Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Radiohead discography/archive2

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 Dabomb87 20:12, 19 December 2011 [1].

Radiohead discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am of the opinion that it meets the criteria, as all the previously mentioned issues from the first FLC were eliminated.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~No need to link Abingdon twice in the first two sentences.~~
Ref 1 is missing a publisher. This appears to be a New Yorker article from another website. Is this a reliable source, and do they have permission to run this article if it's the same? Might be better off just having a print cite there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done all--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me} 11:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I would be tempted to modify the first paragraph slightly, but I'll support in the current state, too. I would replace the current text with:

"The discography of Radiohead, an alternative rock band from Abingdon, England, comprises eight studio albums, twenty-four singles, seven extended plays, thirty music videos, seven video albums, and two compilation albums."

You might also consider replacing the prose numbers with figures. MOS:NUM insists that they all be formatted alike, but doesn't advise on which to choose when both large and small numbers are listed. I find it easier to read:

"The discography of Radiohead, an alternative rock band from Abingdon, England, comprises 8 studio albums, 24 singles, 7 extended plays, 30 music videos, 7 video albums, and 2 compilation albums."

And I might join the first and second paragraphs. Just something to think about... --Stemonitis (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. Thanks for the support! --♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a little way to go so far...

I really dislike the first, single-sentence para of the lead. At the least it should be merged with the following para, and preferably the numeric values replaced with words, permissible by WP:MOS I believe.

reworded

Do you have to repeat they were formed/from Abingdon in the second para?

removed

Consider adding a link for platinum certification.

not done. Platinum certification links to Music recording sales certification. That would be overlinking.

"most successful single—charting in the" why em-dash? a comma would be fine.

replaced

" certifications by both the " received from not by.

replaced

"receiving triple platinum from the BPI and the CRIA." perhaps "being awarded triple-platinum status by the BPI and the CRIA."

reworded

No need to relink EMI in the lead.

delinked

See WT:DISCOGSTYLE for my issues with reusing linked country abbreviations to different things within the same article.

replaced

"Did not chart" were they released in those territories where they didn't chart? Can you cite that? If not, best to change the note to "... not chart or were not released in that territory"

added

Where's the evidence that Drill or Itch or No Surprises/Running from Demons ever existed? They didn't chart so they have no direct citation.

added refs

Same for Stop Whispering and These Are My Twisted Words.

added refs

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Michael Jester:

It looks nice, but there are some problems in the references.

Allmusic shouldnt be in italics in ref #2, #25, #26, #28

done

A lot of the chart websites (dutchcharts.nl, australiancharts.com, etc.) have incorrect titles. For example, the title of ref #6 isn't "Australian chart positions", it is "Australian-charts.com – Discography Radiohead". Or you can just use "Discography Radiohead". Also, some of these should use the language parameter.

done

For the Canadian album peaks, ref #9 is hard to navigate. If you click on the RPM link, there are eighty-something more links I have keep clicking on to verify. Is there anyway you can link the specific chart?

no, that would take me too much time.

Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but what makes MusicBrainz a rs?

it is just there too proof that this ep exists.

Fair enough. Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For red #28, the work is not billboard magazine, it's just Billboard

done

The article looks great, and once these are addressed I'd be happy to support!
Michael Jester (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addressed.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article. I believe now I can support it.
—Michael Jester (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this
I would also like to see the tables reconfigured as outlined here, apart from these issues the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the design :/--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an adequate argument, the design is more user friendly, complies with WP:ACCESS measures (which have not been implemented), if these aren't implemented then I'm afraid I can't support the nomination and will have to ~~oppose~~ on failure to comply with WP:ACCESS. Just a note that 50 Cent discography which is currently at FLC, utilises the same table that I'm advocating so I think it should be included. NapHit (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which does not affect FLCs♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLs should comply with WP:MOS. WP:ACCESS is part of WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, but IDONLIKEIT not. What I find unfair is no one have told such format is against ACCESS. Why so suddenly? That's no walk in the park. Somebody should have said it before.♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most reviews here look for compliance with MOS and have done for quite a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's annoying to have to redo the tables, especially since the nomination has been up for a long time. In fairness someone should have pointed it out earlier. But that does not hide the fact that the list fails certain criteria and this needs rectifying. NapHit (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we reviewers are far from perfect, but all reviews are given with good intent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly, the extended plays, needs the name of the song first, for consistentcy with the other tables, and you need to implement the new tables in the videos section. NapHit (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ditto♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The note for "My Iron Lung" in the singles table does not direct anywhere. Does it even exist? -What a pro. (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. Removed.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 18:35, 19 December 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.