Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+4
(No difference)

Revision as of 04:48, 5 April 2014

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 Giants2008 21:05, 06 April 2014 (UTC) [1]].[reply]

Lorde discography

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a year since she commercially released her first piece of work, Lorde has come a long way, and is arguably the biggest Kiwi musician ever. Happy to hear any constructive criticism on the list. Adabow (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet
There may be other issues that I missed, since I'm not an expert on reviewing. However, I noticed those issues and I would be more than happy to support this article when they are resolved. Overall, you've done a good job in here! :) decodet. (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After all those issues being addressed, I support this nomination now. Everything looks good in here for me, congrats :) decodet. (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - could you clarify what exactly a "promotional single" is? I ask particularly in the case of "Royals/White Noise" - if this was available to purchase singly (and it must have been to have charted in the UK, where the charts are based solely on sales), in what way was it different from a "normal" single? My understanding of a promo single is that it is one that is given away for free to DJs, etc, but maybe the term's usage has changed and I'm just not down with the kids ;-) ..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the term is well-defined and it confuses the hell out of me. "Royals/White Noise" has been moved to the singles table. Per WP:PROMOSINGLE and promotional single, songs that were released via digital retailers for a short amount of time as part of the album build-up are deemed "promotional" (most of those songs listed here fall under this category, and have actually been delete from the iTunes Store website). "Bravado" is a bit contentious, but there is some sort of consensus that since it was released only digitally in a few of the more minor markets, it is not a "full" single. I hope this helps a bit... Adabow (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey, it certainly was easier back in the good old days when if a hunk of vinyl was present on the shelves of the local Woolworths then it was a single and that's all you needed to know. The explanation above makes sense, though, so I support the nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image could use some alt text.
  • Any reason why "chart positions" is wikilinked in the singles table but not the albums tables?
  • Same goes for why the year, title and director columns are sortable in the music videos section – seems inconsistent with the other tables in the article.
  • Perhaps some table captions could be added? I've seen them being included in most featured discographies.

And that's about it, I guess. I'd argue that "Bravado" should be listed as a single rather than a promotional single, but keeping it there won't stop me from supporting the list. Good work, overall. Holiday56 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Holiday. I suck at writing alt text, and it's not part of the FL criteria. I have unlinked chart positions; people aren't stupid. I have made the 'Other appearances' table sortable, but the more complex layout of the other tables means that even when made "sortable", they won't sort properly (try for yourself to see what I mean). Most discography table captions I have seen just repeat the section and column titles, and don't actually serve any purpose; from [2], "A data table needs a table caption that roughly describes what the table is about." In my opinion, these would be redundant and clunky in this situation. Adabow (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll support, then. Holiday56 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment: In the references section, all content derived from Billboard should cite Prometheus Global Media as the publisher since it is the owner of the website and magazine. Otherwise, it's a solid support from me.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{cite news}}, the publisher field is "not normally used for periodicals." Editorial oversight and fact-checking make a source reliable, not which company makes the money from it. Adabow (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Hahc21 04:48, 05 April 2014 (UTC) [3]].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have based much of List of songs recorded by Sky Ferreira on my first nomination List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus, which has received unanimous support after undergoing several revisions and allows me to nominate a second project. It is a fully-comprehensive list of Ferreira's published tracks, including those on her studio albums and extended plays, and those in which she is featured in. Writing credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, with additional citations from reliable sources including Billboard and Spin. Assuming that Ferreira will continue to release new songs in some form as her career continues, this list will be able to be easily updated with its simple, straight-forward internal formatting, and will become a great companion to an eventual Sky Ferreira discography page. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

  • Is there any better source you can find than The Lynx?
  • Done
  • Which of the two refs mention that Ghost deviated from electropop to synthpop since I can't see any of that mentioning. Also do note that the WP page of Synthpop (which is a good article) mentions that the genre is also known as electropop, so aren't both one and the same thing?
  • Done
  • Done

Other than these points this is a fairly well-made list. I will support once these issues are addressed successfully. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not sure of No Ripcord too, I will still support since the publication is being used by Metacritic in its aggregates. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

  • The key has the green color and the symbol to indicate a single release, though the latter isn't used to indicate a single release?
  • Done
  • You probably should list "Boys" as a promotional single or even an official one as it was reported by Idolator and other RSs. However Sky wrote on Twitter this, so it's probably just promotional.

:* I was thinking about that, although since Sky herself said that it wasn't the official second single (yet), I think that should be left out, at least for now.

  • Actually, scratch that, it's been officially released in the UK, so I guess it can be considered a single.
  • The list shouldn't have 1 and 2 categorized as such, maybe just as a number sign which is cleaner. Could you change it on the contents box and anchors?
  • Done
  • Per WP:CAPWORD, incomplete sentences shouldn't close with a full stop, such as the first caption.
  • Done

Everything else is excellent. I support the nomination, as it is concise and meticulously referenced. :) Prism △ 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is an interesting read. I don't see any major or glaring issues here. Very well written and supported by strong sources. I support this nom. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [4]].[reply]

Timeline of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to predictions, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season featured below-average tropical cyclone activity. Fifteen tropical cyclones formed, but only two became hurricanes, and none became major hurricanes. Following the completion of all National Hurricane Center post-season storm reports, all information on the timeline has been updated; as a whole, I believe the article now meets FLC status. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination.--12george1 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good. As much as I'm not a fan of timelines, this one is like other timelines that are featured, with no problems that I can see. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Hahc21 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]

Rani Mukerji filmography

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I feel that it meets the criteria for being a featured list. After taking her biography to FA-status, I feel proud to have worked on her filmography as well. I look forward to a lot of constructive comments. Thank you. KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping) 12:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping)
  • "star Aamir Khan" are you referring to him as star or I'm missing something here?
Removed "star".
  • "In 1998 she received public recognition ..." sentence looks too long. Consider splitting them
Done.
  • I'd like to see a mention of Hey Ram and Paheli in the lead as both were critical successes. This being a filmography page, I think there is no harm in mentioning films that were critically acclaimed irrespective of Mukherjee's performance in these films.
I agree. Mentioned both the films.
  • You could add the names of directors of Bombay Talkies, probably as a foot note.
Added footnote.
  • Doesn't she portray herself as Neetu Singh in "Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte"?
She doesn't exactly portray Neetu Singh. The song was meant as a tribute to the yesteryear actors and her look was just based on Singh's.
Thank you so much for the comments Vensatry. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The issues I could see previously seem to have all been identified by Vensatry and addressed. A good clean looking list which should quite rightly be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Blofeld. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's been a while since the last support. Does anyone else have any other comments? Thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite surprising that this Bollywood list hasn't attracted many reviewers. Perhaps, you should invite editors to comment here. —Vensatry (Ping) 10:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No other problems found. Great work!
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Birdienest.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Bollywood Dreamz. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I seriously looked for the last two hours, scrutinizing and analyzing the sources, the content and the validations, however, nada. Couldn't find anything that needs changing, tweaking etc. All around exceptional work. Congratulations and I would be happy to see this list being promoted. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton Indian Bio. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:17, 7 April 2014 (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/Featured_log/April_2014&oldid=602819852"