Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lily Allen 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 The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [1].

---

Lily Allen discography

Nominator(s): 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) and Mister sparky (talk)

• Featured list candidates/Lily Allen discography/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I did some major improving. Everything is sourced properly. 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Have you notified User:Mister sparky of this nomination? As he/she has made the most edits to the page, just leave a note on that user's talk page.

can we make this a joint nomination then? as i was going to nominate it myself once i'd done some fixes :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so, it doesn't matter to me, all I care is improving the quality of Lily Allen's articles.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• The image in the lead needs ALT text; see WP:ALT.
• What does "…three as a featured one…" mean?
• I would change "…Platinum in the United Kingdom, and Gold in the United States. It earned a nomination for Best Alternative Music Album at the 50th Grammy Awards." to "…Platinum in the United Kingdom, Gold in the United States, and a nomination for Best Alternative Music Album at the 50th Grammy Awards." This eliminates the repetition of "earned", which sounds a bit clunky.
• Link Digital download in "Extended plays"; It doesn't matter that it's linked earlier in the article, every table should be thought of independently.
• The link to "Oh My God" in "Other appearances" doesn't link to the correct section.
• Are there better sources for references 36 and 37?
• Alphabetize "External links" and take out the period for her site.

Once these issues are fixed, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done all except one... Unfortunately there are very little references on the web that concern Lily Allen. I searched for hours and hours even for the chart sources and also the video directors ones. All I could find were blogs and a few suspicious sites... but I picked the ones that I found most reliable. I did my best. If Mister Sparky can find better sources, that would be great. :) --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I did some more research and found some better sources. I hope everything is good now. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm supporting now; well done. Just so you know, the reviewer generally strikes his/her own comments once they see that they've been dealt with adequately.

Comments by JD554 (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from JD554

Why are the dates in "month day, year" format? It's usual for articles on British topics to use "day month year". Done. You've only changed one date, there are more than that. --JD554 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Changed the other ones too. There's quite a bit of overlinking: studio album is linked twice in the lead, the certification regions and the singles charts in the two different tables. Delinked. Column widths in different tables which show the same thing (chart positions, certifications, etc) should be the same width. Changed. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: Specifically, the "Title" column (which should be called "Album details") in the "Studio albums" section is wider than the "Album" column (again should be "Album details") in the EP section. Also the chart columns in the "Studio albums", "Singles" and "Other appearances" section are all different widths. The "Album" column in the "Singles", "Other appearances" and "Music videos" sections should all be the same width. The "Single" column in the "Singles section" and the "Song" column in the "Other appearances" (column should be "Single") and the "Music video" sections should all be the same width. --JD554 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Changed. Just one problem: the column width of "Other appereances" changes and is now very large, I don't know why. Can you help me with that? --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC) It looks good to me. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) In the first certification column, "Certifiction" should link to Music recording sales certification and you should have "(sales thresholds)" (without the quotes) in small text below it. Linked. I don't see a specific need to go above having 10 charts per MOS:DISCOG. OK, I knew someone would say that. That is a guideline, not a rule: "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested". I only have 12, that's two more. The guideline is for those who want to put an "exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on". But, I put all these charts because they are the only ones for wich I could find reliable sources. Allen also charted in Germany and on Eurocharts, but I couldn't find good references so I removed them. Since these few countries have all good solid sources, what's the point of removing some? It's not a long list, it's just two more than the approximate limit. No Doubt discography is an FL, but has 14 charts in the albums section. Please, reconsider this. Other stuff exists isn't generally a good argument. Why is there a specific need to go above the recommended 10 columns? As the article is a discography, the main focus is the releases, having too many charts could be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is against the current consensus unless there is a very good reason. --JD554 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) There aren't too many charts, there are just two over the approximate limit. The reason is that all those charts are equally important. I wouldn't know which ones to remove. Any suggestions? I think you could easily remove the Swiss albums and singles charts and the Austrian singles chart (which is out of order for some reason). Neither of these charts appears to be representative as a whole and their loss wouldn't be detrimental to showing how well she has charted in different regions. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) The Official Charts Company isn't the publisher of ChartStats' website. Changed to work, publisher=Chart Stats (I saw that in other discographies also). There are still a number that are wrong. The Official Charts Company may have originally published the information, but you need to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The references should be the link followed by "Chart Stats" and the retrieved on date. OK, I changed it. You missed a couple, I've taken the liberty of changing them. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) When a reference links to a search page, you need to give instructions to the reader about how to verify what you are saying, eg, "Note: User needs to enter xyz in abc and click 'search'." Done. I don't have iTunes installed on my machine, does that reference specifically say that the EP is an iTunes exclusive? Actually no, although the F.U.E.P. article says so. I removed "exclusively", since I couldn't find a reliable source. What makes All Urban Gossip a reliable source? Removed and found better source. The Wall Street Journal (note the "The") reference is missing a publication date. Added. Ref #22 is missing a retrieved on date. Added. I'll have another look once these are addressed. --JD554 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your time. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) A couple of other things I've noticed: Ref #2: It should be Pitchfork Media and wikilinked. Linked. Ref #6: Why is "The Envelope" the work, shouldn't it be the LA Times (and wikilinked)? Changed. Ref #8: The Sydney Morning Herald should be italicized and wikilinked. Done. Ref #10: It should be Billboard and wikilinked. Done. Have you double checked at WP:GOODCHARTS that αCharts is a valid archive for the charts you've used? Yes, I have. The charts I used from there are valid. What makes Music Lovers Group a reliable source? It looks WP:SPS to me. Changed source. Ref#29: Boards Magazine? Well...that's what it says in the source. Should I change it to "boardsmag.com"? Yes, I think so. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think the billboard links are working. You mean references #21 and #26? They work just fine for me. Must be my computer, I'll AGF these. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) --JD554 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) You're not consistent with the justification of the text in the "Albums" columns. --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Hope you don't mind, but I've given the lead a copy edit. Feel free to revert any changes you think are unnecessary. --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC) No problem. OK, so I removed the charts and now I have 10 each. The problem that I was talking about is form 'Other appearances', the width of the "Year" column i very big, though I didn't change it; it's now different from the Year columns in the other tables and I don't know how to fix it.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The year columns all look the same on my computer. I'll now support as this meets WP:WIAFL. --JD554 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - nice article, nice lead. My only annoyance is that the dates in the references are in number format and, if it wasn't obvious that a source was retrieved on September 1st rather than January 9th, I wouldn't know whether they were in a British or American format. Please change them to long form: "September 1, 2009". -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

