Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Jessica Simpson discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Giants2008 19:22, 20 January 2013 [1].

Jessica Simpson discography edit

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

Toolbox
Notified: Discographies WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not an accurate representation of Wikipedia's best lists. Large amounts of the lead which discuss the album sales appear to be unsourced. The article needs a copy-edit to properly feature professional prose ("After dropping out of Sony"). The album table lists both the certifications and sales in the same column, some of which are not referenced. The singles table contains eleven countries whereas ten is the requirement. The references are in terrible condition (21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 are the worst); some are missing publishers, or are merely bare links to the site. Till 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist right now, primarily for the following reasons:
  • Very strange (and useless) so-called references as noted by Till.
  • Bad start in the intro sentence with a boldlink.
  • (only joking... the lead image has very weird knees).
  • Video albums not mentioned in the lead.
  • "at one hundred twenty-three " see MOS:NUM.
  • No clear indication which territory the release dates are relevant to, nor where they are referenced.

Not our "finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delist per Till's concerns. Statυs (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status:

  • Why is "extended plays" a part of the title? They are both compilations.
  • Missing albums: A Special Christmas Collection, Triple Feature
  • There doesn't appear to be any sources linking the promotional singles to being promotional singles. "Who We Are" is a normal single (available to buy, apart from an album - it's even listed as a single on its article).

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – while smaller things can be quickly addressed, it's the sourcing that's left me worried. A lot of statistics are uncited and sources like Artistdirect and IMBD are used. I'm not quite sure about the vnuemedia citations either. It's too bad that this article has deteriorated. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very late response, I was not notified of this discussion. Anyway, I've managed to fix the major issues (the bad refs and unsourced sales/certs were added by a sockpuppet of User:Punkox and so I have reverted them). Replaced Artistdirect and Imdb refs. Vnuemedia is actually Billboard's paid archive. And in the FLC of this list, it was suggested that Sales and certs be merged. TRM, I can replace the picture if you'd like me to. 五代 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were not notified because you had a "Retired" template on your talk page. Till 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mags for fixing these up. I think we're close; some more:

  • "but it failed to match the success of Sweet Kisses" → "which failed to match the success of Sweet Kisses" (less words, right)
  • "As of 2009, In This Skin has sold three million copies in the US and produced four singles." – a bit awkward since it's been over three years to say "as of". Maybe "By 2009, In This Skin sold 3 million..."
  • You've consistently formatted the chart positions (words vs figures) but what about the sales numbers (1.9 million vs three million).
  • "In 2006, following a move to Epic Records after her deal with Columbia ended"
  • My suggestion would probably be to format all chart positions as numerals since you have "number 123" and spelling that out would be lengthy.
  • In the infobox, compilation albums link doesn't work.
  • Header: "Compilation albums and Extended plays" – are these both compilation albums? If so, then cut "Extended plays". If not, then separate into two tables.
  • I counted fifteen singles in the table, not fourteen.
  • For certifications in the list, instead of country abbreviations, certification company abbreviations are used instead, with the home country certification of the singer first (in this case, RIAA), then the rest in alphabetical order.
  • "'Irresistible' (So So Def Remix) (featuring Lil Bow Wow)" is not cited in the Promotional singles table.
  • The references look like they need cleaning up for consistency and no typos. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Rejoyce: The Christmas Album, what certification association (not "US")?
  • I just counted 17 singles in the table. Weird.
  • Are you sure this is a reliable source?
  • Check for consistency in italicization of non-print sources (Allmusic, Chartwatch...).
  • Ref 65 needs to be fixed.
  • In External links, we've a wikilink to MTV.com but not Allmusic.
  • Music video quantity should be consistent in the lead and infobox. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As for ilovethedowner.org, it's the official website of John Downer, producer and associate director for music videos/TV commercials etc. If it's not reliable, I can link to the Aladdin Platinum Edition DVD. Would that be okay? 五代 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that'd be better, IMO. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 五代 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer:

  • Number of singles in infobox and lead is still inconsistent with number of singles listed in the table.
  • "In October of 2010" – No need for "of".
  • The allmusic citations do not seem to identify the labels of the albums. It's found in the Releases tab of the site, but that isn't given in this article. This should be corrected for all albums/video albums, etc.
  • Is the "US" column in Chart peak positions needed in Compilation albums? It's blank.
  • In the singles table, in Certifications, we've still got "US" and "AUS". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These links (refs 51 and 81) are gone. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please let me know in case I've screwed up somewhere :D 五代 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point 4 hasn't been addressed yet, and regarding point 3, since the Releases tab has a separate url (http://almusic.com/.../releases). I think we need separate citations for that. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added separate citations. The blank US column in the Compilations section (sorry I forgot to respond to that comment last time!). Well, I'm sure most of the readers look for the album's position in the main Billboard album chart, that is Billboard 200. The Dance/Electronic albums chart is a component chart and if the album charts only on that, it means it wasn't successful. I added the US column to allow readers to evaluate the success of the compilations and also because she's an American artist. I can gladly remove it if you want me to. 五代 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget citations for video albums too. And w.r.t. the US Billboard 200, I think it can be removed at the end of the day, because without the column, it's clear that he albums never charted on it. But if you still feel strongly about the keeping of the column, I'm fine with that too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. So, is it okay if I keep it? :) 五代 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem with me! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I hope all the issues have been addressed. 五代 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mags. Sorry for annoying you once more: I just found two more things that may need responding to:

  • We need a source saying that A Special Christmas Collection (EP) was released on CD. And why is there "EP" in brackets? Is it part of the title?
  • In "Other charted songs", what do the dashes denote?

I'm confident I'll be able to support the keeping of this FL once these are taken care of! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Oops, my mistake! I confused it with something else. Fixed. It is not classified an EP, but a seven track album. 2) Added note. Thank you so much for taking time to review this list WP. 五代 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – evidenced by the resolved comments above, this list has improved greatly and seems to once again be FL material. Well done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the singles and albums tables have different countries. Till 12:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done, please let me know if there are any remaining issues. And, Till, I don't remember reading that anywhere. Can you link me to a page that says so, please? 五代 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Status. Till 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can ask him but I don't quite get it. I don't mean to be rude, you were the one who pointed out the issue. 五代 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a page that says it, and Status was the one who noted the general issue at The Veronicas discography. So ask him. Till 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him although this is the first time I've heard this. 五代 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Till. Status has said that it's not a requirement for a discography. I think I've addressed all your issues, except this of course. 五代 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding, although preferred by many (and it was at one point a part of the discography guidelines, I guess it was removed at some point) a list cannot be not promoted/not kept as a FL for that reason.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when I have different countries in the tables, it has to be changed, but when someone else has done the same, it's okay to be promoted/kept. Such double standards I see. Till 03:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take it that way Till. As he said, it's not a part of the guideline anymore and that's why I decided not to modify the tables. 五代 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. All comments are typically from how somebody feels an article should be. As I said, I would prefer them to all be the same, but that's not a part of any FL guidelines. If you didn't change them on The Veronicas discography I would have no reason to oppose its promotion. Also, at that time I thought it was still part of the guideline; I checked again and it has since been removed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I'd like to see all the same countries used in the tables, for consistency, it's no reason for the list to be removed from its status. Ryoga Godai, you've done a great job with the article!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both WP and Zach. 五代 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (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_removal_candidates/Jessica_Simpson_discography/archive1&oldid=534256970"