Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/a-ha discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | a-ha discography
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 User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [1].

a-ha discography

edit

I have worked on this discography for quite a while now. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for now. (PS I removed the Supprt/Uppose/Comments subheaders since they're not typically used in most FLC's for various reasons, hope you don't mind). The list is definately a good start, but I do see a number of problems that need to be addressed before I can support it's nomination. This is not an exhaustive list, but it should be a good start.

Please don't edit/move other people's comments, it's considered rude.
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • The citations need to give full attribution. IE. title, url, publisher, author (if applicable), accessdate, etc.(DONE)
Forgot to mention this, but I highly recommend using citation templates, since they do all the work for you. You just plug in the publisher and title and what not and it formats it for you.(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you've already started on this. Before you get too far, I can already see something that I'm going to complain about eventually: that the citations are not consistent with each other or citation style in general. Again citation template do all the formatting for you, so again I highly recommend them. If you need help using them, let me know.(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band are from Norway, so internationals-style dates should be used, not American. So Hunting High And Low should 31 May 1985. (WAS ALREADY DONE)
It is American. American-style is Month DD, YYYY. Whereas international style is DD Month YYYY. Currently all dates are in the former, and they should be in the latter. (DONE)Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only wikilink full dates.
  • Some of the list is overwikilinked. Only the first mention of something should be linked. For example, Warner Bros. Records, CD, cassette, and LP should only be linked in the Hunting High And Low row, and nowhere else. (DONE)
  • Also since they are Norwegian, Norway charts should come first. (DONE)
  • "Total a-ha World Sales: 81,575,300[2]" should be turned into a complete sentence. (DONE)
  • Don't wikilnk the year column in the singles table. (DONE)
  • Also it's not necessary to bold the single titles in the single table. (DONE)
    • Also don't bold the "1"'s in the charts. (DONE)
  • The certifications need a bit of work too. The column header should be linked to Music recording sales certification. Each country should be linked to either the certifying body (Recording Industry Association of America for America, British Phonographic Industry for UK, etc) or if the certifying body doesn't have a article, then to the country. And remember, they should be wikilinked only the first time mentioned. (DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closer, but I don't think I was clear enough. Leave Gold/Platinum/etc unwikilinked, but link the country abbreviations to the appropriate places. Also, I'd recommend rearranging it so the country comes first, a colon, then the award. So the US would be "US: Platinum". Make sense?(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a-ha Live at Vallhall - Homecoming Grimstad Benefit Concert" The dash between Vallhall and Homecoming should be an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-). Same with the dashes in "Headlines and Deadlines - The Hits of a-ha" and "a-ha Tour Brasil - Agosto 2002" and " The Singles: 1984-2004" and "The Definitive Singles Collection 1984-2004". They should all use "–".(DONE)
  • The capitalization of "How Can I Sleep With Your Voice In My Head" is a little funky. Check out the article, it's has the correct capitalization.(DONE)
  • The overall organization of the list is a little weird. Why is there a big "Discography" section, which doesn't include things like singles and videos? Isn't the whole list a discography? I'd recommend getting rid of the big section, and making Albums, compilations, etc their own full-blown sections.(DONE)
  • "EPs" should be Extended plays in the section header.(DONE)
  • Why are there two Take on Me singles? Also, the first one has alot of obvious formatting issues.(DONE)
  • A year column would be good for the Music videos. (DONE)
  • Since there's so many certifications, and so many citations to go along with them, the citations should be next to each certification rather then in the column header.
  • "Chart positions" isn't specific enough, it needs to be something like "Peak chart positions".(DONE)
  • The C in Chart shouldn't be capitalized. (DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar columns between tables should ideally kept a consistent width (ie the "Title" and "Certification" columns). (DONE)
  • Usually catalog numbers aren't given their own line. Instead, try putting them after the label. (DONE) Also, they need a "#" and (if applicable) a acronym of some sort describing the label. (DONE) For instance, most Drag City releases aren't just #54, they're DCR #54. Also, to differentiate it from the label, try putting it in small font.(DONE)
  • They still need a #, and (this is optional) consider the small font thing. (DONE)Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I second Tenacious D Fan's comment that the chart columns need to be reorded a bit. Take a look at at MOS:DISCOG for more of an explanation.(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singles still need to be rearranged. (DONE)
  • Something is wrong with citation #15. (DONE)
  • Column headers for charts should be abbreviated. Currently "Euro Top 100" takes up alot of space. Howabout just EU, with a link to Eurochart Hot 100 Singles? (DONE)Drewcifer (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved stuff from Gary King
  • Format all references, preferably with {{cite web}}. Include at least title, URL, publisher, and accessdate. This takes priority over everything below.(DONE)
  • It kind of scares me that you can pinpoint with such great accuracy the number of sales that the group has had ("a-ha has sold 81,575,300 copies worldwide"). At least give a date, or make the number less accurate, like "over 80 million".(DONE)
  • Use {{lowercase}} to lowercase the article's title.
  • No link to the band's article in the lead? Add one please (but not the text in bold, per WP:LEAD.)(DONE)
Gary King (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Here are my reasons:

