Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2014
Contents
- 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 05:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [1].
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Rock Album is an honor presented annually by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences at the Latin Grammy Awards. The award is for vocal or instrumental rock albums containing at least 51 percent of newly recorded material. The accolade for Best Rock Album was first presented to the Mexican band Café Tacuba at the 1st Latin Grammy Awards in 2000 for their fourth studio album Revés/Yo Soy (1999). → Call me Hahc21 — Status (talk · contribs) 04:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't see any reasons to oppose. Great work! — Simon (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason Ska-P declined their award? Can you elaborate on that somewhere?
- Is there a reason why Será should go unlinked? Seattle (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's comment - This nomination has been archived owing to a lack of activity. There will be a delay in the closing of this nomination; please be patient. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Crisco 1492 05:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [2].
- Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 09:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of heads of government of Russia, from Menshikov to Medvedev. Tomcat (7) 09:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Shame this made it so far down without comment; I've tried to give it a review now though.
- "8 (19) February 1726" - I know you do this due to the Julian/Gregorian calendar thing, but it's never mentioned anywhere that you're doing it.
- Note sure what to do here. I did not use the {{OldStyleDate}} template since it ridiculously places the "old style" in small case and right next to the "new date", while the Russian version is pretty good, with same letter size and additional tooltip commentary. I could write something like 8 (19) February 1726
- It took me a bunch of research to figure out the difference between the head of government and head of state, and that the soviet "leader" was it's own, oddly amorphous thing that was generally synonymous with "General Secretary" of the party, and it would be really nice if this list explained a bit that "the government" and "the state" are separate things, with the definition/structure of "the state" changing in each form of government- right now it just talks about the different forms of "the government" there have been throughout history, but the words are confusing to people in countries where those are colloquially the same thing. Sort of an intro to the intro before you get into details.
- The head of state (monarch, general secretary or president) is the highest political person. In pre-revolutionary years it was the monarch who could have absolute (under absolutism) or less control over the state. I am not sure how it was in Soviet era. In contemporary Russia since the ratification of the constitution it is the president, who has such rights as liquidation of the State Duma, removal of deputies from office, control over domestic and foreign policy or being Supreme Commander-in-Chief
- The head of government chairs the government, which since the creation of the Committee of Ministers consists of several ministries, such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Culture. He has factually decided the most important duties
- Capitalize Count in the "age" sentence, and consider moving it to the end of the last real paragraph before the date thing
- Done
- Why do you italicize titles? (Duke, Count, etc.)
- Done
- You say Ivan Andreyevich Veydemeyer is under Paul in the table, but link to Paul I and call him Paul I thereafter
- I see it linked, but I found another similar nuance
- I'm not sure the colors on the left side make any sense, given that you have the political party colored the same way 4 columns over
- It was taken from List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, also repeated colorization was recommended by RexxS
- It's a bit weird that you use a different date format in the Cabinets than anywhere else in the list.
- Changed
- Why does Yeltsin (Russian Federation table) get 2 start dates but 1 end date without explanation?
- Changed the dates there and above as is described by most of the sources
- More than half the links here are redirecting, generally to alternate spellings or dropping the middle name. Not required to fix, just pointing out.
- Consider archiving your online references with a service like archive.org/web or webcitation.org, so that changes/removals of content do not impact your citations
- Will do that
- Done where it was possible.--Tomcat (7) 12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's comment - This nomination has been archived owing to a lack of activity. There will be a delay in the closing of this nomination; please be patient. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Crisco 1492 05:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [3].
- Nominator(s): Matty.007 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed featured list nomination and a more recent peer review, I feel that this meets the criteria (sorry for the cliche). I find this topic an interesting one, particularly the usage of the East Caribbean Dollar. Thanks, Matty.007 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's Greenland? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a soverign state or a dependency. Matty.007 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still part of North America, as are the Dutch municipalities / constituent countries of Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius, and Saba; and the French overseas regions/territories Guadaloupe, St Barts, Saint Martin, and Martinique. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing... Matty.007 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthewedwards: added, finally. Thanks, Matty.007 20:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing... Matty.007 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still part of North America, as are the Dutch municipalities / constituent countries of Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius, and Saba; and the French overseas regions/territories Guadaloupe, St Barts, Saint Martin, and Martinique. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a soverign state or a dependency. Matty.007 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- IMO but there shouldn't be captionless images. You can't assume layout will always place an image next to the descriptive text.
