Template:Did you know nominations/Latin Rhythm Albums
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Latin Rhythm Albums
[edit]... that Ivy Queen is the only female artist to rank on the Billboard Latin Rhythm Albums chart?
- Reviewed: Coming Soon.
- Comment: The reference used requires a subscription. I think a WP:AGF should be used here. Thanks.
Created/expanded by DivaKnockouts (talk). Self nominated at 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
AGF on the sub only source, I found a few others which say more or less the same thing. Good to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding icon that shows that this is not ready for promotion (initially a QPQ issue, but there are more problems beyond that). I would have also preferred a more comprehensive review that says what was checked; to my eyes, some of the sentences sourced to FN3 are too closely paraphrased for comfort. I also wonder about the "original mythology and natural settings" phrase, which is not supported by the source and also unencyclopedic in tone. Unless the chart ended in spring 2011, the hook is not adequately supported, since the source be used is dated April 23, 2011. There are over two years of charts since then: 100+ chances for another female artist to chart. There needs to be more current sourcing of Ivy Queen still being the only female to have an album chart for this hook to be feasible. Finally, the article needs a copyedit: there's too much back and forth between present and past tense, and some of the wording and punctuation is incorrect and confusing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, the article has gone through a full copy-edit and I believe I have addressed your issues with the prose. I'll perform another copy-edit, just in case. Blue, you were actually right, a second female artist performed on the chart in 2012. I had assumed that Queen was the only female artist to chart because the source said so and that the chart was active for six years already. Thanks for pointing that out. — DivaKnockouts 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is the ALT I propose:
- ... that Ivy Queen is the only female artist to rank a number-one album on the Billboard Latin Rhythm Albums chart?
- Your sourcing does not support the new hook. It's clear that Ivy Queen does have at least one chart-topping album; source 8 does confirm that. But that she's the only female artist? That is not supported here. What you need is an independent source that says so in an article somewhere. The two number-one and five top-ten sentence that follows source 8 also needs to be sourced: it's a very strong claim. (If it's from source 17 or 25—which use the same link—I can't get it to show me that particular chart or those five top tens—it isn't clear whether the two number ones included in the five top tens. Are you sure that's the right source?) Finally, I think the "one of the few female artists to rank in the top ten of the Latin Rhythm Airplay chart" statement is questionable, at least in terms of the list, given that the source is from March 2007, over six years old. A lot can change in six years, especially if someone not on that list made number two on the albums chart last year—though even there, source 10 does not link to her album's appearance at number two: she isn't there at the link provided. I'm afraid there's still considerable work to be done yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been over a week since the nominator was notified of continuing significant issues with the article, and over three weeks since a reminder was given that the QPQ requirement had not been fulfilled; it remains unfulfilled today. Given the inaction, I am marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
