Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Midnight Oil 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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [1].

Midnight Oil discography

[edit]
Toolbox

I am nominating this list because i believe it meets all FL criteria and also the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG. Myself and two other editors have been working on the list, so i felt there was no need for a peer review. Thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • Midnight Oil began under the name Farm in 1972, establishing their own record label Powderworks in 1977 and releasing their debut self-titled album, Midnight Oil, in 1978 along with their first single "Run by Night". - 1)comma before and after the record label name. 2)Full stop needed after 1997. Start the next sentence with "They released"
done
  • On top of number one in Australia, Diesel and Dust peaked at number 20 in the UK, was certified platinum in the US and three times platinum in Canada. - 1)Reword the beginning to "In addition to number one in..." 2)replace the comma with a semi colon and start the next part of the sentence with "it was" 3)It should be made aware that this UK is the chart and not the country itself
done
  • Midnight Oil followed up the success of Diesel and Dust with Blue Sky Mining in 1990. The band's seventh studio album was their first and only to peak in the top 20 of the Billboard 200. - it should be made aware the it was their seventh album in the first sentence not in the second one
done
  • The second single "Forgotten Years", also charted at number one on the Modern Rock chart. - remove the comma
done
  • Their last Australian number one studio album came in the form of Earth and Sun and Moon, bringing another three top ten singles on the US Modern Rock charts. - came in the form is awkwardly worded, how about "Their last Australian number one studio album was.."
done
  • Over the next decade Midnight Oil released a further three studio albums which all registered top ten chartings in Australia, but failed to live up to the success of their earlier efforts. - 1) comma after decade 2)reword to ..."Midnight Oil released three further studio albums".. 3)comma before which 4)add "on the" before top ten 5)chartings should just be "charts"
done
  • In 1997 they released the greatest hits album 20,000 Watt R.S.L., which has since gone on to achieve four times platinum sales in Australia. - 1)comma after 1997 2)remove times
done. Didn't remove times, it doesn't make sense saying: on to achieve four platinum sales in Australia? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be made aware earlier in the lead or in the intro sentence that they area "former" band.
done. Let me know if the former is in the wrong place, looks fine to me. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first instances of US and UK should be spelled out.
done. Not sure i needed to change UK from the wikilink, but anyway. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discography
  • Whats verifying the video albums?
They are all listed on Discogs and/or Allmusic in external links, does that suffice or should i search for direct references to put in line with the listing? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes section, they don't make sense, they need to be reworded into complete fragments.
done
Same story as the video albums. Although i've never seen the need to prove a releases existence. Thanks for your comments. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
No worries, will do from now on. All references added. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All empty entries in all tables should have a centered aligned emdash (the longer dash) [an empty space is really unappealing]. The refs that you added to the video albums should be on the name of the video album, not in random areas of the stats for the album.--TRUCO 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reluctantly done the reference move (titles really shouldn't have references along side them?). However, we were previously asked by drew to remove the emdashes and leave blank spaces ("I would also say the dash in those columns is unnecessary, as is the note in the footer of each column. Most FL discogs just leave those cells blank."). k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be because it shows that the ref is verifying everything of that album. That's odd, it seems really unappealing, but I'll let it go this time.--TRUCO 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
  • Their fourth album (1982) was their first to reach the top 10; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 peaked at number three in Australia. - the (1982) should go after the album name not after fourth album
Done
  • The album's first single "Power and the Passion", was their first top ten single in Australia, at number eight. - add comma before the single's name
Done
  • Instances of US should be U.S., US is not an official accepted acronym of the United States
Was this striked out on purpose?
Yeah it was, it was a wrong comment.--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances of number-one shouldn't have a dash.
Done contrary to another reviewer's opinion.
Yeah because consistency is needed, like when you say it was number 20 not "number-20"--TRUCO 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's verifying the 2004 video album?
Reference 26: [2]
Done k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose very good work overall, but there's a few issues that keep me from supporting. The first comment is the main one, while the others are just less-important minor stuff I noticed in no particular order.