- I've had issues with this before. I've put in [[File:Kelk i.jpg|350px|right|The East Caribbean dollar reverse sides]], what do I need to do to get the caption to show? Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the criteria for appearing in the third table? The Netherlands and France are sovereign nations with territory in North America. Personally the nation listed should be those, rather than their constituent parts. It would be akin to listing "Hawaii" in a list of Oceanian currencies. Where they use a different currency than the rest of their country should be noted.
- Oh, I see, it's the same dreadful division used in the list of countries in North America... yeah, don't go by that. It's dreadful. I would list the sovereign countries in North America - which includes France and, I believe, The Netherlands and possibly Denmark - and have sub-rows for the particular parts of those countries where they use a different currency. Specifically, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba don't use the Euro, despite being (I believe) fundamental units of the Netherlands. Greenland and Aruba's relationship with Denmark and The Netherlands, respectively, is a little beyond me, so I leave that to others, but I believe those to be considered integral parts of their nations as well. Listing Guadeloupe and Martinique separately makes no more sense than listing Hawaii and Alaska separately, and shouldn't be done. (Saint Martin... That's a weird one).
- Sorry, please can you clear this up for me? What scheme should I go by? Also, I'm afraid I have no idea how to do a sub-row... Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see zero reason to include Clipperton Island as an 'other area' with 'no currency', yet Navassa Island is included in 'dependences' with 'dollar', despite both being entirely uninhabited.
- Whoops. Changed Navassa to uninhabited
- Oh, I see, it's the same dreadful division used in the list of countries in North America... yeah, don't go by that. It's dreadful. I would list the sovereign countries in North America - which includes France and, I believe, The Netherlands and possibly Denmark - and have sub-rows for the particular parts of those countries where they use a different currency. Specifically, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba don't use the Euro, despite being (I believe) fundamental units of the Netherlands. Greenland and Aruba's relationship with Denmark and The Netherlands, respectively, is a little beyond me, so I leave that to others, but I believe those to be considered integral parts of their nations as well. Listing Guadeloupe and Martinique separately makes no more sense than listing Hawaii and Alaska separately, and shouldn't be done. (Saint Martin... That's a weird one).
- Furthermore, while the text supplies lots of info on the East Caribbean dollar, it doesn't spend a single word on these other countries, for example explaining how these fundamental units of other countries are using different currencies from the rest of their country, or even who these other countries belong to. It talks about how Panama and Cuba use two currencies, yet no explanation of Sint Maarten using two currencies, or anything about the Netherlands Antilles Guilder. There also needs to be a discussion in the text on how it's not just U.S. territories using the U.S. dollar, since it's also used in the British Virgin Islands, and how the British territories collectively use four different currencies.
- I can't discuss all the currencies in the text (think of what I would have to do for Africa!), what inclusion criteria should I use? Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm against including the 'previous currency' column; if someone is interested in what preceded a currency, they can click the article on it. It's bad form to just include the immediately previous one, and in many cases that isn't accurate (for example, Panama didn't use the Colombian peso; Colombia did, and then Panama split from them. And how many centuries ago did Belize cease using the Spanish dollar?)
- It makes it seem a little scarce I would have said? Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At present this is more a list of areas and what currencies they use... rather than the list of currencies. Start from there, and we'll have a better result.
- IMO but there shouldn't be captionless images. You can't assume layout will always place an image next to the descriptive text.
