Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Black Eyed Peas 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [1].

---

Black Eyed Peas discography

Seems to be complete, and obviously comprehensive. I reckon it meets all of the FL criteria.  GARDEN  20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first paragraph needs citations for the information regarding the group's founding. Gary King (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ack, sorry about that, completely overlooked it - done now.  GARDEN  21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - FLC is not a substitution for WP:PR. Lead The discography of the Black Eyed Peas, a Los Angeles-based hip hop group, consists of five studio albums, one extended play, one compilation album and three DVDs. - 1)Remove the bold, it is not the official title of this article. This is also not consistent with how other discographies begin. So just link to Black Eyed Peas. 2)Add a comma before and. While I believe the current formatting is correct I have removed the bold. I will not however fix the comma. Darn that Oxford comma, I can never get that thing right.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Black Eyed Peas were formed as the Atban Klann in the late 1980s by will.i.am and apl.de.ap. - If what I suggested is done above, remove the link in this sentence. Mhmm. After changing their name to Black Eyed Peas they had major member changes, briefly including Kim Hill in their line-up, and enrolling Taboo and Fergie. - 1)Add a comma before they 2)Well if Hill's membership was brief, when did it end? Done, and that information is not necessary as this is a discography. Yeah, but can at least you say in what years, her membership is questionable considering people are more aware of Fergie and Taboo.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) This list does not include material by the band under their old name. - why not? Its still the same group. The same group that have since been signed. Huh? I'm asking why is material by the old group not in this one if its the same group?--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Because they had a different name and a completely different lineup. I'll go say that. The debut album by the group was Behind the Front, in 1998. - how about "In 1998, the group released their debut album, Behind the Front." Done. The album was received well,[3] but did not chart very highly. - 1)Received well by whom? 2)Did not chart very highly on what chart(s)? Allmusic, as the link suggests? All charts in general? ... What link? The ref? That should be elaborated in prose, you can't always expect the reader to click the ref.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Done. The sophomore album by the group, Bridging the Gap, reached a peak of number 67 in the United States,[4] but did best in New Zealand, reaching number eighteen. -1)Reword the beginning of the sentence to "Their sophomore album," 2)Add "position" before of 3)Which chart of the United States? 4)Remove the link to United States because it is a common country. 5)Remove the link to New Zealand per the same reasons. 6)It reached number eighteen on which chart specifically? 7)Generally, in this type of number formatting, numbers greater than ten should be spelled out. 8)Remove best its WP:POV wording. 1) Ok. 2) God knows why, but Ok. 3) Stoopid US and their stoopid charts. 4) That is POV. You link to every country. For example, I'm not American but I link United Kingdom. 5) See 4. 6) Erm, ok.. 7) ... you mean less than 14, per MoS. 8) Sure. In response to the country links, see MOS:LINK#What generally should not be linked--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) This also applies to continents.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Their breakthrough single came in 2003 with the release of "Where Is the Love?", which featured Justin Timberlake. - which album was this from? Erm, sure. This reached a Billboard Hot 100 peak of number eight,[7] as well as several number one positions in other countries. - Reword to "It reached a peak position of number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, as well....." Was this done?--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Yes. Their third album, Elephunk, reached number fourteen in the United States after release in 2003,[4] but was their biggest triumph globally, gaining top five positions in many charts across Europe. - 1)Take my tip above about the number formatting. 2)Only the first instance of the United States should be spelled out, other instances should be in abbreviated form. 3)Add "its" before release 4)Change many to "various" 4)What's verifying this statement, or is it in the table already? 1) That follows your tip above. 2) Erm, not sure I agree, but ok. 3) Mhmm. 4) The table. Although I'm not stating that as it would reference the article, something to be avoided per MOS. Somewhere. I get what you mean for #4.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Their fourth album, titled Monkey Business, released in 2005, was their most successful in their home country, with a Billboard high of two. - reword the final part of the sentence to .."with a Billboard peak position of number two." What's up with your hatred of music jargon? :P Because of this =P--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) It also spawned their two highest-peaking US singles, "Don't Phunk with My Heart" and "My Humps", which both reached number three. - on which chart? ... one of them? Pfft, added. They are due to release their fifth album, The END, during 2009. - "in" not during Why? Changed, but I would like an answer. Because during is saying the album will be released "throughout" 2009, yet it will be released in "2009" (a specific time period).--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) erm, ok then. Discography The global certifications shouldn't be in small text. Ok, but the table will look crap. Yeah, but other discographies are formatted like this.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Ref #8 should be used again to verify their 2009 album in the "Studio albums" section Yup. It should be located on the album name.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Sources to verify their EPs, video albums, and DVDs are needed. Erm...that may take some time. Done. I forgot to mention the compilation albums as well.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Sources are needed to verify their 1998 singles. Ditto. Done. Sources are needed to verify their music video directors. Not needed. See Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Bloc_Party_discography/archive1. That was way before the FL criteria became more strict back in mid/late-2008. See the recent FL log for recent discographies which have directors sourced.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, well, sorry. Can you prove that source's reliability, it is a source generally not used reliably here at FLC.--TRUCO 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) References The sources need to be properly formatted using {{cite web}}, some have errors in the formatting.--TRUCO 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC) That may also take a while. Done now. Truco: Thanks for the feedback, but note that I was NOT using this as PR. I fully feel this list is ready, and do not agree with a number of your fixes. Sorry, but that opening comment really irritates me - I don't need patronised, thanks.  GARDEN  23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I would like to apologize for making you feel that way, its just that I would expect this type of list, especially from you, to be in tip top shape with few errors. My comments are based on previous featured list nominations and policies on Wikipedia, its not like I made them up.--TRUCO 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Followup comments