  • Sales figures do not come from a reliable source. Your EP sales don't even have a source. These figures are not essential anyway. How is aha-fr.com reliable? (DONE)
  • Your charts aren't ordered properly. The charts should be in the order of home chart (if applicable) then the rest of the charts in alphabetical order. (DONE)
  • Did any of the EPs chart? If not, please clarify.(DONE)
  • Where are the catalog numbers?(DONE)
  • Catalog numbers are the record companies 'bar code'. Here are cat numbers from a-ha's first album [2] Look at Nirvana discography for Bleach "Label: Sub Pop (SP-34)"
  • The information is not cited (this is US band so the self-referential argument isn't valid). Some directors are missing.(DONE) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any unique a-ha songs that do not feature on a-ha albums/singles?(NO)
  • Why does "The Swing Of Things / The Demo Tapes" not have a year?(DONE)
  • Is this an album, or a book? (DONE)
  • You have removed it completely. That's not what I had in mind. You have it underneath the album title, when perhaps it should be under its own heading for books.(DONE)
  • "(approximately sixteen times the entire Norwegian population)" is not necessary.(DONE)
  • "After a well-received performance at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert" cite needed.(DONE)
  • The cite does not substantiate "well-received".
  • The second para needs more. You should expand on individual album performances.
  • "83 million albums and singles sold" not cited.(DONE)
  • What is this article about? Your intro does not make it clear.(DONE)
  • "cassette (CS)" is not necessary. Either "cassette" or "CS" should be used. Not together.(DONE)
  • "Train Of Though" - Is this correct? (YES)
  • The Video albums link on the infobox does not work.
How do you fix that --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brasil Sales: 642,000" Remove all sales figures unless they are reliably sourced. (DONE)
  • ""The Sun Always Shines On T.V. a-ha Live"" Is that the song name?(DONE)