- I have to oppose at this time. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I quite follow? Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of the currencies used in North America. This is a list of the countries and dependencies in North America, and what currencies they use. The list would rightly be "East Caribbean Dollar, Euro, U.S. Dollar", etc., rather than "Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, ...". --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How would that work if countries used two currencies? Thanks, Matty.007 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the country would be listed twice. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How would that work if countries used two currencies? Thanks, Matty.007 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a list of the currencies used in North America. This is a list of the countries and dependencies in North America, and what currencies they use. The list would rightly be "East Caribbean Dollar, Euro, U.S. Dollar", etc., rather than "Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, ...". --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I quite follow? Thanks, Matty.007 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the exact comment last nomination. The way the list is structured now, it looks like there are far more currencies than actually exist. You made a list of countries, with currency as a column. I strongly believe it should be a list of currencies, with the country (or countries) as a column, given the title of the article. Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I was thinking this morning, "Just because it's a list of X doesn't mean that has to be the primary column." For example, a list of current governors of U.S. states would be organized by state, not governor. But you hit it on the head - there are many fewer currencies in use than there are countries. My proposal is: Currency, Symbol, Decimal unit, and then subrows (using rowspans) for each country using it and the year it was introduced. The 'previous currency' adds nothing; why is the Colombian currency previous for Panama but not the British currency previous for the United States? --Golbez (talk)
- I'll have a look at changing at the weekend (I hope you don't mind assisting me when I do it?). Thanks, Matty.007 17:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I was thinking this morning, "Just because it's a list of X doesn't mean that has to be the primary column." For example, a list of current governors of U.S. states would be organized by state, not governor. But you hit it on the head - there are many fewer currencies in use than there are countries. My proposal is: Currency, Symbol, Decimal unit, and then subrows (using rowspans) for each country using it and the year it was introduced. The 'previous currency' adds nothing; why is the Colombian currency previous for Panama but not the British currency previous for the United States? --Golbez (talk)
- Much better, but there are still some clean up issues. Why would you have none (uninhabited) as a row? What is the logic behind dividing the the table into three (the US dollar, for example, appears 3 times)? Mattximus (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: removed none, would you suggest combining? Thanks, Matty.007 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes unless I'm missing something. Why were they separated to begin with? Mattximus (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As soverign states, dependencies and other. Working on merging. Thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: done. Thanks, Matty.007 16:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to include the name of the country perhaps in italics in brackets after the dependencies. And the title of that column can't just be countries (maybe countries and dependencies?) Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: doing. Thanks, Matty.007 08:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure of the title, but done. Thanks, Matty.007 08:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done, by Holland I think you mean the Netherlands, and also Bonaire is administered by the Netherlands. Mattximus (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: done. Thanks, Matty.007 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sometimes you use United States of America, and sometimes USA in the table. Please be consistent. Mattximus (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the one 'USA' to 'United States of America'. Thanks, Matty.007 08:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 25 currencies in the table, but the lead says 18 + 4? Also the first sentence of the second paragraph is a passive mess and needs to be rewritten to be clarified. Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Thanks, Matty.007 19:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one more column should be added, the three letter ISO 4217 code is quite useful. After this change I am satisfied with the table. Then the lead needs quite a bit of work, it's not very well written, but I'll see if I can get to it. Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 25 currencies in the table, but the lead says 18 + 4? Also the first sentence of the second paragraph is a passive mess and needs to be rewritten to be clarified. Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the one 'USA' to 'United States of America'. Thanks, Matty.007 08:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sometimes you use United States of America, and sometimes USA in the table. Please be consistent. Mattximus (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: done. Thanks, Matty.007 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done, by Holland I think you mean the Netherlands, and also Bonaire is administered by the Netherlands. Mattximus (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure of the title, but done. Thanks, Matty.007 08:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: doing. Thanks, Matty.007 08:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to include the name of the country perhaps in italics in brackets after the dependencies. And the title of that column can't just be countries (maybe countries and dependencies?) Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus: done. Thanks, Matty.007 16:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As soverign states, dependencies and other. Working on merging. Thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the exact comment last nomination. The way the list is structured now, it looks like there are far more currencies than actually exist. You made a list of countries, with currency as a column. I strongly believe it should be a list of currencies, with the country (or countries) as a column, given the title of the article. Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is against consensus. Originally, the ISO codes were there, then a few editors said it would be better removed, therefore consensus exists against it. Thanks, Matty.007 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the archived nomination, but could not find ISO opposition. Which editors were opposed to the three letter code? Also I have to oppose on prose, it needs a major rewrite. Especially notable are passive sentences galore. For example consider which sentence is more clear, the first is in the article, the second is my rewrite:
- "By the number of countries in North America sharing a currency, the East Caribbean dollar is most used."
