Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amy Grant discography/archive1
- 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Amy Grant discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to nominate this for a while, but I'm quite proud of this article. For those unfamiliar with the artist, Amy Grant is the best-selling Christian artist of all time and was, for a time, also one of the most popular mainstream singers of the early 90s. She was one of the pioneering artists in contemporary Christian music and the genre's first breakout artist. Her ability to succeed in both mainstream and Christian music has, to this day, not been repeated. I think this is a really quality list. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Photo caption is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop
- I'd personally suggest putting the holiday and live albums before the compilations so that all albums of new material are together (unless there is a MOS that says otherwise)
- I am not aware a MOS on this. The reason it's grouped the way it is is that, after Studio Albums, it's all alphabetical. Open to changing it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's not a big deal, so don't worry about it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Videos section, would "Video albums" be a better heading? When I saw the heading, I thought it was going to list music videos, but it doesn't
- In the "as featured artist" table, why is the album column so massively wide?
- No clue but I fixed it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In ref 18, "cassettes" is spelt incorrectly
- Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
- Amazon really isn't a RS
- I cited to them to avoid citing to the item itself, but removed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The linear notes tend to not have the exact release date.
- Exact release date is only for retroactive charting (ie. a song charts years or decades after it was released). I can clarify that in the notes if need be. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the same single peaked at the same position, they should be in their own cell
- The cells are merged because the charts were merged for that period of time. Since the charts were one and the same, so is the table section. After the charts were separated, the chart also separates. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The general refs should probably be moved to a bibliography
- If use use more than one page it should be "pp"
- https://worldradiohistory.com/ is a COPYVIO
- I've never seen that complaint in literal years of using it as a source. There are similar archives of Billboard in Google Books, for example. I can remove the exact links if need be. Is there an exact policy on this? Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to believe that the scans were used with permission of the copyright holder. It isn't a case of fair use since the text of back issues of Billboard is currently being sold by the company (factor 4). Linking to know copyright violations is prohibited by policy --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 22:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, preservation for nonprofit educational purposes (as the site does) is considered fair use, at least as far as I understand it. This is noted in WP:COPYVIOEL: "it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". Toa Nidhiki05 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through the factors
- Factor 1: Against. Non-commercial use, but the scholarship and research claims are sketchy. Access it not restricted to only researchers and there no indication of ongoing scholarship.
- Factor 2: Tends to not matter, but against. I don't see this as being the Zapruder film. These are not facts that were copied, they are full issues of an in print magazine.
- Factor 3: Against. All of each issues is copied at high quality
- Factor 4: Against. Destroys the entire market for licensing articles and selling back issues
- This fails spectacularly in my view. You are going to need to show that a copyright scholar thinks that putting full scans of a still in publication magazine that is currently selling access to its previously released content to push past my
opposehere. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- That's a fancy way of ignoring the very direct "taking a newspaper which was originally created for immediate public consumption at a profit and transforming it into a digital historical artifact at no cost to the researcher usually falls under fair use" line. Again, I'm open to removing the direct link (which directly harms the ability of readers to read the cited source), but I have never seen this criticism before so I find it a bit odd. Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite not getting a response, I have removed them. In actu Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fancy way of ignoring the very direct "taking a newspaper which was originally created for immediate public consumption at a profit and transforming it into a digital historical artifact at no cost to the researcher usually falls under fair use" line. Again, I'm open to removing the direct link (which directly harms the ability of readers to read the cited source), but I have never seen this criticism before so I find it a bit odd. Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through the factors
- Generally speaking, preservation for nonprofit educational purposes (as the site does) is considered fair use, at least as far as I understand it. This is noted in WP:COPYVIOEL: "it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". Toa Nidhiki05 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to believe that the scans were used with permission of the copyright holder. It isn't a case of fair use since the text of back issues of Billboard is currently being sold by the company (factor 4). Linking to know copyright violations is prohibited by policy --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 22:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen that complaint in literal years of using it as a source. There are similar archives of Billboard in Google Books, for example. I can remove the exact links if need be. Is there an exact policy on this? Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues should be addressed now. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In actu - all issues you've mentioned have been addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In actu - all issues you've mentioned have been addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues should be addressed now. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
|
---|
Not a bad idea. You could additionally rename the tables to something like "Non-holiday studio albums" and "Holiday studio albums". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
I made one minor fix here, and now can gladly support the nomination! Image review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
That's enough for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
- The Rambling Man sorry for the delay - I have a few responses here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man any updates on this? would love to know if I need to fix anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna ask one more time - any updates, The Rambling Man. All issues have been addressed and we have three other supports. This nom has been up nearly two months so it will probably be closed soon. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm satisfied my issues have been resolved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna ask one more time - any updates, The Rambling Man. All issues have been addressed and we have three other supports. This nom has been up nearly two months so it will probably be closed soon. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man any updates on this? would love to know if I need to fix anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
edit- Would it be beneficial to link single in the lead's first sentence, especially since all of the different albums also have links?
- In the the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to link "mainstream" to the mainstream media article? It is probably already clear without the link, but it may be helpful for readers who may be unfamiliar with the concept.
- I have a clarification question about this part,
shipped with a gold certification, a first for a Christian album
. A previous sentence said that Age to Age was the first Christian album recorded by a solo artist to receive gold and platinum certifications, but the above part is about Lead Me On being the first Christian album with a gold certification. I am guessing the difference is with the word choice "shipped", but could you explain this for me? I am sure it is already quite clear, but I was a little uncertain about this.- Certainly! "Shipping" with a certification just means that, at the time of release, enough albums were sent to retailers to immediately earn a certification on day one. Keep in mind that, for physical releases, the RIAA goes off of albums shipped to retailers. So what this means is that Lead Me On was the first Christian album that, upon its release, shipped enough copies to retailers to be certified gold immediately. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying this for me. That makes sense to me, and it is clear in the prose. I just wanted to double-check this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have done an excellent job with this list. I am the most impressed by the lead as you were able to encapsulate Grant's long and successful career into a very good overview. I only have three comments (and two of which are super nitpick-y and the other is more of a clarification question). That should not be surprising since this FLC has already been reviewed by very experienced editors. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All these concerns should be addressed, Aoba47. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.