with regard to date format, it was my understanding that as allen is british the dates in the article should be written in the international format day-month-year, not the american? Mister sparky (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the format used in the references is ISO and therefore the month always precedes the day; there is no ambiguity. However, I can change the format to DD Month YYYY if that is so desired. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that a passing reader wouldn't know if the dates were American or British. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The follow-up singles—"LDN", "Littlest Things" and "Alfie"—did not" What do you mean by "follow-up" singles?
  • By that I mean the singles that followed the release of "Smile".
• "Other singles include "Not Fair", another" When you say "other singles", are you referring to singles that were spawned only from It's Not Me, It's You, or all singles that Allen has released?
  • Since that paragraph was on the topic of It's Not Me, It's You, yes, only the singles from that album.
• Can you add a caption to the infobox image? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Added.

Sources

• Are there higher-quality sources than ChartStats and aCharts that can be used (have you checked print publications for example)? I won't push the issue too much if you can't. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no other sources exist; but ChartStats is a very high quality source, it is published by the Official Charts Company; regarding aCharts, I only used it for Canada - I couldn't use Billboard (which officially publishes the Canadian Hot 100) because it doesn't archive the singles that haven't charted in the top 10. But aCharts is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • ChartStats have nothing to do with the Official Charts Company. ChartStats' about page[2] states the sources used for the charts data which makes it usable. However, better sources do exist such as British Hit Singles & Albums, The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles and Music Week being the best print sources. As far as online sources go, I would use the archives at The Official Chart Company's site itself: albums[3], singles[4]. However, they only go back so far and only cover the Top 40. --JD554 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If it would help, I could pop to a bookshop and get the page references from the hit singles and albums books (as well as checking, of course, that the info they give matches what's here!), but the latest editions only go up to 2007/8 (I forget which). For 2009 hits, this should do for "The Fear" and this for the album (and "The Fear" as well, in fact!), - 23/05/2009 This shows "Not Fair" at number 5 (although of course this doesn't technically prove that it didn't go on to peak higher, I don't know how you'd cite that.....) and - 05/09/2009 this shows "22" at number 14. That just leaves "Fuck You", for which I seriously doubt that any other source could be found given its lowly position.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd also question the reliability of aCharts, as I've seen some dud information on there (such as Portuguese singles chart data from 2007 when, according to the British Hit Singles book 2005, Portugal ceased publishing a singles chart the previous year). Couldn't you just ditch Canada? It's not like she's had huge success there, and it's not exactly a major world singles market. You could either just run with 9 charts (the MoS doesn't say a discography has to have exactly 10) or show the two Belgian charts separately....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, aCharts has a few bad archives: Italian, Portugese and Worldwide Single (see WP:BADCHARTS). But the rest are fine.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't think this is the best place to discuss website reliability, although Chart Stats is very reliable, it was used in other FL as well: Duffy discography, Dido discography, Geri Halliwell discography etc.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I didn't review that last FL you cited, but in the past I've let ChartStats slide a couple times because it is borderline reliable (still very marginal), and because I wasn't aware there were better sources. My point is that if there are better sources available, use them. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes, fine, but the official charts doesn't archive all the songs and ChartsStats does, also putting all the peaks in one page (so I don't have to use a cite tag on every peak); and if the website says it cites TheOfficialCharts.com, the BBC and other reliable sources, then I don't see a problem.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• OK, do you reckon this is a better source?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chartstats is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS as a recommendation for use because it is very reliable. if it is only borderline reliable and not liked for use why is it recommended there? Mister sparky (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Zobbel is fine. Just because ChartStats is listed at GOODCHARTS doesn't mean it's reliable; in the past, nominators have had trouble proving its reliability. Yes, it may cite its sources, but the tone of the main page implies that the site is maintained by one person, without apparent editorial oversight or backing by a major media company. That's why I consider it only marginally reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

