Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rachel Stevens discography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008 [1].
It's relatively short since her career wasn't exactly a success. I removed the B-sides and unreleased material based on the recommendation of MOS:DISCOG, but I don't have any objection to adding them back in if people think there's not enough material there. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from SRX
Oppose
- Lead
- The discography of British pop singer Rachel Stevens consists of two studio albums and seven singles, all released on Polydor Records. - "under" not "on"
- Changed. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stevens gained fame as a member of the pop group S Club 7 (see S Club discography). - why are redirected to the group's discography, in the lead? That should be in the See also section.
- It seemed odd to create a separate section for one link when it could easily be included in the text. Plus, many current FLs use that form (Dave Gahan, Geri Halliwell, Gwen Stefani). PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The group had its last release in 2003, and Stevens signed a four-album solo record deal with 19 Entertainment and Polydor. - How about The group released it's final album in 2003, while Stevens...etc."
- Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album's lead single "Sweet Dreams My LA Ex" reached number two on the UK Singles Chart,[2] and the album was certified gold in October 2003. - most discographies use "#2" versus "number two." Also, certified gold by who?
- WP:MOSNUM states that one-digit numbers like this should be spelled out. Added the organization. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album debuted at number twenty-eight on the UK Albums Chart,[2] and its three singles were commercially unsuccessful. - same comment here.
- WP:MOSNUM suggests spelling out numbers that can be expressed in two words. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discography of British pop singer Rachel Stevens consists of two studio albums and seven singles, all released on Polydor Records. - "under" not "on"
- Albums
- The chart positions should be separated into a different column than certifications, that's how other FL's are modeled.
- Most discographies have more than one country in which the artist charted, meaning that the positions in different countries can be compared. Stevens' albums only appear to have charted in the UK, so it seems odd to do an entire chart positions section for just one country. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart positions should be separated into a different column than certifications, that's how other FL's are modeled.
- Sources
- What makes mvdbase.com reliable?
- It's published by someone whose writing about arts/entertainment has been published in reliable third-party publications, so it seems to pass WP:SPS. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes mvdbase.com reliable?
CommentSupport -will support once sourcing issues is resolved.Sourcing issues resolved as well as my comments to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php? a reliable source?
- See above for my response to the same question. If necessary, I can reference them to the bonus DVD of Come and Get It, but it seems better to avoid using a primary source. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise http://acharts.us/performer/rachel_stevens?
- The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That page also says "There may also be some errors in the charts, these are made by our sources or by the software which analyses new charts and adds them to the website." So either they sources they use may be wrong, and/or the software they use to cull information goes wrong. And they rely on waiting for Joe Normal to tell them when it goes wrong. What happens if noone spots a mistake? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in the archives of WT:RS, it was determined that it wasn't a reliable source for the reason I just gave, and the same page you offered :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources". The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information. The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. As a sidenote, the "[emphasis added]" note was meant to indicate that I had italicized that; I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, just point out that only one person replied in the discussion, and that person wasn't definitive about whether or not it should be used. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources". The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information. The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support
- Not a nice photo of her - I think the one on her own article is better - at least you can see her face... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mainly references...
- "(see S Club discography)" - nah - make it a See also.
- There's really no reason to create a separate section for a three-word link. Looking at other FLs, it's a common practice, and it's no more obstrusive than year in music links. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what See also sections are designed for. Adding "See..." mid-prose is awful when we can link things either intelligently or in sections of their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no reason to create a separate section for a three-word link. Looking at other FLs, it's a common practice, and it's no more obstrusive than year in music links. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "three singles were commercially unsuccessful." - comparatively, perhaps, but two top ten singles out of three is not, in my opinion, commercially unsuccessful. Perhaps that's the problem - the statement is possibly too POV.
- The statement isn't POV, but I think your interpretation of it is. Peak chart positions alone don't indicate if a release was commercially successful. The sentence indicates that the singles didn't generate enough sales to offset the cost to record and promote them, which helps to give context to the following statement that she hasn't released any music since. If it'd help, I could add additional articles from Allmusic, Stylus Magazine, or Popjustice that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement does need support - commercial success can also be gauged by peak positions, and two top ten singles is, in some people's minds, successful. So yes, you should support this statement.
- There are two more sources there that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement does need support - commercial success can also be gauged by peak positions, and two top ten singles is, in some people's minds, successful. So yes, you should support this statement.
- The statement isn't POV, but I think your interpretation of it is. Peak chart positions alone don't indicate if a release was commercially successful. The sentence indicates that the singles didn't generate enough sales to offset the cost to record and promote them, which helps to give context to the following statement that she hasn't released any music since. If it'd help, I could add additional articles from Allmusic, Stylus Magazine, or Popjustice that support the statement. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certifications column is oddly named when you're including sales figures and chart positions in the UK...
- Broadened the column's scope. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did all of her singles actually get released in every country in the singles table or is there a significant likelihood that they didn't? If they weren't released you need to change the note which says "releases which did not chart".
- The sources don't say where the singles were released. Regardless of whether they were released in those countries though, the singles still didn't chart. Is there a better message to use? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have started using something along the lines of "– indicates a that a single was either not released or did not chart." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have started using something along the lines of "– indicates a that a single was either not released or did not chart." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't say where the singles were released. Regardless of whether they were released in those countries though, the singles still didn't chart. Is there a better message to use? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the promo single all about? It isn't cited either.
- I left that in there when I was working on the article since the list seemed to already be on the short side. I forgot only official releases are included, so it's gone now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other appearances aren't cited by anything.
- There's nothing to cite. The fact that those songs exist on those albums is very obviously referenced to the compilations themselves, so there's nothing that's likely to be challenged. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref [4] can have a
dateadded. - You could also add the {{Commonscat}} template.
- Commons doesn't have anything related to Stevens' releases, unlike the external links which all have information about her releases and not just Stevens herself. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.