- "The East Caribean dollar is used in the most number of countries in North America."
- In addition the sentences about reserve currency are a complete mess. It really needs a thorough copyedit. Mattximus (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Europe nomination. Thanks, Matty.007 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by Comment - Tweaked tables:
- All tables now sortable by individual locations versus blocks in some cases. Second table- removed sorting from fractional unit (all the same). Third table- removed extra column with a single rogue cent denomination listed, removed "Euro" from Netherlands Antillean guilder row. Each table edit is independent, feel free to revert if it's not an improvement.-Godot13 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks very good now, thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All tables now sortable by individual locations versus blocks in some cases. Second table- removed sorting from fractional unit (all the same). Third table- removed extra column with a single rogue cent denomination listed, removed "Euro" from Netherlands Antillean guilder row. Each table edit is independent, feel free to revert if it's not an improvement.-Godot13 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's comment - This nomination has been archived. There will be a delay in the closing of this nomination; please be patient. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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/not promoted by Crisco 1492 06:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): KaneZolanski (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of effort into meeting all of the FL criteria. If you oppose for any reason, let me know and I will correct them to bring the article up to the standard. KaneZolanski (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments It's clear you've put a lot of effort into this. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
Cowlibob (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment if you open the first link in the article, you'll see that videography means "the process of capturing moving images on electronic media". It doesn't mean "a collection of music videos". This article should thus be moved to "Nicki Minaj filmography" or "list of Nicki Minaj music videos".—indopug (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- indopug, This isn’t just a list of music videos, or a list of films. it includes music videos, film, television, cameo appearances, commericals exc. which all fall under the process of shooting a moving image. On wikipedia, most lists of music artists' music videos and details of other filmed processes they have been involved in are catergorised under “videography”. For example, Rihanna videography (which has garnered featured list status). It seems as though, on Wikipedia, people who don’t have enough of a catalogue in each, such as film, television and music videos exc. are listed under a general scope of videography as it allows for a more comprehensive article, rather than small undeveloped sub lists. But even so, Madonna has both a videography and filmography, both of which have featured list status, also. From this, it is my understanding that this is just the way such listings are catergorised on Wikipedia. Thanks for your comment. KaneZolanski (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Quite a number of issues with this list that'll keep me from supporting from now, I'm afraid.
| Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
I altered the sentence to iterate the fact that it was her first solo music video released under her major.
This has now been removed.
I have since made the correct changes needed.
These have now been removed.
Discogs reference has been removed and replaced.
Italicised company names have now been reverted to standard text.
They are now removed. |
These are all just on first-glance; there's still quite an amount of comments which I didn't add regarding more minor problems which I have with this list in its current state. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to oppose for now; I think this was nominated prematurely and the article still needs some sprucing up. Holiday56 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why split all her pre-2010 music videos as "pre-fame"? It's pretty subjective (and therefore impossible to adequately source) for one to determine the exact point when somebody becomes famous—she had quite a number of supporters even before she released her debut album.
- Holiday56, these were videos released prior to her signing to a major record label. Would you advise listing them as such instead?
- I'd honestly rather just have all her solo videos merged into one table, just as other discographies/videographies do. Mixtapes are albums, so it's fine to leave the "Album" column intact. Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Holiday56, these were videos released prior to her signing to a major record label. Would you advise listing them as such instead?
- Quite a number of prepositions and articles which shouldn't be capitalised.
- Would you be kind enough to point these out so necessary changes can be made? KaneZolanski (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Higher Than A Kite", "I B On Dat", "Give It All To Me", "Drop Da Beat", etc. Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be kind enough to point these out so necessary changes can be made? KaneZolanski (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Directors need to be sorted by last name.
- Nabil has an article.
