Wikipedia:Peer review/M.I.A. discography/archive1

M.I.A. discography edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to FL status. Any pointers would be much appreciated.

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Definitely a good start, but a little rough aroudn the edges. Here's some suggestions:

Most of the tables are somewhat inconsistent with each other and common FL-style. For instance, similar columns between similar tables should be kept a consistent width. So the details columns should all be 300px or whatever number you choose. Along those same lines, the first table in particular needs to be slimmed down, since on my 1024x768 monitor, the table is too wide and so gets squeezed. A few ways to do this would be to make the chart column headers a smaller font size, and to put a line break between the column header and the citation. Some of the column names are also inconsistent with FL style. The charts are usually written as "Peak chart positions", since we're really only showing the peak, not the whole trajectory. The second column in is usually called "Album details" or "EP details" or something like that, which the Mixtape and Albums tables don't have. For alot of this, you could take a look at the wikicode of other FL discogs, and just copy+paste some of the code, particularly for getting the chart position column headers to look right. Take a look at The Prodigy discography for a good example.
I don't think "Roder" should be included, since it's not a work of art by another artists, basically remixing MIA's material. So it's not an original piece by MIA, right? Take a look at MOS:DISCOG for more info on that.
As for the labels, you don't necessarily have to point out the US and UK releases. We're only concerned with the original home-country release.
Similar year columns can be merged using rowspan="#" in the EP table.
Citation #49 doesn't work for me.
Washington Post should be wikilinked in citation #1.
Has MIA not certified anywhere?

That's it for now. I'll do a more in-depth review later if you'd like. Let me know if you need any help with the above. Drewcifer (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, all very helpful. As far as I can ascertain, none of her releases have been certificated anywhere (certainly not in the US or UK). All other points will be addressed shortly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Ref #49 works fine for me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed, I think, although I can't figure out why when I've specified identical fixed widths for the first two columns in the "singles" and "albums" tables, they don't seem to have come out the same width?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you viewing it in IE? If so, I've noticed that in cells where there's something that spans too lines, then IE doesn't automatically give you the line break like Firefox does. Instead, it just lets the cell get wider and wider until it's forced to line break because the table itself has hit the side of the screen. So I remedy that by adding a <br /> wherever I want to force a line break. Drewcifer (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now, I think. I always forget that having the favourites pane displayed at the left hand side of the screen makes tables go all screwy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]