I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article has finally met the FL criteria for discographies. I nominated this article for a peer review few weeks ago and I managed to improve this article the best I could. Decodet (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I removed dead references, expanded the lead and the infobox, put a reference for each country in the charts table, and created a column for certifications on the singles table. Thanks for your comments. Decodet (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Provide the General references you used for the Songs and Albums names, like all music...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
An External link to her official site would be beneficial. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Corrected everything. Decodet (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikilink Certifications the first time in Studio Albums and don't in Singles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You should have the title column of all the tables the same width. I suggest making it wide enough to stretch "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" since its the longest title in the Tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You have some Overlinking with the Singles Charts like Billboard hot 100 and so on. delink repetitions...
Arrange the sections like the Infobox, so Extended plays comes before singles...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Other Work should be other appearances and should have a lead sentence or explanation of why it's not her album ...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't need the EU charting in other releases, since it never charted there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You should have ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country." for the Studio Album section and make it consistent with the rest of tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Type out acronyms the first time their mentioned in the references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Type the author and change the date format of "Fabolous Tops Billboard 200; Jackson's "Ones" Now 2009's Second-Best Seller" reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Have a consistent date format of the refence so "2007-02-14" should be "February 14, 2007"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Publisher of "Ashley Tisdale Chart Archive on Finnish Chart" should be added. I know its in the title...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Look through the references and add any missing authors dates or publishers.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Done with everything again. The AllMusic reference was already on the article as a US charts reference. Decodet (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Re-add the removed information like "(with the cast of High School Musical 3: Senior Year)" and so on... It would just go under the title of the songs...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead should be expanded maybe 2X with more information about who the heck this "Sharpay Evans" thing is and her other releases. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
""—" denotes the release did not chart." Sometimes it means it wasn't released. Make a distinction through a sign...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Done with everything. About the lead, I tried to expand it the best I could. Since Tisdale has not a longer career, there are not many notable and non-trivia informations to put on the lead. Thanks for your help! Decodet (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The image, what is she performing? Where? Please improve the alt text as if you were describing the image on the phone to someone.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
""—" denotes the release did not chart." It could also be not released...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I've put that part on the table several times but someone is removing it for some reason. Restored again.Decodet (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
In the history it says "When a released song does not enter any record charts, the reasons vary and listing all of the reasons in the tables is unnecessary since there are those releases have their own articles" so it's ok if you don't add not released..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You have inconsistencies in the dates of the references. Sometimes it's "2009-07-07" other times "September 27, 2009".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Zobbel.de isn't reliable and you misspelled the "de".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You should indicate when a link is a pdf through |format=pdf
The "Other appearances" section, could it be retitled to Soundtracks? Since they mostly are...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
She perfomed in some of the soundtracks as Sharpay Evans so please indicate this...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Everything correct. About Zobbel.de: that's the only reference I've found for her peak positions in the UK. I mean, she did not reach the Top 100 with any solo release so it's difficult to find a archive for her peak positions. Decodet (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Support After all the improvements and efforts the list is imo of Featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave the reliability of Zobbel.de for other reviewers to comment about.
What's the difference between singles and other appearances? Shouldn' "Kiss the Girl", "Headstrong" and "Overrated" be in the Singles table? The same goes for Sharpay Evans section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: "Headstrong" and "Overrated" are not official singles. The first one was released as a radio promo and the second as a digital promo. "Kiss the Girl" is a soundtrack single but it's not one of her main singles. Decodet (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please indicate this in the list somehow. Either through a note or an intro sentence... Why are the notes over sharpay Evans? Why not after it?
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If "He Said She Said" was never released, why is it included in the discography?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments: aCharts is a good archive for multiple charts according to WP:CHARTS. About "He Said She Said", just removed it from the videography section. Apparently someone added it yesterday and I did not note it. Decodet (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Decodet (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. Those you've done I've capped, those you haven't I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess you're talking about the music videos. Some of the videos have unknown directors. About references, I didn't find any, only to "It's Alright, It's OK". For example, MTV does not list the director for "He Said She Said" and "Not Like That"/"Suddenly" videos are not available on the site but the Scott Speer is confirmed as the director of the three videos in her documentary DVD. But I'm still trying to find reliable references. Decodet (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about all the comments I haven't hidden, for instance, the key which says releases that didn't chart. I don't see any proof anywhere of releases that didn't chart. Perhaps they weren't released at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I understood. I've put ""—" denotes albums that did not chart or were not released in that territory.". I guess it's better and more detailed. Her compilation appearances are freatured as 'Soundtracks' in the infobox and her videos are referenced. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"she recorded several tracks for Disney compilations albums" - What are Disney compilations albums?