  • "The name of the Director for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." I'm glad to see that you're honest about it, but without this information the list is incomplete. The information exists out there, it's just a matter of finding it.
Have undertaken thorough searches of most databases but have been unable to locate detials of the directors of early music videos.Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've gone through album liner notes, searched google endlessly, Midnight Oil fan club and official sites, of course MVDbase, we've basically extended to all resources i know of. Unless there is some out of print Midnight Oil biography book which lists them, i doubt they've been published. What do you suppose we do if this list passes in all aspects apart from some superfluous information about some irrelevant director? (ps. Other discographies have managed to pass? 1, 2, 3? Including this Powderfinger, which was never fixed. I don't suppose we'd be removing FL from these if they were reassessed?) k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one agree that the music video directors are a bit unnecessary (much like I disapproved of the producers being listed). But that said, the standard seems to be to include them. A featured list is expected to be complete, so it's not okay to just include the information that is convenient/easy to include. Also, as standards are improved, older articles like the Powderfinger list you mentioned are bound to seem a little lax in many respects. Many older discogs need to be updated badly, but this is a step I've been hesitant to undertake until MOS:DISCOG becomes official, and not just a guideline. That does not excuse newer articles from our newer standards, however. Honestly, this seems like an issue beyond the scope of this one FLC, so discussing the pros and cons of including directors might be better done at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, and not here. If you'd like to undertake that discussion there, I'd be happy to chime in there. However, since the consensus right now seems to be to include them, I have to stick with my oppose until it is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added details of all Directors that I am able to locate 32 out of 35 videos. Am unable to still find any details for the outstanding videos. Given that many other video tables in other FLs are incomplete (as you state at least we are being honest) are you willing to change your position on this matter? Dan arndt (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction 34 out of 35 videos. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still not 100% there. Incomplete is still incomplete. But that said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and at least retract my oppose. Otherwise it's a well-done discography; I just don't think it's FL quality until it's complete/finished/comprehensive, based on the current standards. Drewcifer (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first series of year columns are 35px, but the singles are not.
done
  • The certification column headings need only be wikilinked in the first table. I would also say the dash in those columns is unnecessary, as is the note in the footer of each column. Most FL discogs just leave those cells blank.
done dash removed from column & not corrected, done Certification links
  • "Released on 5 May 1992" is inconsistent with other FL discogs and the label and formats of each release as well. I'd recommend "Released: 5 May 1992".
done
  • The producers of the albums are unnecessary details, and better left for the album articles themselves.
done producers details deleted
  • As for labels, some releases denote multiple labels. My suggestions is just to go with the original, home-country label, since listing every label could be a slippery slope, given re-releases, releases on various formats, and releases in various territories.
done multiple release details deleted
done
  • For multiple releases in the same year, use rowspan="#" for the year columns.
done
Discogs is only used as a second reference for music videos, so i can remove that no worries. Amazon refs replaced, one with Allmusic which should be fine and the other by Xponentialmusic, which looks to be the label which have released the CD. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Contrary to what you said, the article would have benefited from a peer review. Problems with prose and sourcing:

I really could not be bothered posting something on 5 different Wikiprojects just to get 2 replies in a peer review, i don't spend all day on here like some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiac (talk • contribs) 3 February 2009 (20:02 UTC)
But that doesn't mean come here unprepared and put the burden on the reviewers. This FLC has turned into something of a peer review. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, if it is such a burden for you, maybe you should take a break. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a burden for me, I was just saying. Anyway, disregard that comment, I was just blowing off steam, no harm intended. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consists of 11 studio albums, 39 singles, two EPs, four video albums, three live albums and two compilation albums." Comparable quantities should be writtent the same way, either all numerals or all in words.
Done. I'm sure this should be explicitly stated in the discog style sheet, a lot of lists have it wrong, thanks for the pickup
Good idea. Going over there right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not necessary to put it there. MOS:NUM says it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their first three albums all charted" Done
  • "Australian Kent Music Report, with Head Injuries being certified gold and Place without a Postcard platinum, in Australia." Unclear; were both certified in Australia? Try: "Australian Kent Music Report; in Australia, Head Injuries was certified gold and Place without a Postcard was certified platinum." Notice what I linked "Australia" to. Done
  • "However, it wasn't until their fourth album in 1982 that they reached the top 10" Much too wordy, try: "Their fourth album (1982) was the first to the top 10"
Done, might want to check this one, your wording didn't really work either
Oops. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It also brought their first feature on the United States charts" Huh?
Huh? Replaced feature with appearance
Ah. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "number one album"-->number-one album Done
  • "highest charting Australian "-->highest-charting Australian Done
  • "which came in at number one"-->which charted at number one Done
  • "number one studio album"-->number-one studio album
Done. There was also a few more there that i've changed
  • "Over the next decade"-->In the next decade Done
  • "which all registered on"-->all of which registered on Done
  • "but failed to live up to the success of their earlier efforts" In what way?
In the way that is explained later in the tables, this is just an introduction to the list, not a novel. The trailing off album peaks, the lack of certifications, one single charted in their last 6 years as a band. Do i have to somehow explain this in an already extensive lead?
  • "In 1997, they released"-->In 1997, the band released Done
  • "which has since gone on to achieve four times platinum"-->which has since achieved four times platinum Done
  • "In 2002 lead vocalist Peter Garrett announced his decision to leave Midnight Oil, concluding the band's 30 year career." Comma after "2002", hyphenate "30 year". Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Let me start off by saying; some of these are a rediculous waste of time. Have you never reviewed a discography before? A little research yourself would have helped, and saved me the bother.
Take a look here and I think you can tell I have reviewed some. I don't have all the time in the world to examine every source thoroughly, I have to make educated guesses sometimes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well nevertheless thankyou for the review. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is IMBd used?
IMDb is used to verify the existence of the Video albums.
Trusted Australian music website. Used here and here
Removed, information is stated in the other official ARIA reference.
Official website of the release. All it is saying is that the song existed on the album? Surely this verifies the material justifiably
Can this DeadHeart link be replaced by a link from a preview of the book on Google books?
Can a reader find the info from that preview? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of U2 awards, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, Powderfinger discography, Hilary Duff discography, Metallica discography, Soundgarden discography, Delta Goodrem discography and Paul Kelly discography. Need i say more?
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles got through under lesser scrutiny doesn't set a unbreakable precidence. The fact that these things slip through is just a result of FL and similar processes being imperfect and prone to human error. If guidelines, community consensus, or Wikipedia policy says it should be done a certain way, then we should go by that and nothing else. Obviously this is not an issue with just this one unreliable source, but with many of the arguments you've made so far. Drewcifer (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much aware that that is not a good basis of any argument, however i would tend to assume if it has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists, then it has been reviewed before. Nevertheless, i have removed MVDbase, as the same information was cross-referenced in the album liner notes. Good day to you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to official ARIA website
Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Useful resources:
Removed and replaced
Unnecessarily, IMO, the Australian Government recognises Australian Rock Database here. That makes it reliable.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Front page of site states: Ed.Nimmervoll's in-depth, informed up-to-date profiles on Australia's finest (Ed Nimmervoll)
So how does that make it reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the site states that a highly notable and reliable Australian musical journalist, wrote the article. How else am i meant to prove this? If there's a problem, take 2 minutes to explain and i'll do my best to help. Isn't that what wikipedia is about, helping each other, working together? Not scrutinising and burdening others who are voluntarily contributing. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. What I mean is, just because the site states that he is notable or reliable does not automatically make him so. Per the guideline on self-published sources, you have to prove that they are reliable. Have they written any well-regarded publications or has a reputable third-party institution recognized them as an expert in this area? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, no harm done. I wasnt indicating the site had said that, just that it stated he had written the article, badly worded on my part. Moving on, Nimmervoll has edited GO SET magazine (Aussie charts and so forth) and was founding editor of JUKE magazine (the ABC reports). He has also had articles published by the ABC and AllMusic (Googled it because there's an absolute shitload of them). A few more publications. I think the AllMusic link should be sufficient - if his work there isn't reliable then we have a big problem with a lot of pages on WP!! Thanks for being patient. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. I will return later for a final checkover. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed
Removed. Good old AllMusic
Partial replies (hopefully find some more useless time to waste later) by k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "so-and-so" source was used on another FL doesn't prove anything. It just shows that nobody checked the sources or b) nobody questioned that particular source. We need to know what kind of fact checking those sources do. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Should promotional music videos be included in the list? Also, how would i go about verifying the likes of Undercover as reliable? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike through reviewer's comments. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only place i ever striked through your comments was where the information had been removed, thus making it irrelevant. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, fail with the criteria numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, in WP:FL? Cannibaloki 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibaloki, could you provide specific examples of how this article fails those criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabaloki, Dobomb87?--Cannibaloki 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to cancel my comment.--Cannibaloki 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is going to need another complete revision since Cannibaloki thought it necessary to chop and change the entire lead. I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process. Every reviewer has different opinions, there's no clarity, you guys have your own opinions (which is alright), just that something that could be completely ambiguous to one person - another comes along and it's suddenly a massive problem. There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me, although I haven't studied the history to see if you've reverted back. Note that English is not Cannibaloki's first language, but either way, it's a Wiki, open for anyone to edit. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My earlier issues have been addressed, but in light of the recent major revisions and the oppose from Drewcifer, I will not support yet. Has someone contacted Drewcifer? I will try to copy-edit the lead some in the next two days. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message has been left on Drewcifer's talk page, seeking his position in relation to the assessment. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am very sorry to hear that you are disillusioned with the FLC process. Nevertheless, the fact that you have treated FLC like some sort of Peer review may have something to do with it. So you can't be bothered to post it there;[3] what if we couldn't be bothered to review it? It shows a lack of respect for the people who spend their time here. The fact that this has had so many comments, some of which you feel are conflicting (I don't see too many conflicting comments), shows to me at least that it wasn't FL ready when it was nominated. Now you seem to be complaining that people have actually taken the time to give it an extensive review, but you don't like that because it's still too much bother.[4]

