Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Crowded House awards

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of Crowded House awards edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 22 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article as a Featured List Candidate as it supports the main Crowded House article, which is currently in WP:FAC also. The page is fully referenced, has no imagery, as none is applicable, it builds the web, I believe it maintains a neutral point of view and I believe (and hope) that it is considered well written. --lincalinca 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, lots of little beefs (and a bigger one) that should be easily fixable:
    • Lead first sentence should have a properly stated and bolded topic ("list of awards won by Crowded House")
      • Done - not sure if it reads/looks OK, but it's a start :) Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article should probably include sales certifications. (Though i can retract this if other commenters disagree.)
    • Do not link to inexistent ceremony articles until they have been created
    • Too many links to the same song/album
    • If you're going to add text in all other section, you might as well have some in the "ARIA Awards" section. That way, you can also have a more obvious source. At first glance that section looks unsourced, even if it actually is.
      • Added some text, and a ref. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put the references for individual entries in the result column instead of year. Looks much neater that way.
      • References moved to entries. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutral Waiting for more comments re: certifications. Maybe you could consider combining the BRIT, MTV and BMI awards in a prose "others" section? Circeus 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I'll do that. Makes sense considering how few there are of each of those. I kept them initially separate so as to keep them at arm's length according to npov. What was the "bigger" issue with the page? I'll see if I can resolve the matter. Just to let you know, I've actually moved the article to "List of..." in accordance with the other list articles of the same kind. lincalinca 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The certification bit. I'm not sure how relevant or not it is, so I'm waiting for other opinions before pulling it out or not. Circeus 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. I know where you're coming from on that matter, however there's a whole article set up as the group's discography. This article is voted/elected awards (with the exception of the sales recognition awards, like BMIs and such), however certifications, generally speaking (and according to WP:MUSTARD) these figures belong with the information about the album itself. This is an uncommon practice to have an article dedicated to awards won by an artist, s the guidelines are somewhat blurred here, but noting that kind of information on the discography page instead of here seems more logical to me, though that's an opinion, so I'd like to see what a third pov would consider it. --lincalinca 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to admit that makes a whole lot of sense. I've added the discog as a see also.Circeus 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without the tables I removed. Circeus 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just added an infobox which I think kind of clears it up. If you disagree then I'll ditch it. I think it makes the page a bit more accessible. I was trying to find an image on creative commons that would suit it, but there wasn't anything wit them receiving any awards, so I had to go without doing that. Is there a way we can prompt to have more people review the article for opposition/support? I don't know if I'm supposed to vote but of course, I'm in support of this. --lincalinca 06:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support
    1. The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are used in some places and there are places where citation is done manually. That's inconsistent.
    2. The publishers are included along with the title in the citations. They need to be presented seperately.
    3. The rest of the results in the APRA Awards section need references, as well.
    4. Chris Bourke's book needs ISBN or any proof that this book is real.

--Crzycheetah 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      1. The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are used in some places and there are places where citation is done manually. That's inconsistent.
        • Ok, I'll make them consistent (consistify? is that a word? It is now).
      2. The publishers are included along with the title in the citations. They need to be presented separately.
        • With use of the templates, that'll amend this (since I intend converting all non-template use to template use).
      3. The rest of the results in the APRA Awards section need references, as well.
        • Can you clarify this? There's not much in the APRA things, and all of the awards are referenced (if you're saying to duplicate the references where necessary, I can do that, but it's a bit of over kill having the same reference twice on the same line when it's rather evident as to what it's about). Anyway, I'll work on fixing this issue once you clarify this.
      4. Chris Bourke's book needs ISBN or any proof that this book is real.
        • Yeah, that was an error in the use of the template. I've fixed it now and it now works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 September 2007
      • Please, don't strike out someone else's comments without his/her permission. As for the references, it looks incomplete which in turn looks unprofessional. In this case, you either cite all awards or none, but at this time there are three ARPA award remain unreferenced.--Crzycheetah 07:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about striking through those issues. I've never been told not to before. In future, I'll just do it to my replications. As to your issues, I believe I've now addressed your concerns, including replicating the references to the APRA awards where they were in the same year. Is there anything else I can do to garner your support? --lincalinca 09:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great list. Drewcifer 04:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The nominations pending in the infobox aren't listed against an Award. Sure it's not that important but it seems to make the table incomplete.
  • Order citations numerically so change [4][5][1] to [1][4][5], and [17][18][8] to [8][17][18].
  • "The group's awards are not exclusive to Australian awards..." overuse of awards I feel.
  • APRA award results are all cited, ARIA are not at all. Why not be consistent?
  • "...the Triple J Hottest 100, an annual Australian selection of the best songs of that year." - you explain what this is on the second time of mentioning it. Explain it the first time (in the History section).

Otherwise an excellent article. Let me know what you think of my comments, and I'll make a judgement soon. The Rambling Man 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments and I'll look to amend the article appropriately. lincalinca 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, tell me if I've appropriately tackled these issues:
  • The nominations pending in the infobox aren't listed against an Award. Sure it's not that important but it seems to make the table incomplete.
    • The item in question is "Don't Stop Now" for the APRA Silver Scroll. I've made it more obvious that by being shortlistedf it is pending being awarded. If you think it just needs to be removed from the infobox, I can do that too, but I've left it there for now. lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Order citations numerically so change [4][5][1] to [1][4][5], and [17][18][8] to [8][17][18].
  • "The group's awards are not exclusive to Australian awards..." overuse of awards I feel.
    • I actually got rid of that, since it's right after a sentence about international awards (mtv and bmi), but thanks for drawing attention to it. lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • APRA award results are all cited, ARIA are not at all. Why not be consistent?
    •   Done. I've cited them all (though, they are all simply duplications of the same ref, since it's all from the one page, which is referenced in the section lead also). lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Triple J Hottest 100, an annual Australian selection of the best songs of that year." - you explain what this is on the second time of mentioning it. Explain it the first time (in the History section).
I've addressed all of these. Let me know if it's satisfactory! --lincalinca 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support not only is the article comprehensive and well written, it looks good too. Good work. The Rambling Man 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Crowded_House_awards&oldid=1147973093"