Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 10:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back again with another discography. This one is a complete list of official releases by British pop music singer Sophie Ellis-Bextor. -- Underneath-it-All 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes to the article based on your suggestions. Thanks for going through it. :) -- Underneath-it-All 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All references to fansites have now been removed. -- Underneath-it-All 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Circeus wrt fansite refs (also mvdbase and anything else fan/reader created). They've got to be replaced by something either official or at least some publication that has a paid editor. Also, the lead needs a lot of work in the copy-edit and WP:V departments. For example (not exhausive):
    • The word "have" in the second sentence.
    • A "wide array of singles". Hmm? I count nine; one yet to be released; and one where she just supplies vocals (uncredited). Surely this last one (Circles) doesn't really count as a SEB single. Why not include the "theaudience" album/singles?
    • The album data should contain sales figures for the second album, to back up what the lead says (commercial failure).
    • Similarly, the third album "was a worldwide success" needs evidence. I'd argue that "worldwide" is a pretty strong claim that few artists could claim to achieve. There's no US data.
    • The bullet points at the end of the lead should just be prose, with words rather than digits for the numbers.
    • The Misc and DVD sections are unsourced.
    • The Notes about the DVD seem a bit obvious. -- Colin°Talk 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed references that link to fansites. I have, however, kept the link to mvdbase because it has been used in various featured articles such as "Hollaback Girl". I have moved the Cicles single to the miscellaneous section. -- Underneath-it-All 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree with "The album data should contain sales figures for the second album, to back up what the lead says (commercial failure)." In discography articles, that column is consistently intended for certification-related sales. details about the album's failure can be found in its article.
      • Also, the bullet point is based on what is in the already featured Goldfrapp discography, I was the one to actually suggest it based on similar summaries in the NFL draft FLs.
      • Circeus
        • I don't know anything about the distinction between certification-related sales and actual sales. Why is the table missing this data for an album that is nearly four years old? The album article contains one source: a forum.
          • The album has not be certified by the BPI or any other charts company. This means it sold less than 60,000 copies in the UK. I cannot add sales or certification data for Shoot From the Hip because none has been released. There is speculation on fansites, but nothing from her record label or the BPI. -- Underneath-it-All 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The NFL summaries are big enough to look like a table. IMO the short bullet list doesn't look great. A more professional format would be simply to say that "Since 2000 Sophie Ellis-Bextor has released three studio albums, ten singles, eleven music videos and one DVD." The "Since ..." format is a little unusual and fragile. WP tends to go for the "As of June 2007, ..." for information that dates quickly.
        • BTW: I don't care for FL comparisons (consider each list on its own merits) and this is a particularly weak one: the Goldfrapp discography appears to have been promoted with only 3 support (unless MarcK added his implicitly). Colin°Talk 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certification It means these sales are only given if some Silver/gold/whatever or similar certification was reached, which is not the case here.
          • FL comparisons I'm not advocating precedent, but generally people agree that two articles about he similar topic should be somewhat similar in structure. Most discography articles follow a format quite similar to this one (minus the extra suggestions from the FLCs). I would find it very odd if the two lists had completely different formats. Circeus 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The refs have improved, as has some of the text issues. I'd still prefer if you can find an alternative to mvdbase. That another FA got away with weak sourcing is not an excuse to repeat the misdemeanour. Colin°Talk 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You may want to replace the source for the 1.5 million sales with this one from NME. Other than that, it looks good. ShadowHalo 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Almost forgot to. Circeus 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Sophie_Ellis-Bextor_discography&oldid=143271049"