With regards to that second quote, all articles should be verified through reliable sources. That is especially true for Featured content. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb is questioning the reliability of the sources to make sure they meet this policy. The onus is on the nominator to make sure or prove that they do, and correct them if they do not -- not the reviewer.

We are aware that some lists do not meet current standards. Last summer the WP:Featured list criteria were updated, and not all the Featured lists have gone through WP:FLRC yet. Some of the discogs you have referenced were promoted before the criteria was updated. Aside from anything else, consensus (and standards) can change, so something that was deemed okay three months ago may not be okay today. For example, just because http://www.mvdbase.com "has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists", this may have been before WP:RS deemed it unreliable. I certainally haven't seen it used in recent Featured discogs.

As for other FLC ettiquette, per Template:FLC-instructions which is transcluded at WP:FLC (and WP:TPG), please do not strike out comments, even if you feel they have been addressed. You may say "done", "not done", etc instead. Leave it for the reviewer to strike, cap, or otherwise state that his concern has been addressed to his satisfaction.

  • Do you have full dates for the first 6 album releases?
Nope
In reference to the previous three points - Wikipedia should not be used as a source, even for these, people make that shit up all the time. Nevertheless, those are labels for the USA, I originally had multiple labels added, which was deemed unnecessary and they were removed. The home country of Australia's release details were used as far as i am aware.
Thank you. I was not aware that we couldn't use WP as a source. I just thought the inconsistency was odd. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 February, 2002" MOS:NUM states that Wikipedia doesn't put commas between months and years
Fixed

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing stopping them from giving it an oppose straight away and sending me off to peer review, nothing. They've had the courtesy to FL review it for me and i thank them for that. As for your comments, they were unjust. Dabomb's issues were resolved a week ago. My issues with his issues were resolved 20 mins after i wrote them. No need for the lecture. MVDbase was removed. I was not aware that striking was illegal in these parts, my bad. My problem quoted above, was the fact that this all runs by so much personal opinion. Cannibiloki (spelling?) came in an did his own edits, i know he is a reviewer himself and am not pointing any blame on him - the edits contradicted the instructions of the other reviewers (eg. It was made quite clear that self-titled debut album should not be linked, but instead have , Midnight Oil, follow it). And in effect we have come back to square one with the lead, after 2 (3?) reviewers had no problems with it. Now i am sorry this review has stalled, but i have been making sure my house does not burn down in these bushfires. Thank you. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't lecturing, I was trying to explain how the FLC process works because a day earlier you said I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process... There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. I went through the nomination to see what had been happening, and responded. Very sorry to hear about your house and the fires in your country. I know what that's like; I live in Southern California. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the toolbox, there is still one disambiguation link left. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (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/Midnight_Oil_discography/archive1&oldid=1145840259"