this puzzles me greatly, why on earth does WP:GOODCHARTS exist then if the sites it recommends are unreliable? makes no sense to me whatsoever. also, many admins and article reviewers won't allow the use of zobbel because they say it's extremely unreliable and i have noticed myself it does make many mistakes. there needs to be a concrete list of sites and sources that all reviewers agree on that editors can see and make use of. i was under the impression that was the whole point of WP:GOODCHARTS but i clearly must be wrong. all reviewers contradict each other and it's really hard to work on articles with this going on. sorry rant over :) Mister sparky (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Zobbel lists some other songs with very low UK charting positions which aren't currently in the article. If the site is deemed reliable then should these be included? Personally I'd say no, as I don't consider a chart peak of number 160-odd to be a "hit", but I just thought I'd throw it out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, a discography lists all the charting songs, whether they were hits or not is not important. I will not add them yet. Some editors think Zobbel is reliable, but most think that it's not. So, to play it safe, I won't get it involved.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Chart Stats I can live with, but I am not so convinced about acharts. Has ChrisTheDude been asked about getting the appropriate book references? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? aCharts is very reliable (except for the Italian, Portugal and worldwide chart archives). Look at all the FAs and FLs that cite aCharts: Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song), I Don't Remember, Irreplaceable, Hilary Duff discography, Duffy discography, 50 Cent discography etc. (the list can go on) and it's listed under WP:GOODCHARTS. I think that's enough proof. Also, I don't think book references are such a good idea. First of all, I can't verify them and neither can anyone who doesn't have them. And with Allen not being so popular, I doubt he could find anything on her. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, if you read what I wrote, I offered to go and look in the official books of British hit singles and albums, which list every hit single and album in the UK since the chart began, so what on earth gives you the impression that Lily Allen's chart UK positions would not be listed in books which list every hit single and album in the UK since the chart began?? Anyway, if Dabomb87 is happy with the use of ChartStats then I guess it's a moot point....... I'm also baffled as to why you'd describe Allen as "not....so popular" - she's had two number 1 singles and a number 1 album in the UK and is clearly one of the most popular and successful current artists in the country!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Did not know about the "every artist" part; I don't have special music shops or books about chart history in my country... Over here, the music industry is not very important. I didn't mean "popular" as in commercially successful (not that she's a big hit outside the UK). I wrote two good articles about Allen's songs and finding reliable sources for them was like searching for Nessie; she's not like Madonna or Michael Jackson, for whom you can find the same information on five different sites, I had to search for hours, not a big ammount of people write about her. That's what I meant. Anyway, I hope the reliability of the sources aren't a problem anymore.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to see ChartStats and acharts replaced, but I won't let ChartStats hold up the FLC; however, I will not support as long as acharts is used. I strongly encourage Chris to dig up the book refs if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The book refs I said I could get would only cover UK chart positions. Currently three of the aCharts refs (currently showing as refs 26, 27 and 28, I think) are being used to source chart positions in other countries as well, the book refs wouldn't cover that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

