Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Delta Goodrem discography
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 23:23, 18 May 2008.
[edit] Delta Goodrem discography
I've been working on this article for quite some time now. I think it meets WP:WIAFL criteria. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 07:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks great! Drewcifer (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Comments Looks very nice. A few small suggestions:
-
- Numbers under ten should be spelled out, above ten should be numerical. (eleven=11)
- It would be good to mention when she joined the cast of Neighbors (what year), so we can have a clearer understanding of the chronology of events.
- "The album portrayed Goodrem as a piano-based singer-songwriter, comprising mostly of light pop ballads, and made her one of Australia's highest selling female recording artists, spending 29 weeks at #1,[1] selling over a million copies in Australia and another 1.5 million internationally.[2]" is a problematic sentence for a few reasons. It's too long, is OR (what the album portrayed her as), and is weird gramatically towards the end.
- Sydney Morning Herald should be italicized in the citations. Drewcifer (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- The lead sentence is not a complete sentence.
- "Australian based" should be hyphenated, I believe.
- I'm not sure it's really relevant in the lead to mention the day Innocent Eyes was released. The year should suffice.
- The chart widths are unnecessarily wide. 30px would suffice, maybe even less. I bring this minor point up for two reasons: 1) the tables are big enough so that on low-resolution monitors it starts to get a little squished, and 2) it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table, so space is at a premium there.
- To restate the above: it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table. The chart columns could be smaller, as could the album column and title column. Having a few of the rows forced into a line break isn't the end of the world, and it would make the certifications clearer and easier to read.
- I'm not sure why Music videos is a subsection of singles (same with B-sides and remixes). They're not necessarily the same thing. Also, the notes column is really big. Same thing with the notes column in Other appearances.
- I've gotten the impression lately that the consensus is growing to not include B-sides in discographies, the logic being that this is a discography, not a songography. I would argue the same thing for Remixes (at least the way this article interprets it, as remixes that other people have done).
- Um.... the copyedit/grammatical stuff I've addressed in this article. However, there are certain issues that you raised that I want to discuss and the reason why it is there.
- Firstly, certifications can be a separate table, it doesn't necessarily have to be in the singles table. As for the tables of music videos, B-sides and remixes, these are part of the singles section as they all relate to the singles in a certain way.
- Music videos are videos of the singles. B-sides are the extra songs released along with the single. Remixes, are remixes of singles that are released with the actual single itself and/or in compilation albums, other albums, etc. Technially, isn't a discography meant to highlight all the songs, albums, DVDs and digital singles released by that particular artist, directly or indirectly? So it would be ok to include the B-sides and remixes into this article as well.
- Tell me what you think. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously there's no rule that says there can't be a separate certification, but the reason I suggested merging the two tables is pretty simple: first, with a few column width tweaks I think there's room for it, so why not? Second, the Studio albums table already does this, so the article goes against the convention it already set for itself. Third, the information doesn't necessitate a separate table: the two left columns are exactly the same as the main singles table, simply because it's singles that get certified.
- As for the B-sides, I would argue that B-sides don't actually represent separate releases (which a discography is intended to list): by definition, they are additional tracks attached to singles. For the same reason we don't include track listings of the albums the same would hold true for B-sides, since they basically are the track listing of the single. The same would hold true for remixes of the artist's songs by other bands. If a band made a remix and it was released on one of her releases already mentioned, then we're in track-listing territory again. If someone else made a remix and put it on their release, that still wouldn't apply since it's not Delta Goodrem's release we're talking about. Drewcifer (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, so everything looks to be in ship-shape. I've left the last thing to take care of un-hidden. Two more things I've noticed: why does the lead say 14 singles when the infobox and the singles table says 18? Also, it would be nice if the chart columns were the same width between tables. Drewcifer (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Caption in infobox is a fragment so remove the full stop.
- Four paragraphs in the lead is excessive for an article of this length, consider merging.
- You have ref's 1 and 2 in the lead but there are other claims which go uncited. Either cite the lot or none and make sure you cite the information in the list accordingly.
- Don't overlink Sony BMG in the lead.
- "and is currently active in the charts." - this will need a context (i.e. as of april 2008...)
- Note A needs citation.
- Avoid spaces between the text/punctuation and the notes (e.g. you have "I Don't Care" [A], it should be "I Don't Care"[A])
- "I Don't Care" has an em-dash in the Album section - this means album did not chart. Was "I Don't Care" on an album? If not then this note is incorrect, or at best misleading.