There are a lot of issues that need dealt with. The para isn't good enough. I think you have done the charts well however. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It strikes me the lead of this list is almost identical to the lead of the band's article. This is a featured list candidate we're talking about, copy-pasting is far from recommended. Also, why are we told three times the band has sold over 80 million copies? You should also add more references to reliable sources to the lead.(DONE) Baldrick90 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Comment The claim 89 million sold seems a little suspicious, and more reliable source will be needed to verify that figure. I find it hard to believe that they sold more records than Nirvana. (DONE) indopug (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Nirvana sucks and second it sais it on their official homepage. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their official homepage is not a reliable source, it is a self-published source that can only be used for completely uncontroversial claims. I'll be changing to oppose in light of the rather suspicious claim this article makes. (DONE) indopug (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This ain't a self-published source [4]. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a forum. Anybody could have posted that. Read WP:RS. (DONE)indopug (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the BBC so BBC.com. It sais there that they have sold 83 million copies. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that is an exact reprint of the Wikipedia article. (DONE)indopug (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Indopug. It's wikiality. (DONE) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"They are the best selling Norwegian band worldwide, and is the best-selling norwegian band and the best-selling band from Scandinavia with ABBA.[1]." -- The lead is horrific. Please rewrite it. "Their debut album achieved its biggest success with their debut album in 1985" -- Help! (switching to strong oppose on account of incoherent prose (DONE)) indopug (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference that they are the best-selling Norwegian band or that they are second best behind ABBA? You'll have to remove the 80 mil and the best selling claims from even the band article if you can't prove it. (DONE) indopug (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still too many suspect statements
  • If it is not even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, what makes this a reliable source? I guess its reliability can be sort of accepted if you show they have reputation for fact-checking or if you can show that a number of other reliable sources have cited this website as a source.
  • "They are the best-selling band from Scandinavia together with ABBA, a Swedish pop group." Cite? There are a number of claims in this sentence alone, and you'd need to back it up with a very reliable source.(I Can find more sources but a-ha is the only norwegian band which has had commercial succsess outside Norway)
  • "continued to be globally successful in the 1990s and 2000s" Huh? They didn't even chart in the US (maybe not outside Europe at all?). They charted in Japan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and several other countries outside Europe and even if they didn't chart in the US it doesn't mean the band wasn't successful
Cites? Just because they charted in a few countries outside Europe, doesn't make them "globally successful"; its a very POV term, I suggest removing it.
If it's so importent i can fix chart positions outside Europe. I just need to find som of these website and someone who understands japanese and russian. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since, they have recorded another three studio albums" Please locate an independent copy-editor to rewrite the lead.
  • "Analogue also got Platinum in Russia"--No full stop, shouldn't it be Analogue? I suggest withdrawal from FLC, to get the enough time to address the numerous serious concerns raised. (DONE) indopug (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Please add language tags to the references, where applicable.
  • Please check your accessdates, you have retrieved a few things on dates that have not yet come to pass :p Reference 1 and 54 were retrieved August 7 2008. Reference 15 was retrieved August 5 2008. (DONE)
  • When it comes to the order of the chart positions of countries, you are not consistent. For the Studio albums, Live albums and Compilations you use the same order (Norway in front, rest of the countries in alphabetical order). The singles table however is a mess, there isn't any logic in the order. I realise it will be a lot of work, but IMO it will improve the list if you use the same order there. (DONE) Baldrick90 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two problems with lead sentence "This is a comprehensive discography of a-ha, a Norwegian, alternative rock band." First: don't wikilink the bold title per WP:BOLDTITLE. Two: remove the comma between "Norwegian" and "alternative". It slows down the sentence for no particular reason. (DONE)
  • The first sentence reads "a-ha, a Norwegian, alternative rock band". This makes the sentence "a-ha is a band from Norway" completely redundant. (DONE)
  • "the best selling Norwegian band" --> best selling --> best-selling (DONE)
  • The second paragraph really needs some good sources, if you can't produce them, it will have to go.
  • "achieved it's biggest" --> it's --> its (possessive) (DONE)
  • "their debut album" --> their refers to a-ha, the band (singular) --> use its instead of their (or use "they" instead of "a-ha") (DONE)
  • Rephrase this sentence: "a-ha achieved it's biggest success with their debut album in 1985, Hunting High and Low which (..)" --> They/a-ha achieved their/its biggest succes with their/its 1985 debut album Hunting High and Low, which (..) (DONE)
  • "their best selling studio" --> best selling --> best-selling (DONE)
  • "Memorial Beach" --> Memorial Beach --> Please be consistent in italicising album names (DONE)
  • "british" --> British (DONE)

The prose really needs a lot of work. Go get a native speaker and have him or her check it out one more time (I am not native speaker, so I might have missed a few points). Baldrick90 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. indopug (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (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/a-ha_discography/archive1&oldid=1126596028"