←aCharts for the Canadian Hot 100 singles could be replaced by Billboard[5] (incidentally, neither Billboard or aCharts confirm that "Smile" charted in Canada); "Oh My God" chart positions could use ChartStats[6] and IRMA[7] (search for "Oh My God"); "Drivin' Me Wild" could use ChartStats[8]; and "Never Miss a Beat" could use ChartStats[9], Australian-charts.com[10] and Ultratop.be[11] - although aCharts says "Never Miss a Beat" charted in Ireland, the official IRMA website doesn't confirm this[12] (search for either "Kaiser Chiefs" or "Never Miss a Beat"). --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

*hoping for the objections to end*. So, I replaced the aChart sources in the "as featured artist" sections. Regarding the Canadian peak for "Smile", acharts does say it peaked there. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

aCharts may say it did, but Billboard who actually publish the chart say it didn't[13]. The new references you've added to the "featured artist" table should be next to the relevant chart position as that is what they are verifying. Also the Irish chart position for "Never Miss a Beat" isn't confirmed by IRMA, so I think this chart position should be removed. --JD554 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I removed aCharts for good from the article and done exactly as you said. Mu only worry is to how much of the Canadian Charts does Billboard actually archive ("Smile" and Alrtight, Still are from 2006). I also organized the refs form featured artist part. Anyway, now I'm sure it's all good (hopefully). --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Happy to support! Drewcifer (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. I only have a few small comments I'd like to see taken care of: "Chart positions" in the first column should be "Peak chart positions", like the second table is. Done. Catalog numbers would be nice for the albums, though I'm not insisting on it. Well, I found some catalog numbers on Discogs, though there were more than one fpr each album: there was a different one for the UK, two for Europe, two for US, one for Japan etc. I don't know which one is good. It would also be nice to see a bit more consistency in the column widths, mainly the second column over. The album stuff and singles stuff could easily be made one uniform size. Done. Why aren't the chart positions sourced in the "Featured artist" table? They are. That's what ref #25, #26, #27 are for. The "Album" column isn't needed in the music videos table, since we already know that stuff from the singles table. Also I'd recommend left-aligning the directors. Removed. MTV and VH1 are published by Viacom. (also it's all caps for VH1). LA Times by the Tribune Company. WSJ by Dow Jones & Company. Bunch of the country-charts website are by Hung Medien. Drewcifer (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Put the publishers. -12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - my only quibble is that you refer to a shift in genre for her second album, but have not actually mentioned what genre(s) her first fell into (there's a general comment earlier about genres, but it seems to refer to her whole career rather than specifically her first album). If this can be resolved, I'll support - I'm fine with the sourcing as it stands -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Resolved, I mentioned it. --10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments - A few discrepancies which may, or may not, need fixing.

• Belgium chart positions for Smile and The Fear doesn't match ref 13.
  • Fixed.
• France chart position for Fuck You doesn't match ref 15.
  • Fixed.
• Netherlands chart position for Smile, The Fear and Fuck You doesn't match ref 17.
  • Fixed.
• New Zealand chart position for Alright, Still doesn't match ref 18.
  • Fixed.
• I can't see Fuck You on ref 7, additional ref needed.
  • Added.
• I can't see Canadian Album Figures on ref 14. If they're not there then that column needs another ref.
  • Sorry about that, aCharts doesn't have the Canadian albums, I guess. I've put the Billboard link instead, it covers Canada too.
    • It does cover Canada but doesn't list Alright, Still. Is there a ref for that? --Jpeeling (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• In the infobox there's 6 'other appearances', which don't appear to be covered by the list so should it be there?
  • Have no idea why it said 6, I put 3.

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good job of checking every source! I didn't look after peak numbers, I thought they were good, but I guess some vandals changed them. All good now.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.