- I think citations should be provided for "exclusive" releases.
That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The lead is really necessary as it highlights the important aspects of Delta Goodrem's career so far, and to be honest, I don't think we can condense it even further. Also, the citations for ITunes exclusive releases can't really be sourced properly as I can't provide a reference to the Itunes store itself and the web sources consist of forums and lyric pages. σмgнgσмg(talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title, boring I know, but WP:MOS rules.
- Caption still a fragment.
- "later this year" just in 2008 will do.
- Remove spaces between notes and text/punctuation.
- A-D have full stops, then E should. Or none of them should have full stops. Be consistent.
End of round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- "she joined the cast of Neighbours and this helped launch her international music career." This needs a citations. Perhaps include the fact that this is because she sung on the show; this would need citing, too.
- "Her 2004 second album Mistaken Identity" sounds better as "her second album, Mistaken Identity, released in 2004"
- "inspired by her battle with cancer," requires a citation. Any idea what form of cancer, too?
- The rest of that sentence should be cited also
- "After a break," caused by what?
- I don't like the wording of "It is to be her first album in the United States and released in Europe in 2008." But I can't think right now of how to reword it
- "Peak chart positions" should be placed as:
- Home country
- Alphabetical by every other country
- World chart
- Move the references for Peak chart postition to the column of the country they refer to.
- I note there is only five references for the ten countries? Where did you get the information for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK?
- ""Predictable" Live performance at Channel V " Is this a music video, or simply a recording of a performance?
- Why are the singles' B-Sides included? This is a discography, not a songography. If these are so notable, I would think that album tracks are even more so, but they aren't listed...
- ""Days Go By"|Glenn Lyse|Single-only" why not "Days Go By", instead of "single-only" -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's all I have, but as it seems five countries's chart positions are not sourced, and the inclusion of a B-sides section, it's an oppose for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ok, so much to address. I'll tackle one point at a time. The suggestions you have put forward about rewording the lead, I've done that. However, as with your comment on the inclusion of source(s), it will go against what The Rambling Man has suggested. So, now I'm conflicted, what should I do? Should I include sources in the lead or not?
- I would say yes. Anything presented as a fact should be referenced. --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Secondly, there isn't any much of a singificance in reorganising the peak chart positions in an order that you proposed. So, I think I'll leave it as it is for now. The sources are best put above, since the width of the table is 30px due to the logic raised by Drewcifer. His logic was: "1) the tables are big enough so that on low-resolution monitors it starts to get a little squished, and 2) it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table, so space is at a premium there." Also, there are only 6 references required for 10 countries. Why? Source No. 5, when clicked to a specific page, such as the Innocent Eyes chart positions, gives information on the chart positions for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. So, the addition of further sources isn't necessary.
- Thirdly, in regards to the phrase: "Live performance at Channel V" simply highlights that Delta Goodrem's performance on that channel was simply used as the official music video for Predictable. The B-side table has been moved to another page. And finally, the table on her writing credits has simply reworked to suit the use of "single-only". That's done and dusted. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more, I'm not convinced on the need of writing credits to be included. This is her discography. It shouldn't mention her work on other artists' discs.
- Ok, so much to address. I'll tackle one point at a time. The suggestions you have put forward about rewording the lead, I've done that. However, as with your comment on the inclusion of source(s), it will go against what The Rambling Man has suggested. So, now I'm conflicted, what should I do? Should I include sources in the lead or not?
I hope my comments have helped, but I'm unable to support or oppose because I won't have internet access for the next two weeks. As such, I can only stay neutral. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Further comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- I know her career is not as distinguished nor as lengthy as, say, Metallica, but I feel the lead could do with being beefed up a bit. It currently almost borders on listprose.
- Get rid of the full stop in the caption.
- As for inclusion of sources, Matthew and I don't disagree, not really. You really should not include information in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the main body of the list. Thus, you should, in principle, be able to have a citation free lead, as long as everything you state there is included, expanded upon and cited in the main body.
- Why are you forcing the font size of the certification column?
- And for two of the albums?
- There are a number of directors missing from the video table.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a little comments:
- The album and video titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).
-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually there was no conclusion to that discussion, and an overall change the discography MoS has not been implemented. So you can revert it back because, frankly, it looks much better and clearer with the bolds. indopug (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter, what's done is done. σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Did some copyediting, all seems good to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
