Talk:The Light of the Sun

Album sales

Edit in question: diff. Dan56 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am constantly updating album sales for The Light of the Sun. However, the article keeps getting reverted back. My source is a third party source. HOWEVER, that source is distributing factual information given straight from sources such as Nielsen and Billboard Magazine. It is an exclusive source, but it is on a third party website to better distribute the information to music's audience. So therefore, because of the connection with Nielson and Billboard, my source (that tells me LOTS has sold 391,000 as of December 2011) is MORE relaible than SOHH (which isn't as updated as my source). The Light of the Sun has pushed 390,000 copies as of December. Unless there is any other RELIABLE source that says otherwise, I suggest that the commercial success of the article be leaven be. Thank you!

IT'SPAIN (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the Twitter profile, their sources are "Billboard, Nielsen SoundScan, HDD, Chart Watch, Chart Beat & Mediatraffic", so which are used for the sales you're citing? The latter four are not reliable. If "factual information" from Nielsen and Billboard of 390,000 copies sold existed, it would be available through more reliable outlets. Not some dubious Twitter account. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Nielsen and Billboard don't necessarily post all of their data. However, their data is given to representatives and subscribers itself. So, I guess since it's an unreliable source, it's a mistake that the verified Billboard magazine follows them itself. If you can find any source that proves that any data given through my source is incorrect, I will more than gladly revert the article back. Until then, LOTS has sold 390,000 copies. Thank you! IT'SPAIN (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the RS noticeboard, all the archived discussions point to social networking sites as sources used sparingly to support BLP claims from personal, verified accounts of the person. Otherwise, theyre questionable (example archive). The claim that this Twitter profile uses Mediatraffic and HDD in conjunction with Billboard and Nielsen makes it a questionable source. Dan56 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this discussion on my talk page.[1] Twitter can be used in certain situations. In fact, we have a policy shortcut to it: WP:TWITTER. However, anyone can create a Twitter account. So in this particular case, the main issue is on who runs the account. If it was Billboard's account, it would be fine. It might also be fine if the artist herself made the tweet. However, this account's profile says "I'm just a chartfreak. [Sources: Billboard, Nielsen SoundScan, HDD, Chart Watch, Chart Beat & Mediatraffic] **I send DMs and delet tweets**". So, it looks like it's just run by some unknown person. Not reliable. Try to find another source. Good luck. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment here and have the same opinion as A Quest For Knowledge, there is no way to know how reliable these figures are. The differences in the figures isn't tremendous, why not just put that it has sold >300,000 copies? J04n(talk page) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Light of the Sun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very solid article, just a few things to straighten out:

• Background: You write she was "countersued" by Hidden Beach. Why "counter", did she sue them first?
• Track list needs a source.
• Two dead links-

That's it, on hold for now. Good job! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, I have no idea why it was worded that way lol. I changed it to "sued", added a source for the track listing, and replaced the dead links. Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, it's a pass :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)