- Done
- Some of these refs are incorrectly formatted, such as ref 13. Why is there a duplicate link after the access date?
- Done
- Be consitent in your date formatting. Some of the accessdates use MM-DD-YYYY, and other use DD-MM-YYYY.
- Lots of refs missing fields (ref 47, 51, 105, 121, and a whole lot more).
Holiday56 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor
edit- Four disambiguation links to address.
Done
- Vevo should not be styled as "'Vevo'" in the introduction.
Done
- "As of April 2014, 'Super Bass' has over 400 million YouTube views making Minaj the second most-viewed black solo-performer in history, after Rihanna's video for her song 'Diamonds'."
- I would clarify that the "Super Bass" itself is the second most-viewed music video by a solo black performer, and not that Minaj herself is the second most-viewed solo black performer.
Done
- I personally think that the "Pre-fame videos" table should be merged with the "As lead artist" table; her varying levels of fame don't determine whether or not she was the lead artist.
These videos were all released prior to Minaj signing to a major label and were in support of mixtapes, Would you still suggest a merger? Or maybe a retitling of the "pre-fame" section?
- I still think it would be a good idea to merge, especially since they use all of the same fields.
- WikiRedactor, one uses album and the other mixtape. how would you suggest labelling that column, if a merger is the best option?
- Please remove the wikilink for The Pink Print, since its article currently redirects back to the Nicki Minaj article.
Done
- The "V" in "Collaboration Videos" should not be capitalised.
Done
- I would suggest moving the "As featured artist" table after the "As lead artist" table, which I personally feel would be a better flow.
Done
- The "As an actress" and "As a personality" tables can be merged, since neither section is very large in the first place.
Those in "As a personality" aren't cinematic releases, thus there is no calculation of Box-office. Would you still suggest a merger?
- That's a good point; on second thought, I think it would be best to leave those as-is.
- Looking at the "References" section, I see several citations that lack publishers, dates, authors, etc. in their templates. I also see inconsistent date formatting; you should pick one style and stick with it throughout the article (I personally prefer writing the date out.)
I am not all that familiar with the process of correctly inputting such information. Would you be able to assist or give tips? KaneZolanski (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) WikiRedactor (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give you an example I saw in the article:
<ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/1644594/nicki-minaj-explains-her-violent-death-in-your-love-video/ Nicki Minaj Explains Her Violent Death In ‘Your Love’ Video - MTV<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
This template would be considered incomplete, because it is missing information about the author, publisher, date, and access date. I would use the cite web template for these kinds of situations, and after filling in all of the necessary fields, it would look like this:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/1644594/nicki-minaj-explains-her-violent-death-in-your-love-video/|title=Nicki Minaj Explains Her Violent Death In 'Your Love' Video|last=Reid|firts=Shaheem|publisher=MTV News. Viacom|date=July 28, 2010|accessdate=May 26, 2014}}</ref>
I see that the cite web template is used in some spots in the article, so I recommend that you go through and convert all of the other references over to this format. DONE WikiRedactor (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiRedactor, would I have to manually convert and fill in every single reference, or am I mis-reading? :) KaneZolanski (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this will have to be done manually, although perhaps there is some bot that I am not aware of? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiRedactor, I'm not aware of bot that would help either. It seems this is going to take quite a while. thank you for your reply. KaneZolanski (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this will have to be done manually, although perhaps there is some bot that I am not aware of? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done references (finally) KaneZolanski (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX
editOppose as I see many flaws, mainly with references:
- "The videography of Trinidadian-born American rapper Nicki Minaj consists of....." would read better as something like "Trinidadian-American rapper Nicki Minaj has starred in....."
Done
- "This method of certification is a means of recognising videos that have reached over 100 million views, It was introduced by Vevo in June, 2012." simply doesn't belong
One of the other editors on this page suggested I outlined this, but it has now been removed.
