Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 18:32, 29 October 2011 [1].

Jennifer Lopez discography[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Status {talkcontribs, Tomica1111 (talk)

I am nominating this article for FL because I have worked very hard on the article over an extdned period of time, and feel as if it meets the FL criteria.

Before I began work on it in January to now. — Status {talkcontribs 00:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted (old version) 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JohnFromPinckney:

  • The EP link in the infobox doesn't work.
  • The infobox and lede text claim 6 soundtrack appearances, but that table shows only 4 titles.
  • Lede: In "Following a ten year career", hyphenate "ten-year".
  • Lede:The phrase "peaked in the top five in countries including" sounds odd. Maybe "several" or "many" or "17" before the word "countries"?
  • Lede: In "number one on the US Billboard 200" there are two links, one to the magazine, one to the chart' I'd link the whole thing like Billboard 200 to the chart.
  • Lede: In "earned double platinum status", should we hyphenate "double-platinum"? I'm not really sure.
  • Lede: In "earning a platinum certification for selling over a million units", we're talking about the US, and the RIAA certifies for shipments, not sales. Also, I'd prefer "one" to "a", as in "shipping over one million units".
  • Lede: We say, ""On the Floor" became Lopez’s most successful single". Is that most successful of the three we listed from Love?, or most successful of all her records ever? Also, "Lopez’s" needs a straight apostrophe.
  • In the ALT text (yeah, I know) for the 1st image, the beginning "A middle aged, brown-colored hair woman" might be better written as "A middle aged, brown-haired woman".
  • The columns labelled "NDL" are apparently meant to be Netherlands charts, so "NLD" would be more appropriate. Check Certs lists, too.
  • Where did the work titles in the refs come from: "Netherlands Albums Chart", New Zealand Albums Chart, Swedish Albums Chart, etc.? They appear to be made-up descriptions, as they are not present anywhere (that I found) on the cited source pages.
  • Similar concern regarding titles, e.g., Ref 10 which purports to be "German Charts: Jennifer Lopez", Ref 14 claiming to be titled "Jennifer Lopez: Switzerland's Album Positions", Ref 15 as "Official Charts: Jennifer Lopez", etc. All three of these titles (and several others I glanced at) appear to be created out of the air as a fair description of what's within; unfortunately we need the actual title the publisher affixes to it.
  • Ref 24 has a wonky date format. All the dates in the article should be checked for consistent format.

