Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rufus Wainwright discography

< 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [1].

Rufus Wainwright discography

edit
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all requirements. Despite receiving support from two reviewers, my previous attempt at obtaining FL status was unsuccessful. However, I have made all corrections requested here, so I hope the list satisfies all reviewers this time. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JD554
Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs)
  • "released under [label]" seems a strange choice of wording. Would "released by" or "released through" be better?
Done. All "under"s have been changed to "through"s.
  • References for chart positions and certifications aren't needed in the lead as they are cited in the main body.
Done.
Comment: It was suggested that I add citations for specific chart positions in the header. Since it comes down to a personal preference, I put the references back (only 3 total, so not a big difference). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Best New Artist" doesn't need quotes around it.
Done.
  • Saying "and more" at the end of what's available on All I Want makes it sound like an advert. This needs re-wording or maybe expanding to say what the "more" is.
Done. Removed "and more".
  • The last sentence of the lead isn't necessary.
Done.
  • Some of the releases in the lead are referred to in the past tense, these need changing to the present. Eg, "His first music DVD, Live at the Fillmore, accompanied Want Two and featured live concert footage" should be "and features".
Done.
  • The actual details of albums are in different orders: Studio, live and compilation albums have released date, label, format; but EPs and video albums have released date, format, label. These should be consistent.
Done.
  • Wherever there is more than one format, it should be "Formats:".
Done.
  • Remove the word "Records" from the Waiting for a Want EP's details.
Done.
  • Move the video albums to follow the singles so they are in the same order as the infobox.
Done.
References
  • Reference #3 could be used for both American charts.
Comment: I'm sorry, but the references were shuffled around in the process of making the above suggestions. Could you please clarify which reference you are referring to?
They're now 6 & 7, the Billboard and Allmusic sources. The Allmusic source seems more comprehensive and has everything the Billboard one has as well as including the Heatseaker chart. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except Allmusic does not have the chart position for Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall, so the source is still needed. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References in a foreign language (Nos. 9, 11, 12) need a language tag.
Done.
  • ChartStats (used at #20) can be used instead of everyHit (#16).
Done.
  • A reference for the UK certification of Release the Stars is needed.
Done.

That's all for now, --JD554 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from JD554
Done. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more thing I've spotted: The gold certification for Release the Stars isn't confirmed at the BPI's website[2] (use 'wainwright' as the search term) but it looks like Want Two was awarded silver. It may be possible that the BPI haven't kept their database up to date (but doubtful): Do you have another source for the gold certification that isn't a quote from Wainwright? --JD554 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have added the silver certification to Want Two on the table. This, this, and this all mention Release the Stars' gold certification in the UK. Does the reference need to be replaced? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was pretty tough on this list, so I'm very happy to finally support. It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Since you've already gone through my un-ending list of comments already, I'm pretty pleased with the way this list has turned out. There's a few more things that I'm noticing now, but nothing major:

  • The lead needs a few citations, namely for sentences talking about chart positions and certifications. I'm sure you could use references you've already been using.
Comment: I had citations, but was asked to remove them (see second suggestion by JD554 above). What to do?
As you already know, I'm of the opinion that they aren't needed in the lead as they are simply summarising what's in the article, see WP:LEADCITE. However, there isn't really a hard and fast rule, some FL-class discogs have them, but most don't seem to. I wouldn't consider the issue to be a deal-breaker either way (for me). --JD554 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like this, I'd say just go with whatever you feel is right. It's not a deal breaker for me either. But, my rationale is this: specific statistical information (chart positions) need to cited since they're so specific, whereas more generalized information like who what where when why can be left for the bulk of the article where the prose will inevitably go into more detail. But you can't get any more detailed than #27 on XYZ chart. But like I said I'll leave it up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the citations, so I put them back and added a comment in the JD554 section above. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alright, Already: Live in Montréal, was released by Geffen via iTunes in the United States and Canada on March 15, 2005, and later in Germany on March 29." We're usually only concerned with the original release date, so I'm not sure why the German release date is relevant here.
Done.
  • May want to wikilink Judy Garland in the notes for Rufus! Does Judy!...
Done.
  • The double heading-in the video albums and singles table still bugs me...
Done, although I don't prefer the wider column width.
  • "Contributions" sounds a little vague. What about "Other contributions" or "Original contributions"?
Done.
  • "Various artists" isn't a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalized.
Done.
  • For some of the song titles, some of the prepositions are capitalized where I don't think they should be. Words like "Are" and "On" should be lower-cased. Unless of course the titles are specifically like that on the recording.
Done.
  • I see "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve?" mentioned numerous times in the latter tables. Are these all different renditions/recordings, or are they the same? Same with "Spotlight On Christmas".
Done. Removed second occurrence.

I think that's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments were resolved at the previous FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (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/Rufus_Wainwright_discography&oldid=1141920492"