately a good start, but I see alot of problems, many of which could be addressed by taking a look at MOS:DISCOG and other FL discogs promoted recently. A few issues:

both removed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:DISCOG recommends a total of 10 chart columns, and some of these tables exceed that limit by a little and some by alot.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the chart positions are sourced.
they are now. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References need to be formatted, as some are missing information and some are raw urls. I recommend using citation templates to help with that. Also so references have redlinks in them, where they need not be.
done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the music videos is missing a director.
doing this evening. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
after i removed mvdbase there was more directors needed. found most of them but still missing "Feel Good Time", "Last To Know" and "Nobody Knows". so if anybody could help out that would be great :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid citations in the middle of a sentence.
  • Alot of dead links in the references.
fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An External links section would be nice.
its now there, a very nice it is. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more problems I see, but these are the major ones which lead me to oppose the list's nomination. Drewcifer (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The music videos table is broken and there are some spelling errors in your references that make redlinks come up in the references section. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think "Sing" should be added, as she was a featured performer.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point, adding this evening. Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't responded because I am in need of some help with some of the issues, particularly the formatting of references that were already in the article, as I asked earlier in the review. 03md 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'll help out with some of the issues and formatting if you'd like? Mister sparky (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. I'm not used to dealing with the finer points of discographies! 03md 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i have helped you out with formatting, sourcing, organising of tables etc! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the dead links. i removed the sales info because a couple of them came from blogs which had to be removed anyways. i also looked at other FL's and they dont have sales info. it's hard to maintain and keep accurate and its the most common thing vandalised. if you'd like it restored, then i will. and i didnt think i was allowed to support as i was a major editor to the article? Mister sparky (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • You use "Pink" and "P!nk" interchangeably. Be consistent.
when looking for the others i searched for ages to try to find it but couldnt find anything. it was a live performance video but would still have a director wouldnt it? Mister sparky (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (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/Pink_discography/archive1&oldid=315497956"