Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nightwish discography/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 02:59, 20 July 2010 [1].

Nightwish discography edit

Nightwish discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DreamNight (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because all the old problems were solved. DreamNight (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mean to go to featured list candidates instead of featured article candidates? Ucucha 18:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this nomination to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, i'm sorry guys.20:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Important Note: To check out about the links used as references to the sale certifications all you need to do is to search for the name "Nightwish" in those websites; the links take you to the online pages of the Phonographic industry from each country (in the case, to the phonographic industry from Finland (IFPI FI), Germany (Bundesverband), Sweden (ifpi SE), Norway (ifpi NOR), Austria (ifpi AT), Greece (ifpi GRE), UK (bpi), Hungary (mahasz), Poland (ZPAV) and Switzerland (ifpi SI). Search for "Nightwish" using the Research Box and you'll see that all the informations about the gold and platinum certifications are true.DreamNight (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Current ref 17 (UK-charts.com) does not support any of the UK chart positions, all of which other than the number 25 placing of "Dark Passion Play" are completely wrong anyway. Nightwish have definitely never had a number 1 hit single in the UK as the article currently claims, in fact they have only charted one single in the UK, for one week at number 60 (see the official website of The Official Chart Company, who compile the UK charts). I haven't checked any of the other chart sources, but I have to oppose a list which contains such blatantly false information -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really brought some fake informations that i translated from the Wikipedia in portuguese. I'm checking out about all the references to the charts. About Nightwish in the UK charts, in the following link you can see that their album Dark Passion Play charted as 25º. You also can read about the most of the other charts. Nightwish.com; DreamNight (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Live albums still show UK positions which are not supported by the source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oficial references to the charts in Germany: Musicline.de and UK: Everyhit.com (search for Nightwish to read about Dark Passion Play charts). The other references are OK as everyone can see. DreamNight (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still claiming that "End of an Era" got to number 7 on the UK Albums Chart, this is simply not true. On my talk page you say that it got to number 7 on the UK Rock Albums Chart, if this is the case then you need to change the heading for that column to reflect this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, i changed it.DreamNight (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the actual heading of the column as well as the wikilink it points to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's done. (if we're talking about the same mistake in the certifications column.)DreamNight (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant change the colmun heading that simply says "UK" to something like "UK Rock". People looking at the article as it stands will think that the album got to the top 10 of the main UK Albums Chart, which is not true --

ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, but for me, the original was better.DreamNight (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the wrong heading, I have fixed it for you. And I would disagree that the original weas better, as it was giving misleading information to readers and that is never a good thing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good to me.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clear and easy understanding. Nice list, my support.. -Tadijaspeaks 13:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Quite US-focused, yet it's a Finnish group. Maybe there's a good reason for this ...
    • Dark Passion Play was the first (and only) album charted in USA
  • the inclusion of
    • inclusion of what? USA charts? explanation above
  • Can "led to Nightwish video clips being shown on MTV" be "led to the broadcast [inclusion?] of Nightwish video clips on MTV"?
    • Better phrase
  • The last "also" is redundant, I think.
    • If we're talking about the same "also" it was replaced.
  • In the table, most of the text is rather small. There's a huge amount of white space. Can it be better organised? "Extended plays" table: glitch in second-last vertical boundary.
    • The Eps table was fixed, the text in the table is following the discographies protocol: Title, Releasing Date, labels, album format, charts (max of 10 charts in each table), and informations about sales and ceritifications.
  • I hunted for information about why some of the numbers are bolded. Couldn't find, but didn't bother much.
    • They're bolded for being number one, to have the highlights.
  • Caption at top: remove "in", which is ungrammatical (it would be "on", but just use a comma instead.

Tony (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added references in the necessary places, about the called "original research"... Did you check out all the references to the sales ceritifications and to the charts positions? all the references are right, they take you to the oficial website of the phonographic industry from each country, only search for Nightwish in the research box 'cause we can't to use the link of searching with the name digited. Read it by yourself. DreamNight (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but nightwish.com is a primary source and should be avoided.--Cannibaloki 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some informations like worldwide sales and original line-up only are verified on Nightwish.com DreamNight (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, FL Criteria states that features lists should be examplory of wikipedia's best works. This is not the case because:
    • per MOS:DISCOG no text should appear is the small font,
    • per MOS:BOLD number one chart positions should not be in bold.
    • per WP:OVERLINK the tables contain overlinking.
    • There is no reason, requirement or need to include sales for the singles.
    • the references are not formatted correct. Publishers and work fields need to be filled in.
    • per MOS:DISCOG all tables and columns should be equally aligned. Currently the tables are not visually easy to read because of this. try reducing column size to maximum of width=30.
    • "Sleeping Sun (Four Ballads of Eclipse)" in the video section has no source for who directed the video.
    • sales sourced for certifications are no longer allowed per multiple discussions at record charts, wp:songs etc. instead you provide the link for sales thresholds.
Overall this work is not a good example of the best work. See Rihanna discography for an example of a featured Article which is also a discography. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the fixes, except that the table is still mostly acres of white space, with tiny print. Why FLC does not focus more on table formatting I do not know. "Album details is too wide, and why not remove the year column altogether and put it in parentheses after each title in the current second column? Yet more radical surgery is required: why not conflate the peak chart positions columns into one, the way that all countries are listed in single columns for certifications and sales? That would enable wider columns where they are needed, proper font size, and less wasted space. Tony (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS Or if the last is unacceptable, narrow the Album details column. Tony (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Oppose

  • there is small text in the albums tables.
  • for the UK charts you use everyhit.com, that only verifies 1 of the positions.
  • the sales thresholds shouldn't be in brackets next to the certifications.
  • according to the BPI database, nothing by Nightwish has been certified in the UK. so the certification for 'Dark Passion Play' is fake.
  • different countries are used in each table, it's very inconsistent and looks very odd.
  • in the singles table you use the Nightwish biography to source the European chart positions. that page doesn't even mention chart positions.
  • just flicking through the certification and chart position refs for other countries it appears that most of them are completely wrong.

This article still has lots and lots of problems and this should've gone to peer review, not an FLC discussion. The nomination should probably be withdrawn due to the vast amount of issues brought up on this page. Mister sparky (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The list looks unencyclopedic, there are reference formatting errors everywhere, the lead is too short, and the whole article is not FL worthy at present. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Nightwish_discography/archive2&oldid=1140239069"