"Her second studio album, Guilty Pleasure" - Add a comma here.
"in the US on July 28, 2009, the album debuted at" - Make it "in the US on July 28, 2009. The album debuted at".
"was first released in June 2009 and was released in the US on July 28, 2009" - Where was it released in June 2009?
"was first released in June 2009 in some European countries" - That seems a bit vague. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
But the album was released in June in UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Denmark, Irland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland and Hungary. I think it's an extensive list to cite all. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. If it's that many, then perhaps substitute "some" with "several". It sounds less lax. Goodraise 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I guess everything is solved? Decodet (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"Album details" would appear to be a better column descrition than "Album".
What about the same column in the extended play section's table?Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Because of these issues, I have to oppose this nomination at this time.Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments : About several sections being unreferenced, there are general references in the references list which proves albums release dates, compilation albums appearances and singles releases. About aCharts, it was replaced with reliable references. I worked out in most of your issues. Thanks for your review. Decodet (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Right... Forgot about the general references. My mistake. Goodraise 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Not all references provide a publisher. (Providing the name of the website/work is no substitute for providing the name of the publishing entity.) Goodraise 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Provided publishers for all references. Decodet (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There's still several missing a publisher or using an incorrect one. (For example: The publisher of ref. 24 should be Hung Medien and the publisher of ref. 32 should be Warner Bros.) Goodraise 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I noticed few with incorrect publishers. I corrected all I've noticited. Did I miss something? Thanks. Decodet (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There's still more to be done. I stopped fixing them after finding three. Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Found four and fixed them. I check every single reference and now I guess it's everything OK because I did not notice anything. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference 30 provides too little information.
I'm not used to use that kind of reference so what do you thing is missing? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the references give content descrpitions instead of their actual titles.
I didn't know we have to use their actual titles, sorry. But some of them are not specific. Example: Ref 25 title is "swedishcharts.com - Swedish Charts Portal". Is that what we really have to use? Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to use what is given in html between <title> and </title>, but giving a discription and placing it in quotation marks isn't acceptable. For that particular reference I'd use "Search for: Ashley Tisdale" or simply "Ashley Tisdale" (changing capitalization is fine by the way). Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the references as what I understood from what you've said. Are them really fixed or they still with mistakes? Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess WP:CHARTS says Chart Stats is a good archive for UK chart. Decodet (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's no answer to my question. (If you don't know how to respond, try reading this.) Goodraise 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I read the entire article. Chart Stats is the only site I've found for Tisdale's chart history as Sharpay Evans in UK charts. If you think this reference is not reliable enough to be used in featured article,, I can easily remove it as well the peak positions. I'm going to try to find another reference meanwhile. Decodet (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not that I think that it's not reliable. It's that I can't tell why it would be. I've just taken a closer look and found that the three references that give The Official Charts Company as publisher link to websites that don't appear to be published by that company. Please provide the correct publishers of those websites and (if not obvious from the publisher) explain what makes them reliable sources. Goodraise 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Those sites are archives of the UK chart published by The Official Chart Company, since the main site does not archive it. I guess they are reliable because they are the only archives I've found for UK chart. Also, I checked few featured discographies and all of them uses Chart-Stats as the UK archive. I know it's not a good reason but that made me think it's reliable. So, should I put 'Charts-Stats' and 'Zobbel' as the publishers? Decodet (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the publisher of the website named Zobble would be Tobias Zywietz. As for Chart Stats, I can't tell who is the publisher of that site. Anyways, let me make this clear: I'm not saying that those sites are unreliable sources. It's just that I can't give this nomination my support until I understand why these sources should be considered reliable. Goodraise 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Chart-Stats cites their sources for all archive. I guess it's fine to use that one but since it only archives the Top 100 (and most of Tisdale's entries are #100-#200), I tried to find an alternate archive and I found Zobbie. Also, I'm actually used to follow the full UK charts every week in some forums and these two sites show the same positions I've seen in forums. I'm not 100% if they are reliable or not, but I guess their pages about Tisdale chart history are at least reliable. Decodet (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Chartstats.com is clearly an amateur site, and is used as a convenience link. The problem is that the official site, www.theofficialcharts.com, doesn't provide reasonable archiving: it has slightly less than two years of data available, and, since it provides no search facility by artist, has no method of sourcing a discography column: each and every peak needs an independent link to substantiate it, and all of those links go dead in 100 weeks or less. In fact, it doesn't source peaks at all: a link to a song with a given number on a given week doesn't source the concept that it wasn't higher on a different week.
