Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kesha 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 Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010 [1].

Kesha discography

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The lead is engaging and contains valuable information that accurately summarizes the body of the article.
  2. All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion.
  3. All chart positions are properly sourced and are properly updated.
  4. All sources are properly formatted, accurate, and reliable.
- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) (part 1)
:comment, i'll refrain from voting yes or no right now because I'll take a thorough look over the next few days. However there are a few things I will say. The review for Kelly Rowland discography (which was recently promoted) determined that the format of discographies will need to be updated in the future to match WP:ACCESSIBILITY. However there is some changes which can be made immediately. The music video and collaboration tables need to be updated according to WP:Wikitable. Also you've used a press release to source "My First Kiss" reaching platinum in the US. This should be sourced directly from RIAA or its not considered official. Also see Kelly Rowland discography for the correct link to for certification heading. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ive fixed the music video section and replaced the My First Kiss link with RIAA. How do you suggest i fix the Kesha_discography#Collaborations section? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you quite understood what I mean. Instead of using !Title in the data table you have to use !scope="col"
Resolved comments from –Chase (talk)
*Comment: Everything here looks good, but I don't think "other charted songs" and "collaborations" should be here. The discography is supposed to cover musical releases, and those were not released as singles. –Chase (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed time and time again. A discography is all the work of an artist, its a descriptive catalog of musical recordings and chartings. They should be included. If you remove other charted songs how will you know that that particular song charted? If you remove her collaborations there is no other appropriate place for people to find out about her other work. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't find it rather important if a non-single gets a lot of downloads and charts off of that. And I think WP:WikiProject Discographies/style explains it best: "this is a discography not a songography". The goal is to cover the releases, not charted non-releases. –Chase (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although i do see your point, on the same page it is not listed on things to avoid on a discography: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And i dont mean this in a rude way, but the quote you took is somewhat out of context, its from the quote "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release." It is referring Tracklistings and B-sides, it doesnt refer to other songs that gain notability. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still don't like that non-releases are included, but if it's that big of a deal to keep them in here, I suppose it's not too large of a concern. –Chase (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, if it ever becomes a rule or guideline not to include them for FL requirements ill remove them with out hesitation. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably place non-print sources in the publisher instead of work field though. Perfectly acceptable and it reduces the amount of markup in the ref. –Chase (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason why the year columns for the music videos and collaboration sections are at the end of the table? Just wondering, because I've never seen it done like that on any other pages, and none of the featured discography pages seem to be like that (for the music videos section, at least). Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually Lil_℧niquℇ №1 who changed it, i dont really care either way. His reasoning was which is most important as your reading? The song or the year it was released? which if you think about it it actually makes sense to have the year last. BTW thanks for making some corrections to the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may change if you disagree as i have no strong feelings either way. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problem! Well, the year is used as the first column for the single and album tables throughout, so I just thought it should be the same for consistency. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
mhmm, i could really care less but ive changed it back to year being first as thats how it is for the rest of the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify. Per WP:wikitable and WP:ACCESS articles are undergoing some changes to meet accessibility guidelines. When using a screen reader (blind users will use such software) the screen reader should read the most important peice of information first because it is the first thing said by the reader which is the identifying piece of information. For users who cannot see the make-up of the tables the song title is the most important piece of info not the year. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For machine readability it is also desirable to get rid of the rowspan, so each line has the year. Example: Helena Bonham Carter#Filmography. Note the table is also sortable and the colour has been removed. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs)
*Comment looks good, but the lead needs a quick copy-edit, including the addition of some commas. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done? lol. Punctuation is not my strong suit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had another quick go. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support, but I think that the lead could also do with a bit of wikifying, particularly that of genres and countries. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and i added more wiki links. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Legolas (talk2me)
Comment These are some concerns that I found with the article and hence I won't support yet still.
Lead:
  • wikilink first appearance of singles & studio albums.
  • "Although she had been an active musician since 2005, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists, her breakthrough only came in early 2009 after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." — Chop up the snake, try something like "Since 2005 she was an active musician, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists. But breakthrough only came in early 2009, after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." this way the sentence doesnot drag on and on.
  • Her debut album, Animal — mention when it was released. Also you can mention its digital performance too. Its important.
  • Following this sentence, instead of autolinking the country names, why not link them to their respective album charts to be more specific?
  • "The song performed best in the United States where it topped the charts" — Which chart? Hot 100? Pop songs? Dance Club?
  • "and the top ten in two other countries" — remove countries, redundant.
  • "been certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association" — This is the first occurence of ARIA in the lead, hence link it, with the abbreviation in braces.
done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Singles:
  • "Dirty Picture" did not receive any certifications? Pity, my favourite.
Ive checked, couldn't locate any.
Other charted songs:
  • Try to move any notes section to the bottom of the page, before the references. Look in the Lady Gaga discography.
done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
References:
  • Link Billboard for the first time. Similar for About.com
  • Is there any external link pointing to Kesha's website discography?
No.
  • Infobox image — Can we please reduce the pinkiness of the image as well as the color of the featured singles link? Everything about the infobox looks like we are talking about Barbie. Lol. A greenish image suits best for Kesha IMO.
  • Since this is not a songography, try to reduce the writing credits to major artists. Remove such obscure names like Dirt nasty, Charlee, Avalon, whose songs hardly received any third party notability, neither did Kesha's songwriting in it.
I just removed it all together per similar requests earlier.
done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -

These are the things I found for now. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done:

  • I don't see "Tik Tok" being gold in any of the certifications mentioned in the table. So saying "gold" is a redundancy in the following line.
Album:
  • Pipe IFPI to the expanded format.
Collaborations:
  • Can you update the chartstats link with those from officialcharts.com? Just a suggestion.
No, i did chartstats because 3OH!3 arnt listed on official and neither is Dirty Picture for some reason. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct reference nine. Sp mistake.

Support — Everything looks good with the discography now. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose

Active:

Be consistent about using the serial comma or not, your very first sentence goes both ways.
Done? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Nope. Check your first sentence again. You have two lists of three, one using the serial comma, and one without. Courcelles 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"one on it's first week" Nope; that's not correct usage of it's.
Further, "Her debut album, Animal, was released on January 1, 2010 and features at dominant dance-pop/electropop sound." at is not the word you want there.
Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
"setting a record with sales of 152,000 (76% of which were digital sales, setting a percentage record as opposed to physical sales for a number one album)." Try this clause again, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Suggestions how to fix?
Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
"Australia, Canada, Germany and New Zealand." When you have four items, the serial comma is not optional.
Suggestions how to fix?
Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
No, not done. When you have more than three items, it must be W, X, Y, and Z. You have W, X, Y and Z. Courcelles 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no number of items that requires a serial comma. Both are correct. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you, i forgot the , - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Both songs achieved similar success both reaching the top five and top ten in multiple countries as well as receiving gold and platinum certifications in similar regions." This sentence doesn't flow well at all.
Suggestions how to fix?
Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me Done:
Ref 8, typo; "Australian-aharts.com"
done
"Since 2005 she was an active musician, singing background vocals and writing songs for other artists. But her breakthrough only came in early 2009, after she appeared on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round"." Sources for any of this? It smacks of POV as it stands.
done (added ref)
"At the age of eighteen, Kesha was signed to Dr. Luke's record label and publishing company." This needs a link or something. Right now it's just a giant, "so what?" sentence. Is this record label notable? Who is Dr. Luke?
done (added wiki link to Dr. Luke)

Courcelles 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The song performed best in the United States where it topped the Billboard Hot 100 for nine consecutive weeks and has gone on to sell five million copies as of July 2010" best? POV?
Yes, Best, meaning thats where the song preformed best.
No, it's an NPOV violation as it stands, best is a WP:PEACOCK word. Tell us why this is the "best".