- There is no need to link years in the video sections
Done
- Vibe (magazine) should be italicized
- Publisher for Vibe is Spin Media
- IMDb is not a reliable source
- Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ', ″ should be "
- When using multiple articles from the same source (i.e. I see you have many MTV refs), only link the work and publisher in the first ref used from said source
- Remember to keep references consistent (i.e. don't use "MTV" in one ref and "MTV.com" in another when citing MTV, include publishers for all or none of a recurring source)
- MTV shouldn't be italicized
- Publisher for Billboard (magazine) is Prometheus Global Media
- Daily Mail is not a reliable source
- "Rap-Up.com" should just read Rap-Up, and publisher is Devin Lazerine
- Publisher for Spin (magazine) is Spin Media
- "E! Online" should just read E! and not be italicized
- Publisher for E! is NBCUniversal
- YouTube is used rather excessively
- Publisher for Idolator (website) is Spin Media
- Publisher for VH1 is Viacom (or Viacom Media Networks)
- Complex (magazine) should be italicized
- Thatgrapejuice.net is not reliable
- Publisher for Digital Spy is Hearst Corporation
- "Hollywood Life" is a questionable source at best
- Try to cut down on the iTunes refs
There's my input. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HĐ
editOppose Multiple ref issues: they do not go with {{Cite web}} and some of them are unreliable sources (such as "ThatGrapeJuice", is a trash source) — Simon (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prosperosity
edit- Could you define what being Vevo certified means? I assume it means being viewed a certain number of times, but are those views exclusively on the Vevo channel? What is the threshold for number of views?
- Is it possible to get sources outside of Youtube for the mixtape videos? If the videos were deleted or moved the sources would no longer be usable, so it's better to have a source that can be archived.
- The references for "Lookin Ass Nigga" need to be done up, they're still bare URLs with bot titles. I can see a couple more Bot generated title ones too, they need to be fixed.
- Why does the featured artists section have pictures, but the artists one doesn't? Maybe some pictures of her regular collaborators/directors would be good.
- There's a big reliance on mtv.com for references. I'd suggest using a couple of other sites to increase variation (such as the Japanese database by Space Shower here
- "ft" should be written "featuring"
- How can she make a cameo appearance when she's "pre-fame"? I'm fairly certain you can't call performing songs at a concert (i.e. Britney Spears Live: The Femme Fatale Tour) a cameo, either, she's just a performer.
Definitely all the practically bare URLs need to be attended to first. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's Comment - This nomination has been archived. The nominator is requested to wait at least two weeks before nominating this or another list at FLC. The time should be spent addressing issues brought up during this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a suitable topic and meets the criteria. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the original creator of this article, and I am extremely shocked to see this here. The article is missing references all over the place and could be written a million times better than it currently is. Oppose Andre666 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, this list was created by splitting the Jimi Hendrix discography, which predates Andre's involvement. Additionally, it has undergone significant expansion since his last edit on 9/3/2011[6] and includes many new specific and general references. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's Note - Owing to the lack of response and outstanding oppose, I am archiving this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 not promoted by Giants2008 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [7].
- Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked really hard on it meets the majority of the criteria it didn't use to meet on the first nomination. Besides this reason, Bruno Mars might not have an extensive career but he has already won a lot of awards and nominations due to his efforts as a singer, producer and song-writer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments Some quick thoughts.
|
Comments
- I can see that sources are not unified: for example, there are sources "Billboard.com", others "Billboard (magazine)". Besides, sources such as Yahoo! Voice, MTV, Digital Spy... are not italicized — Simon (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the first issue. The sources that you cite are already italicized. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, i mean that such sources are not italicized (because they're web sources) — Simon (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are saying that they are not supposed to be italicized? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes — Simon (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Please take a look and cross this task? Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes — Simon (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are saying that they are not supposed to be italicized? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, i mean that such sources are not italicized (because they're web sources) — Simon (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the first issue. The sources that you cite are already italicized. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides that, there are sources that are not WP:RS, such as ref #72 is AntiMusic and ref #133 is PopCrush, both are not suitable for an FL. — Simon (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the Pop Crush one. I will take care of the rest over the weekend. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anyother to replace the AntiMusic. Should I left it there or remove the awards? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the Pop Crush one. I will take care of the rest over the weekend. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by nominator
- As long as the issues are fixed could you please cross them? Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 23:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.