Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)/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 The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 September 2011 [1].

List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK) edit

List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "as being a type of musical release that feature more than four tracks and last more than 25 minutes". Both "feature" and "last" need to be in plural form for this sentence as a whole to work.
Done.
  • In the lead, it should be either X Factor or The X Factor, not both.
Fixed.
  • Chart history: Try not to start a sentence with a year, like in "2006 and 2007 both featured 33 different number-one albums".
Fixed.
  • I believe that slashes are discouraged in text whenever they can be avoided. En dashes usually work well for year ranges, if a substitute is desired.
Done.
  • Numbers in the Album column are also sorting oddly: by first number instead of total. Same for the record labels that are numbers.
Fixed.
  • David Grey caption: "Two other of his albums also reached number one." → "Two of his other albums also reached number one."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Thanks very much for the feedback! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names are sorting by first name in all charts, not last name as usual (where possible).
Fixed.
It's fixed in two of the charts, but the Christmas number-ones still have first name sorting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. (Now) fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album and artist names which start with the word "The" are being sorted under "T". The "The" should be ignored in the sort. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
    • Albums still sort under "The". –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes 1 and 2 seem redundant. Just use the appropriate reference rather than using a note to describe the source, which then references the source. The reference itself describes the source. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, just realized why you did it that way. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that using † and ‡ is redundant to just coloring the rows, but that could go either way. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the purpose of those symbols are to conform with MOS:ACCESS - conveying that information using just the colours would make the article difficult for the colourblind to understand, hence the need for the symbols too.
  • Are the diamonds and circles an official way to abbreviate album sales info? If they aren't, I'd recommend at least coloring them gold and platinum to make them easier to understand without using the key. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really official, no, but they are very similar to the symbols that Q magazine used to use to convey certification levels. Colouring them seems like a good idea. Any idea how I might do that?
    • Actually, on second thought, I'd recommend just writing out the full name of the certification rather than using symbols. Some browsers might have trouble rendering the icons. If you feel this isn't feasible, I have an idea on how to color the icons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Display resolution#Computer monitors, almost 14% of all Internet users use a display of 1024x768. I've resized my browser to this resolution, and the list has a serious problem: All of the images along the side of the list are shown the same way as they are now, but the list gets pushed down below the images. I'd recommend removing or finding locations below the main list for the images. They look great on a large, widescreen monitor, but we can't make the page excessively confusing and clunky for 14% of the population. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed them and moved some to areas of the article where there is more space.
  • Actually, I've had a thought: would it make any difference if the width of the images were reduced, from 180px to 150px? Would that make them fit on a 1024x768 screen? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it. I like they format it is in now. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first paragraph of the lead seems like it could be shortened. As is, the lead is placing a lot of emphasis on how reality TV affected album sales, but the rest of the article doesn't have any specific mentions of the phenomenon. I'm not saying remove the paragraph altogether (I think it is good, useful info), but maybe remove some of the examples. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've removed some of the sentences in the first and fourth paragraphs. Let me know if it's too much or not enough. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I meant to say the forth paragraph of the lead, but I like your cuts in the first paragraph also. Knowing who first announces it is more important than knowing (a small number) of the other places where it is published thereafter. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, all of my concerns have been resolved. Passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments:
    • "after which it also included albums sold digitally,[3] and each week's new number one" Starting a new sentence at Each makes it sound a bit better.
    • It could be beneficial to link boyband.

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments good list, thanks to the other reviewers, just some last minute odds-and-sods....
  • "s, the most of any artist." seems a little odd to consider Westlife an "artist"...
  • Changed to "act".
  • " by the TV show" Yuck.. TV? television show.
  • Changed.
  • "boy band" vs "girlband"
  • "700th album ever to top" no need for "ever"
  • Removed.
  • "3½ years and a day later" really? Tenuous. Perhaps just "less than four years.." or something...
  • Changed.
  • Done.
  • Note b, just use the abbreviation for the OCC.
  • Changed for notes b and a.
  • Refs 35 to 44 appear to have identical titles. Can we not distinguish between them?
  • Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does # mean? Why isn't it in the key?
  • The number next to each album shows that it is the nth album to reach number one, e.g. the 752 next to Don't Believe the Truth by Oasis shows that it is the 752nd album ever to top the UK Albums Chart. Putting it in the key would certainly be a good idea, I just can't think of any succinct way of describing it. Any suggestions?
  • Well, saying "nth album to top UK Albums Chart" is a good start! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables should use MOS:DTT as guidance for accessibility using row and col scopes.
  • Sorry, but I'm a bit confused - what do you mean by this?
  • For the benefit of WP:ACCESS, you should add !scope="col" in front of each column heading, and !scope="row" in front of each row heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what, in this article, would the row heading be? The number? Artist? Single name? Whichever one it is will look different from the other cells, which would be annoying for people using standard visual media. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be the element of the row that is considered the most significant. And using "plainrowheaders" in the table class should prevent it looking too different. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But which of those is most significant? They all seem more or less equally important to me. Anyways, I'll leave it up to the article nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album itself would make sense, since that's what's referenced in the article title. But there are ten "Album" headers in the list in total - do I add !scope="col" before each one, or only the top-most one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert but since the header has been repeated, I would imagine that yes, you'd need to repeat the scope parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (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/List_of_number-one_albums_from_the_2000s_(UK)/archive1&oldid=1089077172"