Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry Styles discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Harry Styles discography

edit

Harry Styles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Harry Styles discography for featured list because it is sourced, well-organised, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time in expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and also my first time working on a discography. For reference, I've used both Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. I look forward to the comments. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Drive-by comment

Is there any way to avoid having sources that require the reader to search databases manually? For example, source 24 (for BPI album certifications) requires the user to search the database using the information provided, but using that database, I found a source here for Harry Styles that doesn't require this search, and the other singles and albums have similar links. I know this means each album/single would need its own citation instead of having a single overarching citation, but it would make it easier to show WP:V and would allow those specific links to be archived (search engines don't work in archives). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello RunningTiger123, thank you for the comments. I agree that having separate sources can assist the readers in verifying the information for each album/single separately, however I'd like to ask if this is really needed? I find this similar to the chart history of each artist, where all albums/singles that have charted are listed together with the respective peak positions. Here also, if the name of the artist is searched in the "BPI awards" box, the server shows the list of all albums/singles with the corresponding certification status and date. Other FL articles that I consulted with have used the same format, like Meghan Trainor's, or Taylor Swift's. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you're saying. The reason I mentioned this is because search pages really can't be archived, so if something happens to those links (even something as simple as the website restructuring their database), it may be difficult to verify the information – at the very least, the citations would have to be updated. Also, since the citations are linked to each individual album, I don't think it's necessary to provide the full history as the citation. Maybe those search links could be moved to the "External links" section in that case. But I also understand that the existing format is used in other FLs, so if you want to keep it that way, I don't have any problems with that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, the only things I noticed are that a few sources weren't archived for some reason and that the information in column "Studio album details" (release date, label, format) isn't cited like it is in other FLs. All other formatting, sources, etc. look really good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – top-notch work, especially for a first FL and first discography. Nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "he left its management and signed a recording contract" - I would omit the bit about the management, it's pretty trivial
  • "both of which became top-ten hits on several single charts" => "both of which became top-ten hits on several singles charts"
  • "Styles became the first British male artist to have two first albums" - "two first albums"? Not sure what this means
Support from MaranoFan

Support from HĐ

  • Avoid phrasings like "commercial success"/"moderate success" as it is potentially POV. Mentioning chart positions should be sufficient for readers to understand how successful the single(s) was/were
  • "quintuple platinum" → "five times platinum" is easier to understand

Source review by Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Mostly a source review but some other comments too.)
  • I might say "As a solo artist, the English singer Harry Styles has released..." rather than "English singer Harry Styles has released..." because some will be mostly/only familiar with him as a 1D member—it's just a tiny bit more clear.
  • rephrased.
  • Rolling Stone says the hiatus was announced in August 2015 but the article One Direction seems to think it only occurred in 2016. Find a source saying "the hiatus began on/in __" or something as explicit as possible.
  • changed the source, which mentions the hiatus year as 2016.
  • Might be nice to mention the awards Styles has received for the discography, exactly like Harry Styles does: Throughout his career, Styles has earned several accolades, including a Brit Award, an American Music Award, two ARIA Music Awards, and a Billboard Music Award. (And in this context we'd need inline citations too.)
  • Well, this strikes me as a strange claim given that the accolades (at least the serious well-known ones) were given largely for his discography. It seems to me that they are more than related enough to mention. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not obvious what "WW" means on first sight so using WW (for instance) would be a help.
  • changed.
  • I have to agree with RunningTiger123 that it would be better for linkrot reasons to cite fixed URLs directly rather than give search instructions, except where the website doesn't have a dedicated way to link to something specific. "Passed FL" doesn't mean "100% perfect" (lots of human error at every stage of the process and standards change over time) so I'm not convinced by the precedent cited. This affects 8 references as far as I can see.
  • all BPI certifications use the "cite certification" template, I don't see anything wrong with it.
  • done.
  • I think BBC News shouldn't have italics for consistency.
  • done.
  • I know the image is marked as free and used on Wikimedia Commons but I don't know enough about copyright law to say that it's fine—it's by a fan recording a concert, which is of dubious legality (Billboard, Legal Beagle) initially before we even consider whether the fan has the right to release the recording under a CC-BY license. I can see if we can get a more expert opinion or (my preferred choice) we could avert this entirely by using the better-quality well-licensed File:Harry Styles November 2014.jpg instead.
  • changed.
  • Spotchecks on sources 13, 14, 28, 49, 50, 54, 56, 65, 66, 77 (numbering as of Special:Permalink/1006466603). Issues: #13 (Ultratop) works for the singles but for the albums I'd prefer citing [2] and [3] directly, similar to the comment above about search pages as references. For #54 (GLF/Sverigetopplistan), I think when I follow the instructions I'm looking at peak positions rather than a 2x Platinum listing. Even the ref at Sign of the Times (Harry Styles song)#Certifications the ref cited only gives evidence of Gold (rather, "GULD"). And could #65 be archived immediately because it looks like the ref will fail verification as soon as "Watermelon Sugar" falls off the top 40 (and it's currently #38)?
  • Ref. 13 changed for albums, ref. 54 has been changed to the one that cites "Gold", ref. 65 uses cite certification that makes use of a unique id and does not need archiving.

With only one factual inaccuracy (if I'm correct about that one) in the spotchecks and no sources I could identify as unreliable, it's looking very good, but I hope the comments above can make it even better. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't be happy to support with the linkrot issues remaining, though it's not enough to oppose over either. I suppose that puts me at Neutral for the time being and another source review would be needed for this nomination to pass. I'm not assessing things based on FLs promoted in 2012 or whether something is a template or whether a WikiProject considers something okay, but by the featured list criteria as applied to the rendered output of the page (and this touches on stability and verifiability). You may think "of course the BPI website isn't just going to go down" but I've seen enough broken references added to Wikipedia in 2005 by people making similar assumptions to think that it is a possiblility worth taking into account. Thank you for applying the other suggestions I made and for your improvements to the list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bilorv, so I worked hard and linked all the BPI certifications separately to the respective pages, like you suggested. Just one thing, I haven't been able to archive three ref.s: "Kiwi", "Golden", and "Sweet Creature", the wayback machine is taking a lot of time to archive these manually. Can you please run the bot and fix these, if that's not a problem? Otherwise, I'm going to try tomorrow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to change the Italian citations too—please make fixes or let me know if any of these have mistakes in them. You can use IABot by clicking "Fix dead links" in the page history (which also runs automatically periodically, see IABot). It fixed two of those but doesn't like "Golden" (nor does Wayback Machine directly), so it's fine to leave this be—maybe next time the bot runs it'll work it out. Not including a paragraph about accolades is personal taste so I'm happy to Support. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Some of the refs are subscription only, e.g. the NYT, so there's a url-access=subscription parameter for those.
  • done.
  • " where it was certified platinum" it was certified platinum in all of these or just the US, I can't quite tell what the sentence is saying.
  • I meant to say that it was certified platinum in the US. Not sure how to rephrase this, please feel free to reword it accordingly.
  • You use US and UK before going onto United States and United Kingdom...
  • "reached moderate peaks" that's relatively meaningless...
  • removed.
  • EP should be used in the lead after extended play as the EP abbreviation is used in the infobox without explanation.
  • added EP in brackets in the lead.
  • Ref 24 should use a spaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
  • done.
  • " Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana." is linked in the refs twice, looks like you're using the "link once, first time" paradigm so check that and others.
  • Thanks for noticing, removed the target on latter.
  • Although Recorded Music NZ looks like it's linked every time...
  • Pick one strategy and go with it.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Harry_Styles_discography/archive1&oldid=1114549161"