Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael W. Smith discography/archive1

Michael W. Smith discography

Michael W. Smith discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Michael W. Smith discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because my nomination for List of National Football League rushing champions has passed. My other nomination, [[1]], has unanimous support so far with all problems resolved so a second nomination should be acceptable.

This is the second in a series of discographies I have been working on for the most important contemporary Christian music artists. Michael W. Smith is one of the best-selling Christian artists of all time (the best-selling male artist, perhaps), with over four decades of fairly constant music output. He started as the keyboardist for Amy Grant, the best-selling Christian artist ever and the two are great friends to this day. Uniquely he's had RIAA certified albums in at least six different areas: Christian pop/rock, Christian worship music, mainstream pop/adult contemporary music (including "Place in This World" and "I Will Be Here For You", top 40 hits in the US and Canada), Christmas music, video albums, and an instrumental album written in the style of film scores. Making a discography for such a varied career required extensive research and tough decision making for the lede, but I think this article does a great job of balancing everything. If there's anything I'm iffy on its the exact prose in the lede, but I think a good discussion here will help hammer out any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "as well multiple holiday albums" => "as well as multiple holiday albums"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "and his 16 No. 1 albums" => "and his 16 number one albums"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I 2 (EYE) (1988) became Smith's first No. 1 album" - same again

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "peaked at nos. 6 and 60" => "peaked at numbers 6 and 60"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• "charting at No. 8 in Canada and No. 27 on the Hot 100" - you can probably guess what I am going to say here ;-)

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• ...and there's two more instances towards the end of the lead ;-)

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Lots more uses of "No." in the notes

• All of them are replaced now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• It looks really weird to have a heading of "Notes", immediately followed by a sub-heading of "Notes". I would have the Notes > Notes section as a L2 heading in its own right called Notes, and then below that I would have a References L2 section, with sub-headings of General (for the two books) and Specific (for the individual footnotes). Does that make sense?

• Yeah, that makes sense. Good solution. I think I’ve fixed that now? Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Walter Görlitz per his request. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: why are you advising to ignore the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO? It should be consistent in the article and it should not change over time once consistent. No. is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Probably I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of MOS:NUMERO. Having "No." in the middle of a prose sentence just looked wrong to me........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Having read the guideline, do you agree that it is acceptable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems so, yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible support: I don't see any issues apart from this possible one: Is the use of "rowspan" in the tables within WP:ACCESSIBILITY? This is an issue with numerous discographies (hundreds if not thousands) that has come to my attention today. I've opened up a discussion on the WP:ACCESSIBILITY talk page regarding "rowspan" in tables.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking at this, 3family6! I’m by no means on access so I’m kind of in the dark here, but what’s the potential issue here? If it’s an issue I can definitely change it. This article and all others should comply with access, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• We've had the accessibility issue discussed in ACCESS before, and I think the decision was to avoid its use, but most modern screen readers can deal with the complexity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• This was the discussion I found, Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Rowspan Was the discussion I was thinking of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Minor point, but it would be nice to spell out and link RIAA in the second paragraph. Box sets: In the note at the bottom of this table, was "releases that did chart" meant to be "releases that did not chart"? That's the usual terminology in such lists. Compilation albums: As contraction's like "didn't" go against the MoS in regular writing, let's try to avoid using them in notes like the one here. Speaking of style matters, the two general references could stand to be alphabetized. Another minor style issue: the Brothers book could use an en dash for the year range in its title. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) All issues should be fixed now, @Giants2008:. Toa Nidhiki05 00:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed. As for the accessibility issues, if the relevant MoS guidelines don't prohibit rowspans (they apparently do not), then I don't think promotion needs to be delayed over the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion at ACCESS advises against them but does not prohibit against them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look okay, except that reference 48 is missing an access date. The link-checker tool shows no issues, so there's just that one little problem to fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed the access date issue on 48. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that quickly. The source review has now been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The rowspans aren't my favorite, but apparently not an issue, so promoting. --PresN 06:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.