Because of that, I can't describe the use of chartstats.com as ideal, but it seems to be the best of a group of bad choices. None of the other archives are better in terms of having a recognized publisher, and the only archive that is published by a recognizable publisher isn't usable. In terms of being reliable in the traditional sense of "can be trusted to provide accurate information", I'm not aware of any problems with chartstats.com.
Zobbel has its own set of minor problems, primarily in that it mingles multiple album charts: the rankings for compilation albums can't be distinguished from the rankings for standard albums, and the user of the database has to remain aware of what chart the album qualified for before quoting the rank. I don't think that issue would affect this article. That chart confusion is the primary reason I've never added Zobbel to WP:GOODCHARTS, and no one else seems to have felt compelled to add it. I don't think it would be reasonable to deny this article FL status solely on the basis of using Zobbel. Decodet's reasons to use it are sound, and he doesn't have a feasible alternative that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This is way out of my normal area of editing, so please excuse if this is a stupid question, but are there no print sources listing this kind of information? In any case, not opposing is the best I can do for an article using sub-standard sources. Sorry. Goodraise 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think UK chart is published in any print source such as a magazine or newspaper. I think it's only published online. Decodet (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As you have said on that link, I guess it would be really difficult to find the number of the issue, the exact page, article, etc...and we would have to do that for each charted song (and some of them charted few years ago).Honestly, I don't think Charts-Stats can be easily replaced. I guess it's the best source for UK charts, since it's used in most discography articles. Decodet (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
After going over the current versions of WP:V and WP:RS, I find myself back at my original position. The websites do not seem to fit the definition of reliable sources as given by said pages. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Using decent sources is the least I expect of "our very best work". Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
At this time, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if 200 featured lists used the source, it would still fail WP:V and WP:RS. That's all that matters. Goodraise 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You obviously have the right to oppose, but I will point out that I think you are using the letter of the policy to defeat its spirit. Decodet could go through the effort of sourcing each of these chart positions to an individual physical copy of Music Week, and your argument would disappear, because Music Week is an unimpeachable source in respect to the British music industry. In the course of doing so, he would have taken references that are trivially simple to verify and converted them into references that can only be verified by people with access to physical copies of the magazine. Making information more difficult to verify isn't the point.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the information is impossible to verify using the sources given. Why should I (or any reader of this prospective featured list) trust this no-name source? My oppose is perfectly in line not only with the letter of our policy, but also with what I think is its spirit. Goodraise 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
sorry to butt-in. but does this mean you are going to go through every other feature list discography that uses it and nominate them for removal because they use it? because at this rate not a single discography will be able to include uk chart information Mister sparky (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, your bronze stars have nothing to fear from me. All I want is to improve the encyclopedia. (However, if a discography is up for FLRC anyways...) Goodraise 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Done: Switched Charts-Status.com and Zobbel references for physical references of ChartsPlus journal, which publishes weekly the full UK chart. The official site helped me with the issues numbers. Decodet (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Still missing two video directors.
That table is formatted incorrectly (missing one cell).
There are no known directors for "Kiss the Girl" and "Be Good to Me German version", so I've put "Unknown" in the director table. I did not find any reference for the 2006 featutred video. All I've found is the video itself in some not-reliable sources, such as Youtube. About the table, I did not find out what's incorrect with it. Decodet (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.