Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/K-Ci & JoJo discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 16:06, 11 December 2011 [1].

K-Ci & JoJo discography

[edit]

K-Ci & JoJo discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. This article has been researched a lot and finished an extensive peer review a month ago. Michael Jester (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking very good. Just a few thoughts:
  • "number-two Billboard song," Perhaps not automatically clear what this means?
  • "Emotional (2002), was" Lose the comma?
  • Are the compilation albums worth redlinking? Don't be scared of redlinks- if a topic is worthy of an article, link whether there is an article or not. (If they aren't worth an article, a redirect here wouldn't be a bad thing.) Same's true of the singles.
  • Some more links in the footnotes wouldn't go amiss- Allmusic, Billboard, etc., but not the biggest deal. Also, I'd link in all footnotes or none- I note that you've linked Vevo only once. Consistency is good, and remember that each ref could well be viewed individually.
    • I tried to link things the first time only per Wikipedia:Overlink#Repeated_links
      • That MoS page seems to be contrary to common practice and common sense. It seems to be regular practice at FAC and GAC to link everything in every reference; this makes sense, as each reference could be viewed individually- someone checking the references may not have (almost certainly hasn't?) checked all the other references. In addition, the overwhelming message of our guidelines on citing sources is that consistency is a good thing- it doesn't matter too much how you do it, as long as it's consistent. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 17- "Retrieved September 19, 2-11."
  • For refs 23 and 24, could you perhaps have an intro line, as you do with 26 and 29?
  • Very small point- in some places, you combine multiple refs into a single footnote, in others, you use multiple separate footnotes for the same point. I'd still be happy to support without this being fixed.
    • It would be more difficult (or at least I think it would be) to reference in the lead if I combined certain footnotes.

Again, nice work. I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these very small issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I have replied to all of them.
—Michael Jester (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's looking great. I'm gonna hold off my support for now, to see if anyone else raises any valid concerns, but I strongly suspect that I will be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

I appreciate your comments and I believe I have addressed them all.
—Michael Jester (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not much to pick at, but I did find a few things:

  • LEDE: In "Love Always peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[2] and number two on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums[2]", it's proper to speak of the Billboard 200, but I would either leave out the "the" before Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, or add the word "chart" after it.
  • LEDE: I happen to know what the ARIA charts are, but really only because I fiddle with music articles on Wikipedia a lot. I suggest you change "ARIA" to "Australian", parallel to Swiss, Canadian, UK, etc. (Keep link to ARIA.)
  • LEDE: The above comments for the 1st paragraph apply for the 2nd graph, too.
  • LEDE: In "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two on the Hot 100", you could provide a link for Hot 100. Also, perhaps slip in a reference to the U.S., as, e.g., "including "Tell Me It's Real", which peaked at number two in the US on the Billboard Hot 100."
    • Done
  • LEDE: I would hyphenate "three times platinum" to "three-times-platinum".
    • Should this be done? I don't think I've seen it hyphenated like that before (I may be wrong though). Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I feel confident about this (although I do see it without hyphens more often than not on WP). You could go with "triple-platinum" here, if that makes it easier to swallow. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. However, can you explain why? I'm not that good when it comes to hyphenating words. Michael Jester (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My reasoning is that three-times-platinum is one whole term, and it's jarring to read (exaggerating now to explain) "...it was certified three. Times. Platinum." You have to go back a couple of times to see that it wasn't certified three like reaching a peak of three, but was certified three times. Well, that sounds good, What certification did it repeatedly receive, three times? Ah, platinum! Oh, I see, it was certified only once, but at the three-times-platinum level.
I know it seems like I'm stretching the point here (and I realize many normal humanoids don't care either way), but those little hyphens make a difference to those sensitive to the details. (And BTW, a triple-platinum record might actually get certified three separate times in the platinum area [after getting a gold cert, presumably], so it may seem that my example of repeated certs up there matches life pretty closely, but sometimes the certs come all on one day, and the platinum and double-platinum are just formalities to get to the actual award level at certification time.)
Adverbs (ending in -ly) don't usually get hyphenated to the words they're modifying (we use "a quickly running man" rather than "a quickly-running man"), but the "triple" or "three-times" here are adjectives modifying the "platinum", so we still hyphenate. There does appear to be a slow trend away from hyphenating borderline cases, though. Some spell-checkers tend to suggest dehyphenating some words. I agree it can be tricky. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That was a very good explanation. I wasn't expecting that lol. Thank you for explaining it in depth. I understand it more now. Michael Jester (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the two albums tables, the Title columns seen unnecessarily narrow (8em). They don't have to be as wide as on the singles tables (16em), but how about bumping them up to 12 em for those two tables?
  • Refs: You've used names for the respective works like "Australian Charts Portal", "Dutch Charts Portal", etc., but it seems these aren't part of the actual sources. These shouldn't be made up, but should reflect actual identifiers from the sites themselves. That'd be "Australian-charts.com", "Dutchcharts.nl", etc. There are several of these.
  • Refs 16 and 22 and 2 and possibly others: The titles here are like "Australian single certifications", but the actual pages provides a clearer title like "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 1999 Singles". Again, we oughn't make things up, even if our descriptions are better summaries than what some dopey webmaster put up there.
  • For the Swiss sources, look at using swisscharts.com instead of hitparade.ch. The swisscharts.com is the English-version of the same site, even if you'll see a few German-language graphics or texts leak over into the English one. With swisscharts.com I think you can remove the language=German parameter. (Make sure the data still verifies, though.)

That's all I'm seeing right now. Looks very nice, otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I believe have addressed them. If you find any more, let me know.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't know what to say here. Their site seems to use exclusively AllMusic in text, but their so-stylish graphics are either allmusic or ALLMUSIC. I don't usually go out of my way to capitalize lowercase deliberately terms in refs just because they follow a period; "ITunes" just looks wrong (and seems to be not required by MOS, so it's a poor example). But if we are going to capitalize (and I think we should) then why not in keeping with AllMusic's apparent naming convention?
Those are my rambling thoughts, for what they're worth. Ultimately we come to the CamelCase bit under MOS:TM#General rules: it's a judgment call. So use your best judgment; it's editor's choice! (I won't oppose because of this one thing.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then Allmusic it'll stay. Michael Jester (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose too many little niggles for me at the moment.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Rambling Man for your comments. I have addressed some of them, and I will finish after I get home from work.
—Michael Jester (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe every comment has been addressed.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (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/K-Ci_%26_JoJo_discography/archive1&oldid=1138480696"