• The compilations album still needs to be sourced.

• On it.
• All the references for the DVDS, and etc. need to be located on the name of the title not the release date, because that implies that the ref is only verifying the release date.

• Oh, alright.

• Some of those sources aren't really reliable from my view point, but I will let User:Dabomb87 to review them, until the sourcing issue is resolved, I can't support.--TRUCO 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll double check.  GARDEN  22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I asked Dabomb to do a check on them, so he should get to you as soon as possible, I support the list prose/content wise, but the sourcing could be a issue, I hope you understand.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This list is ready, and I agree that most of the comments above are somewhat silly. iMatthew // talk // 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I definitely agree with a lot of Truco's points above. These lists should be in perfect shape, and this article isn't there yet.

• "were formedbegan as"
  • Done.
• Unlink the years, like 1980s
  • Done.
• "they had major member changes" – "Major", according to the reference? Or whom?
  • Done.
• "was received well" – "was well received"
  • Done.
• "chart very highly" – Why the "very"?
  • British thing, I guess. Like, saying "I didn't do very well" rather than "I didn't do well". No idea. Gone.
• The word "Billboard" in "Billboard 200" needs to be italicized.
  • Done.
• "butand reached"
  • Done.
• "Their sophomore album, Bridging the Gap, reached a peak position of number 67 in the Billboard 200,[4] but reached its highest peak position in New Zealand, reaching number eighteen on the country's album chart." – This sentence uses "reach" three times. Cut that down.
  • Done.
• "TheirThe group's breakthrough"
  • Done.
• "which featureds Justin Timberlake"
  • Done.
• "Their breakthrough single came in 2003 with the release of "Where Is the Love?", from Elephunk, which featured Justin Timberlake." – Can probably be written better, like "Their breakthrough single was "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, from Elephunk, which features Justin Timberlake."
  • Done.
• "It reached a peak position of number eight on" – These sentences can be written more concisely, like "It peaked at number eight on"
  • Done.

• Some of the references have errors of missing title fields.
  • Will fix.
    • Done.

There are similar issues throughout the prose, which I haven't gone through completely. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, done most of those. Thanks,  GARDEN  10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, all issues resolved. Will fully support when the final source issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose for now from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I don't want to get involved with the above situation (now moved to talk), but please don't take Truco's points personally. He is an experienced content writer and reviewer—especially with FLs—and is right when he says that these articles should be pretty close before FLC. That is all I will say. Now, for the comments: "After changing their name to the Black Eyed Peas, they had several member changes, "-->After changing their name to the Black Eyed Peas, the band experienced several member changes, Done "and enrolling Taboo and Fergie." "enrolling" is not the right word here. Sounds like they were registered for a class or something. Done "This list does not include material by the band under their old name, due to the line-up changes since then." No comma necessary. Done "by allmusic" Allmusic should be capitalized, and not in italics. Done "The group's breakthrough single was "Where Is the Love?" in 2003, from Elephunk, which features Justin Timberlake." Is it possible to clarify what a "breakthrough single" is? Done "It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100,[7] as well as well as several number one positions in other countries."-->It peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, and reached number-one positions in several other countries. Done "It also spawned" Done "which both reached number three."-->both of which reached number three. Done There should be a note that "—" denotes releases that did not chart—see Rufus Wainwright discography. Done "They are due to release"-->They will release Done "fifth album, The END" Album names should be in italics. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done Also, the dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Done Sources Spell out all abbreviations in the publishers (RIAA, CRIA, ARIA). No need to spell out MTV though. Done Allmusic should be capitalized and not in italics. Amazon and MTV should not be italics either. Done What makes EveryHit reliable? I know it is listed as such at MOS:DISCOG, but there is no indicated method of fact-checking. Hmmm, I might struggle to find another source for that. I'll look. Got one! Huzzah! Discogs is not considered a reliable source. Again, rather difficult to verify. Just cited the DVD. What makes http://www.hsilondon.co.uk/Director.aspx?id=25 a reliable source? Because that's the company that Saline Project work for. Refs 26 and 29 need page titles. Doing... done Several links show up dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Typical! The same day this FLC started! :P I'll get to it.  GARDEN  14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) That's them all done now.  GARDEN  21:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• The Amazon issue needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Overall looks pretty good, but there's a few issues that I'd like to see addressed:

• The first sentence "The discography of..." reads very poorly, try looking at some other FLs for some smoother introductions.
• The singles table's year column is kind of wierd right now.
• The singles table still has 11 columns.
• The singles table is also getting a little wide. The certifications and album columns could be much slimmer, as there's alot of wasted space there. I also think that if you manage your column widths better, you wouldn't need to make the font smaller.
• Some catalog numbers of the releases would be good.
• "U.S." and "US" are both used. Stick with one.
• Consider writing "number 67" as "#67".

The above concerns have yet to be addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

I'd like to see "Global Certifications" changed to the more standard column header (again, see the Prodigy discog). "number eighteen", and similar instances, should probably replaced with a number. The exception being "top five positions", since I think it works there. There's alot of citations mid-sentence, which should be avoided. If you can find a single citation to cover the whole sentence that would be best, but if not just put them all at the end of the sentence. In the music videos section, repeated directors should be combined into one big cell, using "rowspan". Citation #28 has a funky title. Avoid using Amazon.co.uk as a source, since they are a retailer. Drewcifer (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Mainly, there is way too much chart data. MOS:DISCOG recommends a limit of 10, but here you've got way more than that. So much so, that it ceases to be informative, and borders on an indiscriminate stat dump. Some external links would be good. See The Prodigy discography for a good example. Done all of them, I think. Although I didn't literally do them - some other kind souls did (thanks a million!)  GARDEN  22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Contrary to what Drewcifer said, I prefer "The discography of..." over the current sentence. Many of the recent promoted discogs begin this way. I think the current sentence is creeping back to "This is a list of...", which has fallen out of favor.
• You do need to be consistent with "U.S." vs "US". In this case, "US" is correct because "UK" is used
• The album was well received ... but did not chart highly. where? the US or in all markets?
• You may wish to say that Renegotiations: The Remixes was only sold in Best Buy and iTunes stores in that bullet point "Remixes of songs on Monkey Business"
• "Union" has a music video according to Monkey Business (album). This is missing from the music video table. I'm not saying the album article is correct, so just make sure
• Wasn't "Mas Que Nada" released as a single?
• Label: Interscope vs Label: Interscope Records No need to link in the EP section either
• Any reason you haven't given the certifications from BPI?
  • Where is the Love -- Platinum
  • Elephunk -- 4x Platinum
  • Shut Up -- Silver
  • Monkey Business -- 3x Platinum
• There are also other certifications you could include for the albums and singles from their articles.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from JD554 (talk · contribs)

• Similar columms should be the same width: Album details/EP details/Video details, the certifications columns, and the year columns.
• The singles table needs to have the font increased and the 100% width removed (this will help with the above).
• The album titles in the singles table don't need to be wikilinked again (already done in the albums table).
• The charts in the singles table should wikilink to the chart not the country (there's a list at List of record charts).
• Either remove "Boom Boom Pow" or add a citation and note to say it's a future single and (if you go for the latter) remove the dashes, or (if you go for the former) change the hyphens to mdashes.
• I disagree with Drewcifer about #67. As you've already used a word for eighteen, it would be better to say number sixty-seven per MOS:NUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.
• Can you provide formats for the albums, EP and videos?
• Have they never released any compilations, live albums or had an otherwise unavailable track released on a various artists compilation? --JD554 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References

• 7, 8, 9, 11, 26 and 29 need language tags.
• 12 needs to say what search term is to be used.
• 13 needs to give instructions on what to do.
• 31 and 33 can be combined.
• 40 has (DVD) and [DVD] and doesn't need a retrieved on date. --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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