Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/August 2022

< Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates | Good log

David Bowie studio albums

edit

English singer-songwriter David Bowie (1947–2016) released 26 studio albums throughout his lifetime, between 1967 and 2016. A posthumous album, Toy, which was recorded in 2000, was released in 2021.

edit | discuss
  David Bowie studio albums
28 articles
 
  David Bowie (1967)
  David Bowie (1969)
  The Man Who Sold the World
  Hunky Dory
  The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars
  Aladdin Sane
  Pin Ups
  Diamond Dogs
  Young Americans
  Station to Station
  Low
  "Heroes"
  Lodger
  Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)
  Let's Dance
  Tonight
  Never Let Me Down
  Black Tie White Noise
  The Buddha of Suburbia
  Outside
  Earthling
  Hours
  Heathen
  Reality
  The Next Day
  Blackstar
  Toy (posthumous)
Contributor(s): zmbro, Ian Rose, 87Fan

Two years, about 15 books, numerous websites, subscriptions, and lots of time later, I have brought all of David Bowie's studio albums to at least GA or FA. This possible topic includes all 26 of his studio albums released between 1967 and 2016, along with a posthumous album, Toy, recorded in 2000, shelved, and finally released late last year. I also brought his two studio albums with the rock band Tin Machine (1988–1992) to GA but I did not include those here as this topic includes just his solo studio albums. Huge thanks to Ian Rose and 87Fan for helping with two of the articles many years ago, and thanks to all the support I've received throughout this project. --– zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Looks like a mountain of excellent work! I've added a draft summary paragraph, which anyone else should feel free to improve on. I'll just note that it seems odd that the text repeatedly says that he released 26 studio albums, while this proposal includes 27 (with Toy); if Toy counts, then probably all the counts should be updated to 27? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackstar, which came out two days before he died, is definitively considered his final album. Toy is a posthumous release that's still technically a studio album, just an addition since it was recorded entirely in 2000. But Blackstar is without a doubt his final album. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I reviewed a few of these and have been an avid watcher of many. I have to say, these pages are not just among the best the various music WikiProjects have to offer, but are some of the best on the site as a whole. Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: fantastic content on a really substantial body of music. A complete, well-defined topic with no gaps and an appropriate lead list. Great work! — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments The usage of Forbes contributors and the Evening Standard is unreliable per WP:RSP, also some sources are cited as publisher sometimes but website on others and articles sometimes never link sources once so be consistent with formatting, fix errors with ref 219 on The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, add a publisher to ref 111 on Diamond Dogs, refs 62, 67 and 70 on Tonight, refs 94, 97 and 116 on Never Let Me Down, refs 73 and 81 on Black Tie White Noise and ref 15 on Hours. Also, cite Daily News as New York Daily News since there is also a Los Angeles version and fix too many reviews in the box for Black Tie White Noise. Outside of these, congratulations on bringing so many articles together for this GT that consists of very well-written material! --K. Peake 07:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, the citation issue on Ziggy Stardust is an issue with Template:Album chart that the nominator is not in a position to fix. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake How's it looking now? And WP:RSP says the evening standard is more reliable than tabloids and the articles I've used it for come across as reliable so I don't see why it couldn't be used. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group 3 elements

edit

Group 3 is the first group of transition metals in the periodic table. All the group 3 elements are soft, silvery-white metals, although their hardness increases with atomic number. Each occurs naturally, except for Lawrencium, which is strongly radioactive.

edit | discuss
  Group 3 elements
5 articles
 
  Scandium
  Lawrencium
  Yttrium
  Lutetium
Contributor(s): User:Double sharp, User:Stone, User:Mav, User:R8R, and others

Disclaimer, I have done no work on these articles. Am just a lurker who realized that this set fits the criteria of GT. --— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted the placement controversy; I didn't because I happen to be on the Lu–Lr side of the dispute, but, regardless, this list is indeed the conclusion that IUPAC have, at length, reached. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The reason I didn't nominate this before is described in Group 3 element#Dispute on composition: there has been a long dispute in the literature as to which elements belong to this group. Most authors writing textbooks have it with Sc, Y, La, and Ac; most studying the actual placement dispute favour Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr (though there are some exceptions on each side); and because of this squabbling the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry started showing a compromise form in 1990 leaving the spaces below Y blank (hence making it unclear if the group stops there or if all 30 lanthanoids and actinoids are intended to fit in that gap somehow). This didn't really stop chemists from arguing about it, so they started a project intended to actually choose in 2015, and in 2021 it released a provisional report supporting the format with Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr. So this with only four element articles is a reasonable topic, though as of quite recently – IUPAC has not actually updated its webpage when it comes to this. :(
  • Maybe Lanthanum (GA) and Actinium (GA) should be added to this topic to represent the older view because the IUPAC report is such a recent thing. One might even go further and suggest the need for Lanthanide and Actinide, but different IUPAC publications differ on whether those other elements were actually included (in this they are, in this they are not), and it was not given as an option by the recent project. So that can save us since Lanthanide is not a GA. :-D Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, didn't know about that muddled history :). In my opinion, we should update the template to what reflects current consensus, so if a new IUPAC report supersedes, the GT should be updated, but it's fine for now. Do you know if the IUPAC report is generally agreed upon by scientists? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but then again it's pretty recent (having come out last year). In general, even before the report came out, scientists focusing on the dispute tended to conclude that the -Lu-Lr form is better, but those writing general texts tended to continue showing -La-Ac. Last I checked there were still arguments in the literature for both sides. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to fit the good topic criteria. 141Pr 20:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it seems to be comprehensive and pass the criteria. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Good_log/August_2022&oldid=1106635662"