Courcelles 20:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that but what ever, ive rewritten the sentence. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
With only one album, I'm somewhat surprised this is considered necessary. But, I tend to avoid discogs like the plague.
Its eligible because she meets the requirements for stand alone lists. Main page is over 30, (34 to be exact)if this is merged then the main page is well over 40 which a split is required.
Ref 1, About.com is not automatically reliable, why does this qualify as a WP:RS?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this reference.
No, that's not how this works. I challenge the source, and then you prove it is reliable. You logically can't prove a negative. Courcelles 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay easy, Established reliable source, established writer (Bill Lamb). Can you explain why an established and verified source cannot be used? (Thats not meant to come across as rude) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read this thread from the reliable sources noticeboard and try again. About.com falls under WP:SPS. So again, why is this reliable. With links, explanation, and not just the hand-waving. Courcelles 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a two year ago discussion should probably not be called into play. That aside, i have never heard of anyone calling About.com into play as unreliable, with that i strongly feel it meets Wikipedia:RS#Overview "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and About.com has no such reputation. It's the same site that was discussed on the RSN; it hasn't changed in two years, while our standards have gone up; considerably. And that you've never heard it questioned merely proves that you don't read many FAC's, not that it isn't done, often and vehemently. Courcelles 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to read User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You, one of the best essays on reliable sources and featured content processes there is. Courcelles 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% do not agree with this but what ever, the links have replaced. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
The replacement source isn't a third-party source, and is being used to source information favourable to the subject. Please read WP:SELFPUB bullet #1. Courcelles 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not my strong point, but, FWiW, I believe Bill Lamb (the author of the first source) is considered an authority in his field. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ive replaced with A Billboard Cover story :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive put in a request for help and i added another ref for the 12 countries. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
  • Comments. The lead section needs a copy edit. The prose is quite choppy, sentences shouldn't start with "but", there are commas where they shouldn't be and no commas where they should be. I would also suggest that you consider including her full name (but I don't consider that a big deal). Also, the last sentence of the lead doesn't have a citation and is there a photo where she doesn't look drunk? They're not fundamental issues and could be addressed fairly easily, but they're worth fixing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "But". I believe i have fixed the punctuation, i may have missed some. Please be bold and correct any i have missed. Please and Thank you. And there are very very limited free images of Kesha. This is one of the best unfortunately. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've addressed my more trivial concerns, but what about the choppiness of the prose? FL criterion #1. What of the uncited final sentence? As things are, I'm going to have to oppose per criteria 1 and 2. I don't wish to cause offence, the idea here is to get the best possible article, but it doesn't fall to the reviewer to be bold to make sure an FLC meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has since reached the top forty in six countries (three of them being top twenty peaks). Doesnt need a source. Thats what the body of the article is for. Please be more specific about criteria 1 and 2 or i cannot improve it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is very choppy—there are a lot of very short sentences and it's difficult for the reader to retain interest. Also, as Courcelles pointed out above, you make inconsistent use of the serial comma. Personally, I despise the damn thing, but you need to make up your own mind on whether to use it or not. As for the prose quality, have a look at Taylor Swift discography and some other fairly recent FL discographies. While the first paragraph of Swift's is structured very similarly, it make s much better use of varied sentence structure to hold the reader's interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some copy edits which I hope will be adequate. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I decided to copy edit it myself and I'm now satisfied with the prose and the other technical aspects. On 3b, although there isn't much of a discography, I believe it's of more use in its own article than it would be merged back into Kesha, not least since it would more-than-likely be split again in the near-ish future as she releases more music. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose (sorry if some repeat resolved stuff ^^)
  • Why does lead contradict infobox (e.g. singles in lead = three, singles in infobox = four)?
    • ?? What are you talking about. "consists of one studio album, four singles as a solo artist, and three singles as a featured artist" infobox says 4 singles, 3 feature, one album. Theres no issue - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
  • Kesha repeated three times in the first three sentences. Repetitive.
  • "Other charted songs" not sure, but I'd say "Other charting songs"?
    • The way its written not is correct. - (CK)Lakeshade - [[User talk:L-l-CLK-l-

l|talk2me]] -

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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/Kesha_discography/archive1&oldid=1138480766"