Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bibliography of works on Madonna/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) 00:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Bibliography of works on Madonna

edit

Bibliography of works on Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —IB [ Poke ] 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, firstly we have many author bibliography articles. But this article is the first of its kind I believe about bibliography on someone else. This is an exhaustive list with meticulous details and formatting about the journalistic, academic, scholarly work on American singer Madonna, encompassing biographies, articles, essays, thesis, dissertations. —IB [ Poke ] 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • drive-by re:

    The first Madonna biography by author Mark Bego, it was published in May 1985 and contains 189 pages.

    Seems like the only part worth retaining in notes like this is the first four words. "Mark Bego", "1985", and even the page count are already mentioned in the same row. To repeat them in a note is redundant, if they are important to even note in the first place. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 15:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some other redundancy too eg "French biography written by Guy and Danièle Abitan.", "Dutch biography authored by Alfred Bos, Tom Engelshoven and Stan Rijven.", all of which simply duplicates other cells on the rows. If there's nothing additional that needs saying in the notes column then just leave it blank...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also worth noting that at least half of "A handbook by Ilene Rosenzweig which is humorous biography for Madonna haters and scandalous "bras" that stood over her clothes." makes no sense at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar and ChrisTheDude: fair points, in those cases where you see that the information is duplicated, do you suggest to use the {{n/a}} to fill out the notes column? I personally don't prefer just a blank box. —IB [ Poke ] 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but I can't imagine that there's nothing to say about those entries. Don't they have at least one book review? czar 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them I have had language problem in understanding the reviews. Some of them I removed due to a lack of any notability or the author lacking any credibility at all. —IB [ Poke ] 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar and ChrisTheDude: I have trimmed much of the notes section, changed them to avoid repetition, and removed entries where there was nothing notable I could find. Would you take a look again? —IB [ Poke ] 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodreads is user-generated, no? My impression was that it's unreliable czar 05:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar: WP:RSN relegated Goodreads not to use for any review purposes, but for catalog its fine including {{Goodreads book}}. I have not used Goodreads for any critical review if you see. —IB [ Poke ] 05:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not good for RSN, it can't be good to source facts for this list either. And that template is for the "External links" sections of WP articles about books, though I wouldn't even recommend it for that czar 05:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I can find other sources than Goodreads and if I cannot find it, I would say that entry might be non-notable for the list. What do you say? —IB [ Poke ] 05:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the book has absolutely no secondary source coverage, it sounds reasonable to exclude them. But if the idea is completeness, you could probably cite WorldCat as an alternative to Goodreads czar 05:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar:, I'm torn actually between your two suggestions. I have included the WorldCat {{oclc}} links already in a column, so wouldn't that be another repetition? What about Google books as source? —IB [ Poke ] 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a bibliography at FLC before so I don't know the standard level of detail expected. My gut says to leave the notes+refs column empty if the OCLC listing sufficiently covers the rest of the row's detail. Also I doubt the ASINs are needed, right? ISBN/ISSN + OCLC should be more than enough to identify czar 06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against removing the notes and reference column seeing that already featured lists like Dan Savage bibliography and Madonna bibliography uses that format. I will see what I can do about Goodreads as per the previous suggestion of finding more reliable source, else remove it. —IB [ Poke ] 06:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I'm happy to say that I was able to successfully replace the Goodreads links with other reliable journal and magazine links. Some of the entries had to be removed completely since there was no third party reference I could find, thereby did not deem them to be notable. —IB [ Poke ] 08:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesatellite

  • {{dynamic list}} should be added to the top of the page. There will never be satisfying standard for its completeness.
  • "The life and work of American singer Madonna has generated various..." - It should be "have"
  • "...including biographies, journals, articles, essays and thesis" - It should be "theses" as there isn't only one thesis there
  • ...since she burst onto the pop scene in the early Eighties". - period should be before quotation mark
  • ...for gender relations, American culture, and the future". - Same as above
  • The releases have sometimes become best-sellers but... - "bestseller" is the correct one, isn't it?
  • Why should we have the redlink? I don't see the necessity if the articles are unavailable.

I have never edited this article, not even once. Hope this helps. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • As Bluesatellite pointed out, you should use the plural "theses" as more than one thesis is present, and be sure to fix the grammatical errors with periods for quotes
  • "including German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian among others"..... why not just "including German, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Italian" instead?
  • "In some cases, like for Morton's book, Madonna herself has criticized the release, and in case of Ciccone's book, it led to a rift between the siblings" reads rather awkwardly
  • Contrary to what your "The releases have sometimes become best-sellers but have also faced varied reception from critics and academics" sentence implies, reviews aren't connected to sales
  • It's improper grammar to start sentences with "but" like you did in "But it was a subject of ridicule and indignation overseas" as that forms an incomplete sentence.
  • "As noted by CBS News president Fred W. Friendly" uses a passive voice, and I recommend using the active voice instead (i.e. "CBS News president Fred W. Friendly noted")
  • Unless the redlinked entries are likely to warrant pages anytime soon (which I doubt), then I agree with Bluesatellite that they should be unlinked

As for a media review, File:Madonna - Rebel Heart tour 2015 - Berlin 2 (23220594196) (cropped).jpg is properly licensed and thus fine to use. Hopefully my comments help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Bluesatellite and to SNUGGUMS, I have addressed the points raised. Hope it satisfies now. —IB [ Poke ] 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I can safely support now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After re-checking the article, I have no reason to oppose this nomination, so I gladly support. Nice job! Bluesatellite (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with this list; I could not find anything that requires improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you @Aoba47:. Since you did not have any other comment may I ask you to do a source review and spotchecking for the list? —IB [ Poke ] 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message, but I do not believe that I am qualified enough to do a source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and ChrisTheDude: One last ping to see if your comments have been addressed. I have one point of concern as well- the ASINs should be removed. ISBN and OCLC are international standard identifiers for books; ASIN is literally just Amazon.com's internal product catalog number. It's narrowly specific to a single retailer, and shouldn't be used as if it was a standard. --PresN 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do a full review today, but at a quick glance it seems like the only comment I did raise (that a lot of the notes were redundant and simply duplicated info in the publication date/page count/etc columns) seems to have been resolved. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: thanks for explaining about the ASIN, when you put it in that way they are not needed and I have removed them. Except for the Luv for Keeps The Story of Madonna's Stalker documentary work which is solely available on Amazon, so I guess for it keeping the ASIN is fine. Rest all removed. —IB [ Poke ] 16:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My major points were addressed. But looking at it now, I don't think Luv for Keeps should be included—having neither an ISBN or OCLC ID indicates that it's not an important book on the topic. Also the source doesn't appear to even mention it? (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 10:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha @Czar: what a coincidence. I had just removed it thinking it to be non-notable and I realized you commented the same thing here. :P —IB [ Poke ] 11:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:45, 10 July 2018 (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/Bibliography_of_works_on_Madonna/archive1&oldid=849734846"