Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madonna bibliography/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Madonna bibliography edit

Featured list candidates/Madonna bibliography/archive1

Nominator(s): —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We probably know American recording artist Madonna as an entertainer, musician, provocative artist who has pushed the boundaries of popular music. However, she has ventured into the world of books and as an author even wrote children's books (surprise!). This list has all the books she has written (or given foreword) and is an exhaustive collection. With the consensus of my fellow editors I would like this one to become a featured bibliography list, the first of its kind for a musician. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chrishonduras:

I think that there is other book, named Madonna: Live! (1987).

Madonna Live! is by author Susan Black and nowhere it says that Madonna had any contribution in it. No foreword also is present. So it should be in Bibliography of works about Madonna rather than this page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there is not too much information about this book.

What do you think about the compilation "5 Books for Children" and "5 Audiobooks for Children"? are relevant to add?.

They are mentioned under The English Roses and Other Stories, maybe we can give the particular name? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but during her career Madonna wrote some publications, like "If I Were President" in George magazine and/or she wrote for Yedioth Ahronoth and the article is named "How My Life Changed". For this, I don't know if is relevant to add.

Thanks for pointing this out, yes her magazine entries can definitely be included. I will include them. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is usual that every activity that Madonna is involved, attracts the attention and later become in part of her legacy. So, this article from The Guardian said that "Madonna's success has lured a host of other celebrities and publishers into the market. So lucrative has the celebrity children's book business become that the children's sections of book shops are awash with actors, pop singers and politicians, even an alleged mobster, all trying to grab their market share". I think that we can add part of this in the article. Is a suggestion. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishonduras: I have added and addressed all the comments. What do you think about the new addition now? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, IndianBio. I will continue with the review of the article :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I think that is an overdetail to mention the background about Maverick company after is already mentioned in the main article and we have a link to know about this company. But what do you think?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishonduras:, I agree now that you brought up this point. The text about Maverick seemed unnecessary and I have removed and amended the section accordingly. Can you check now if everything is looking fine? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added again just the company name and removed the background of the foundation. After that, everything looks fine. Congratulations, is a brilliant work!. So, I support this nomination. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

The phrase (as an author and also foreword) sounds a little odd to me as in the first part you are saying Madonna is an author, but if you follow that same logic for the second part, then you are saying Madonna is a forward. I would put in something in front of foreword to improve this part.
According to WP:NUMBERS, "[i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" so numbers such as 3 and 7 should be written out.
For the phrase "She also wrote foreword", I am assuming you meant to say "forewords" plural.
For the phrase "inaugural issue of George magazine", I would put "the" in front of "inaugural".
I find the following phrase a little odd in the context of a book (Talking about five friends,), specifically the verb "[t]alking". Something like "revolving around" or a similar phrasing would be more suitable in my opinion.
There are a few additional books from the "Children's books" section that are absent from the lead (such as Lotsa de Casha and The Adventures of Abdi).

Wonderful work with this list. These are the primary notes that I saw while reading through it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: hi, I have responded and rectified all the points raised. Yes the part about the foreword also kinda irked me so removed it altogether since the table indicates which ones are just foreword. Corrected the numeric versus words issue, as well as listed the other children's books. Also copy edited the last para about the Kabbalah teachings and expanded a bit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses; this was a very interesting read. I will have look through some of these books and articles in the future. I will support this, and good luck with getting this promoted. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so. Either way, it was a pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba, and yes I will go around to the FAC sometime this week if thats fine? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Take as much time as you need as I only recently put it up for FAC and it will be up there for a while. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

Support: Just these questions: Why are some books (without articles) linked, while others are not? Also, do not forget to archive the last few refs. I also hope someone will conduct a thorough proof-read, since I don't usually have time for all that except the weekends. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Kailash29792. The reason Mr. Peabody's Apples and Yakov and the Seven Thieves are currently redlinked is because they are the only two books other than the blue linked ones, which have the most probability of having an article created here in Wikpedia, passing independent notability. As per my research the others do not stack up. I have archived the remaining links. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

A few problems, should be easy:

Cite 17 is a cite web, but with just a title and an isbn. So... a book? I'm not sure what this cite is supposed to be, but it's not a website.
Cite 50 has a couple issues- you use cite journal instead of cite magazine, and you have a "format" which is only meant for website formats, not edition appends. Of course it's the inaugural edition, it's vol1 iss1.
You appear to be only linking the first use of a publisher in the refs, so you should only link powerHouse Books in cite 25, not 29. --Pres N 01:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @PresN: thanks for your comments. These are my changes, however I don't know if {{cite magazine}} really improved it? The issue comes with a Vol. 1 no. 1. p. 48 formatting which I'm not sure is the correct format. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, it appears that cite 17 still is using cite web when it doesn't have a web page linked. Let's try to address this in some way before promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008:, in situations like this what is the appropriate template to be used? Will just a template {{ASIN}} be enough? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FLC director and delegates: I did this change here. Does this look fine to you guys since this would not use the cite web template? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant in my original comment was that it's a book, so use cite book. Like so. And as for ref 50, the main problem was that "|format=" is only for cite web, it's meant just for websites that aren't standard html. (like a pdf). The "Vol. 1 no. 1. p. 48" is fine- it's the first issue of the first volume, page 48. If that's not how they numbered their issues, then drop the vol=1 and just have issue=1 pg=48. But either way, now fixed. Source review passed. --Pres N 14:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

I would add when Sex was released in the lead since it was her first publication
In the description of The English Roses, you state that it's about "four friends" but I would suggest revising to "five girls" since there are five main characters

Nothing major here. Well written and comprehensive. Carbrera (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions and have implemented them. Let me know if the list looks ready for featured status to you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio – I will now support this list. If you are not busy, would you mind taking a look at my FLC? Thanks and regards. Carbrera (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Closing as promoted. --Pres N 14:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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