Wikipedia:Peer review/Kumi Koda discography/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can see what needs to be improved for it to become a featured list, and hopefully develop a template for other Japanese discographies to become featured lists.
Thanks for any comments! --Prosperosity (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to help. To get right to the point, I think the lead paragraph is too heavy. Comparing notes with Nirvana discography (a featured article), the lead paragraph should try to succinctly summarize her successes and release history (e.g. instead of saying what charted how high on which charts, you could say, "Such-and-such album spawned singles which became successful"). Granted, between a pop singer with a long and fruitful career and a grunge band that lasted only a few albums, there's almost no comparison, but I think there's a way to trim the fat here. The lead paragraph has lots and lots about chart positions and certifications - all of which should be summarized and all of which is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I gather over at Nirvana discography, the lead paragraph of an article such as this should have a basic release & label signing history with general descriptions of success, without going into the technical details. Hope this helps! Good luck! LazyBastardGuy 16:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is that? I kept the Two Million certifications bit in there since they're very rare, but got rid of the rest. Everything that's left is mostly explaining things peculiar to her discography. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Almost there! Again, though, bits like these:
- How is that? I kept the Two Million certifications bit in there since they're very rare, but got rid of the rest. Everything that's left is mostly explaining things peculiar to her discography. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"Take Back" peaked at number 18 on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales chart,[1] and "Trust Your Love" in 2001 reached the top spot on the same chart.[2]
- should be paraphrased. The data you're presenting in the prose is already there in the rest of the article so it's not needed here. As for the two-millions bit, I would at least move that, say, to the end of the second paragraph since chronologically-speaking it seems to work best there. LazyBastardGuy 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The positions aren't actually in the discography article! I figured it was a little silly to have a column for just her first two singles charting on a Billboard subchart. I've removed the positions bit and just mentioned their release now. How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ha ha, silly me... I guess I'm just used to seeing those on discography articles. I'm mostly concerned with just the lead paragraph, although I do believe if the chart positions aren't mentioned in the body of the article then they should be. It's not necessary to have a whole column for them, but if they are important enough they can be noted somehow (using {{ref label}} if necessary; see Nirvana discography#Retail singles for examples). The way you mention them now implies a certain significance, which I think is sufficient. Overall, I'd say that's about all I've got to say here. Good work! LazyBastardGuy 05:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing before I go: If you use the notes as I suggested, and you want to pre-empt people coming along and adding a whole unnecessary column, add a hidden note that there are not enough singles that appeared on that chart to warrant the inclusion of such a column as it would be a waste of time. Something like, "Until she has more singles that chart on it do not add a column for peak positions on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles chart". Although, if other singles of hers did chart on it then there may be enough of them to warrant such a column. But I'll leave that up to you. Adios, and good luck with the article! LazyBastardGuy 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- It turns out that the chart listings aren't even in the citation given as the Hot Dance Singles Chart isn't published on the internet, so I just got rid of it anyway! Haha. Thanks for your advice! --Prosperosity (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing before I go: If you use the notes as I suggested, and you want to pre-empt people coming along and adding a whole unnecessary column, add a hidden note that there are not enough singles that appeared on that chart to warrant the inclusion of such a column as it would be a waste of time. Something like, "Until she has more singles that chart on it do not add a column for peak positions on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles chart". Although, if other singles of hers did chart on it then there may be enough of them to warrant such a column. But I'll leave that up to you. Adios, and good luck with the article! LazyBastardGuy 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ha ha, silly me... I guess I'm just used to seeing those on discography articles. I'm mostly concerned with just the lead paragraph, although I do believe if the chart positions aren't mentioned in the body of the article then they should be. It's not necessary to have a whole column for them, but if they are important enough they can be noted somehow (using {{ref label}} if necessary; see Nirvana discography#Retail singles for examples). The way you mention them now implies a certain significance, which I think is sufficient. Overall, I'd say that's about all I've got to say here. Good work! LazyBastardGuy 05:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The positions aren't actually in the discography article! I figured it was a little silly to have a column for just her first two singles charting on a Billboard subchart. I've removed the positions bit and just mentioned their release now. How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- should be paraphrased. The data you're presenting in the prose is already there in the rest of the article so it's not needed here. As for the two-millions bit, I would at least move that, say, to the end of the second paragraph since chronologically-speaking it seems to work best there. LazyBastardGuy 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)