Wikipedia:Peer review/List of best-selling music artists/archive2
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because another editor, User:Harout72, and myself feel it is close to being nominated to be a featured list. We would like any advise and suggestions for improving the article further before nominating it for WP:FLC.
- Enrique Iglesias sales figures according to this list is 55 million and his page says 100 million so if you have covered only English versions of his songs then it is not mentioned. By the way A. R. Rahman started his music career in 1980. Look into this and best of luck for FL.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since we have come up with a system which requires the sales figures to be supported by certain percentage of certified sales to avoid inflates sales figures (see the requirements posted within the 2nd box from above here), the 55 million for Iglesias is all we can use based on his available certified sales. As for A. R. Rahman, he and some others have not been added to the list due to not having any or not enough certified sales. At the top of the list, his name is included among those others who have not been included.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have clarified percentage requirements. All artists need at least 15% certified sales including A. R. Rahman, not just artists before 1975 which I believe you were referring to Vyom. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- yeah thats what I was referring to. By the way reference provided on Enrique Iglesias page isn't that reliable. So your figure is more accurate.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't start "... lists...", we don't do that at WP:FLC any more.
- Any pictures to brighten this mammoth list up with?
- Tool is showing some dubious links.
- Tables will need to comply with WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for more help on that, but it includes using row and col scopes for screen readers.
- Added scope="col" no sure what else needs doing here.
- Who's decision was "at least 15% certified sales"? Seems somewhat arbitrary to me.
- " figures of total certified sales within" no need for this bold.
- For the abbreviations used in total certified sales, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style about whether we should really use the abbreviation of the certifying body rather than the country of the organisation.
- Should we leave them as is for now as there doesn't seem to be a final decision yet?
- " on Retail Value each" is there a reason why Retail Value is capitalised and in italics?
- Claimed sales column sorts oddly for me, i.e. 1 billion, then some 300 m, then 750 m....
- The sales figures being published by news organizations are not consistent. We've had numerous unproductive deputes over using the sales figures (often the lowest ones) that are close to certified sales. Therefore, we decided to include those that are supported by the available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wondering if it's best to split this into artists who have sold more than 100 million units and the rest, that way you have more manageable lists, and a title which clearly defines the inclusion criteria.
- In my honest opinion, even if we split it, we would still have too many artists on each split page. We have some 56 artists in the top five tables combined, and some 84 artists in the bottom three tables combined. I mean it would still require a lot of up/down scrolling.
- Where are the release years and active periods cited?
- I've provided sources for the columns of Period active and Release-year of first charted record.
- Do you make it clear somewhere that the "claimed" sales is the original order of the tables?
- Yes, at the top: The artists in the following tables are listed with both their claimed and certified sales figures and are ranked in descending order, with the highest claimed sales at the top. Artists with the same claimed sales are then ranked by certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't mix date formats in the refs (see ref 184 for instance).
- Ensure all refs are full formatted (see refs 92, 197 for instance).
- Ensure foreign language refs use the
- Be consistent with defining something as a work or a publisher and how they're written out (e.g. BBC News, see refs 105, 200, 205, 208 - all different).
- Accessdates would be nice too.
- Comment One major issue is the genre column. First, you use genres incosistently, eg sometimes "Hard Rock", sometimes "Hard rock"; and second, they are unsourced, so it could be defined as original research. For example, I could say Nat King Cole did Tradition Pop music and Jump Blues (what is actually true). Or Black Sabbath also did Progressive rock, stoner rock and hard rock.♫GoP♫TCN 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)