Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Duffy 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 Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Dt128 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the discography is well-referenced and definatley a worthwhile candidate to be a featured list. Dt128 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no (as far as I know) alternative to this link, as it is a certification. Instead, I have placed {{dead link}} on the reference. I realise this is most likely to be unacceptable. Any suggestions? Dt128 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources
No need to spell out MTV, as it's better known in its short form.- Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Italicize all publications (books, magazines, newspapers, journals). Example: "New Musical Express".- Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes [2] reliable?- Official website of the Warchild series, this source lists Duffy as recording the song for the specific album. Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise for [3]?- Replaced with PromoNews reference. Dt128 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The dead link still needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, the BPI no longer publishes its certifications without BPI membership, meaning it is impossible for me to obtain a direct BPI source. Therefore, it has been removed and the ChartsPlus reference has been left. Dt128 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- What makes ChartStats reliable? Usage in another discography FL does not mean it is reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure, however, I have found that all chart positions listed correspond with those listed at aCharts and the like. The problem is, this is one of the very few UK chart archive websites. However, it is listed as a reliable archive site at the Wikipedia chart sourcing guide. Dt128 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll let it go for now. Not striking though. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure, however, I have found that all chart positions listed correspond with those listed at aCharts and the like. The problem is, this is one of the very few UK chart archive websites. However, it is listed as a reliable archive site at the Wikipedia chart sourcing guide. Dt128 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Looks good! All my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments I have to admit, I'm getting a little tired of these barely-big-enough-to-warrant-their-own-page FLCs, but that said I won't hold it against you. Overall, the discog looks pretty good. I only have a few comments and concerns:
That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments Hi!
Resolved comments from Kiac
|
---|
Extra comments, back for more.
|
- did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well. - What says they sold well? Use some examples from the sources you have, eg. "although they still sold well, as "Warwick Avenue" entered the top ten in Denmark, Netherlands and the UK."
- working on this.
- How about Her follow-up singles, "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well, for example "Warwick Avenue" charted at number 3 on the UK Singles Chart.[14]
- working on this.
- Mainly seeking clarification from other reviewers here, what is the situation with the Dutch Singles Chart? There was a brief explanation at WP:Record Charts, saying that we should be using the Top 40 as opposed to the Top 100.
- Unclear on this.
- This just seems to be a trivial issue. Technically the Top 40 Singles Chart should be used, unless the song didn't chart in the Top 40 - which would mean you should use the Top 100. They are derived from different methods, apparently the Top 40 is more notable. You could also use acharts, compare the acharts and dutchcharts.nl peaks to see what I mean.
- Duffy has charted higher on the Top 40 chart, however I am unsure whether the chart positions/refs should be changed?
- This just seems to be a trivial issue. Technically the Top 40 Singles Chart should be used, unless the song didn't chart in the Top 40 - which would mean you should use the Top 100. They are derived from different methods, apparently the Top 40 is more notable. You could also use acharts, compare the acharts and dutchcharts.nl peaks to see what I mean.
- Unclear on this.
- k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:36, 10 June 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.