Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rise Against 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rise Against discography

Featured list candidates/Rise Against discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Against is an American rock band, known for their political activism and social justice inspired lyrics. After a peer review, I feel this list now meets FL criteria. Have at it! Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments FYI: This is probably my first time reviewing a discography,
- ~~The first paragraph of the lead is too short compared to others. That should be avoided.~~
- Rise Against's next album would be Endgame in 2011 - "would be" seems too colloquial to me, maybe "Endgame, Rise Against's next album, was released in 2011"
- most successful album chart-wise to date - to what date? Will this statement be true next year?

Reworded. I removed the part that mentions 85,000 copies sold, as I had only mentioned sales for Appeal to Reason, and no other album.

- The 2014 album - what album is that? The Black Market? Be more specific

Done. Also, I condensed the lead into two decent sized paragraphs, instead of one decent sized paragraph and two short paragraphs.

- The lead overall listed the studio albums with a couple of singles and a compilation album. Nothing on documentaries (2) or music videos (17)

Yeah I knew this would be problematic. Most discography pages solely focus on albums and singles, as they reach music charts, while the lesser known extended plays and documentaries, barely sell. I can include the documentaries if you want, but the music videos are almost never put in the lead, even on FL pages.

- The lead should also mention that the band's former name was Transistor Revolt. I was surprised by that B note.

Honestly, I don't think that's necessary. The band was known as Transistor Revolt for a year at most, and of all the sources I've found, a grand total of two mention their previous name, both of which are used in the list. Almost no one knows there original name. Besides, there are several famous bands that were originally under a different name. For example, Maroon 5 was originally Kara's Flowers, while Nirvana had four different names including Pen Cap Chew, Bliss, and Ted Ed Fred. Neither of those band articles or discography pages (both of which are at FL status) mention the band's original name in the lead.

Maroon 5 discography mentions the old name.Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, I guess I just glossed over it. Anyway, I added the band's original name.

- ~~The tables are missing captions per MOS:DTT~~
- ~~The "notes" should be a separate section~~
- ~~Reference from Bundesverband Musikindustrie is not in English~~
- Why is the reference for "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" formatted differently?

It's a cite web instead of a cite AV media notes. The ref I used to source The Black Market also mentioned that "I Don't Want to Be Here Anymore" was the album's first single, so I decided to reuse it

Is "*" really necessary?Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- What do the Media notes mean? What is the purpose of listing that under references?

Media notes are basically another way of saying liner notes for CDs. Since I couldn't find refs for most of the singles to prove they were indeed released as singles, I just decided to cite the CD single itself, which is accepted in discography pages

I've checked three Discography FL pages and none of them have such lines: Maroon 5 discography, Selena Gomez discography, and Evanescence discography Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I've been using Azealia Banks discography as a model, but after looking through WP:DISCOGSTYLE, I don't find anything that says that singles need to be sourced. I guess I put myself through more trouble than I needed to. I will remove the single citations, but I'd like to keep the album citations, since that is in almost every discography list.

--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please, let me strike my comments next time. Thanks!--Cheetah (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Cheetah (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Infobox image caption is a fragment so no need for the full stop.
"... recorded The Black Market, their most recent album. The Black Market reached ..." repetitive.
" 7" vinyl" is linked on its second occurrence.
Were all singles released in all those territories?
Same for promotional singles.
Ref titles should really use en-dash not em-dash.

That's all, frankly I struggled to find much to complain about! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done everything except the single territories. Honestly, I don't know if all the singles were released outside the United States, and I don't know how I would find out that information. I just followed the standard convention of discography articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would add "... or was not released in that territory...." to the latter tables. That would suffice for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great job with the article! I cannot find anything that needs correction. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – About the only nit-pick I can come up with is that the em dashes in the titles of refs 6, 10, 17–21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36–41, 43, 45, 47–49, 52–53, and 57 should be made into smaller en dashes instead, and ref 56 has hyphens that should be converted into en dashes as well. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, The Rambling Man said that those ref titles should use em-dash. Not sure which one to go with, so I'll just ping him. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said Ref titles should really use en-dash not em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry about that, got ahead of myself. Anyway, Giants2008, the ref titles now include en-dash instead of em-dash. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I gave you an assist on the dashes, and now I think the list meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Formatting looks good, except for ref 42 where you had a multi-part ref with no header line (and only one bullet point, but that makes sense in context, especially for an ongoing band)
Spotchecks: 6, 17, 29, 46, 55 - all clean
No concerns about not using appropriate sources.

Source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 16:16, 23 January 2017 (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.