Enough for now; I'm not seeing any more problems (although I haven't actually tried confirming peaks, certs, etc., yet). The tables look nice, even without captions; no complaints there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything, but the ref titles. Can you elaborate a bit more on what needs to be done? I don't fully understand what you mean. — Status { talk contribs  02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's look at some examples, although I hope you will work through the entire list (I know: yikes!) for the same things:
  • Ref 6 shows its title as "Jennifer Lopez: Billboard 200", but when a reader clicks that link, they come to a page with the <title> (shown on top window edge of your browser, probably) "Jennifer Lopez Album & Song Chart History". Now, since that page has a drop-down list and Billboard, in its infinite wisdom, gives us the same page title for every chart we select, I think it's good that we do the colon concatenation and add ":Billboard 200". You (or somebody) have done almost exactly that already, just using the heading appearing on the page ("Jennifer Lopez") instead of the <title>. This one isn't too egregious; it's always a nuisance trying to decide which visible title to use.
  • Ref 8 shows "Jennifer Lopez: US and Canada's Album positions" as its title, but I don't see that phrase (even just the part after the colon) anywhere on that page. In fact, that page shows more than just US and CAN peaks, so it's just wrong, even as a made-up description. I think the correct title for that page is "Jennifer Lopez". If you want to emphacize that we're looking at the Billboard Albums tab, I'd accept the use of "Jennifer Lopez: Billboard Albums". I know some editors don't like getting even this creative with the titles, though.
  • Ref 10 claims the title "German Charts: Jennifer Lopez", but the linked page is clearly and exclusively titled (in browser header and on the page) "charts.de". Well, that's a pretty stupid name, but a lot of Web designers are pretty dim, so I think we're stuck with it. There might be a way to concatenate the "Suche" into the title, as in "charts.de: Suche" or even "charts.de: Suche: Jennifer Lopez" (I guess I'd accept any of the three), but I really think on this one we should just stay with "charts.de". The URL gives the user the unique page, and doing a Google/Yahoo search for any of the concatenated examples won't get anyone any closer to the resource we're citing.
  • Ref 14 shows as "Jennifer Lopez: Switzerland's Album Positions" but the swisscharts page has the title "The Official Swiss Charts and Music Community". You may get away with adding ": Search" to that, but I can't say it helps. What is clear, though, is that "Jennifer Lopez: Switzerland's Album Positions" appears nowhere on the page and won't clearly locate the resource when one does a Web search.
  • Ref 15 uses the title "Official Charts: Jennifer Lopez", but the source shows "JENNIFER LOPEZ - The Official Charts Company" as the <title> and just "JENNIFER LOPEZ" on the page. I'd accept either one, myself, but you should keep the same system throughout an entire article. I believe it's acceptable to most WP editors to change the case from all caps (doesn't affect a search). Like Ref 6 above, this page has dynamic content using the same URL, so it's appropriate to concatenate ":View Albums" to help the user find the stuff to verify. But now here's a new problem: the same ref is being used for both album and single claims (the URL is the same, but you have to click one dynamic tab or the other). If it were me, I'd split the refs into two, using "Jennifer Lopez: View Albums" and "Jennifer Lopez: View Singles". This might be one to negotiate with other editors and reviewers, though. We ought to look at other FAs/FLs for guidance, too.
  • Ref 11 is shows as "Discografie Jennifer Lopez" (in Dutch). Netherlands Albums Chart. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2011-04-23. The title is okay (although "dutchcharts.nl – Discografie Jennifer Lopez" would also be cool with me), but now the work parameter is a little weird. "Netherlands Albums Chart" doesn't appear on the actual work; it's either "GfK Dutch Charts" or "dutchcharts.nl" (using the instructions at Template:Cite web).
  • Ref 12 is "Discography Jennifer Lopez". New Zealand Albums Chart. Again, the title's okay with me, but that work parameter isn't what's on the page. The work has to be "charts.org.nz", as there's no other name for that site.
  • Ref 13 has "Discography Jennifer Lopez". Swedish Albums Chart. Title's okay, work is swedishcharts.com. "Swedish Albums Chart" is just a made-up name that happens to link to Sverigetopplistan, which isn't the work we're linking to.
Several wordy examples, but do you see what I was talking about now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. Than you. I'll go through them all after school. — Status { talk contribs  10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title issues seem to be all addressed. What do you mean by changing the name of some of the work perimeters to the websites they are located on? I thought what chart they are from were to be listed. — Status {talkcontribs  21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding titles, I see you changed the title for Swiss Ref 14, but there are still Refs 25, 31, 35, etc., pointing to Swiss pages that are not titled "Swiss Charts Certifications 2000". Refs 32 and 37 have titles like "French Charts Certifications 2002", but the pages linked don't say that anywhere. And Ref 23 not only doesn't say "Dutch Certifications" anywhere on the linked page (or in its <title>), it doesn't say anything at all about the certs we're supposedly verifying with it. That Web page appears to be, if I may make use of some IT jargon, a broken piece of shit. (There's this page, but it doesn't happen to mention Lopez in the 11 titles filling their defective database.) So that's a problem anyway. But I'd still like to see you go through all of the refs and check the titles to ensure they actually match reality. The American Idol citation in Ref 5 points to a page which does not contain the title "Jennifer Lopez – Biography – American Idol" as shown in the ref. And so on...
Now about the "work": I went off to find examples of what I mean. I've seen them done the way you're talking about above, even in an FL (Nadia Ali discography promoted to FL August 11, 2011, though refs not discussed), but most were citing references as I've tried to explain above, for example: Simon & Garfunkel discography, which was also promoted August 11, 2011 (discussion here); Miley Cyrus discography promoted May 10, 2011, (no real discussion about ref fmts, though); Rihanna discography kept December 17, 2010, after FLRC and much discussion, including what I remember as a hard look at details like refs; Kelly Rowland discography promoted August 17, 2011 (with discussion here, but more about WP:ACCESS changes than ref fmts). There's also Mariah Carey albums discography, promoted October 22, 2010, and uses "my" kind of work specification but which doesn't really strike me as a shining example of FL exactitude. Better you stay with the Simon & Garfunkel example or one of the other recent ones. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I'll get right on this. I thought you were only referring to the chart positions, so that's all I looked at. I'll go through and check each and every ref separately. As for the works, let me get this straight: if the content is from their official website, then link what the website is (ex a chart) and if it's not the official (like a secondary source) you put the URL? — Status {talkcontribs  20:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I wouldn't say that. It's kind of an art choosing what to use as the work. Ideally all sites would have some name to them (like Wikipedia, rather than wikipedia.org), but many sites aren't that clear. They do all have domain names, though, so that's always the fallback. For the Hung Medien sites, the sites seem to be named the same as the (www.-less) domain names, so it's clearly swedishcharts.com and charts.org.nz and lescharts.com, etc., for them. For others, I think the refs look prettier when we can say work=Disque en France or similar (rather than work=www.disqueenfrance.com or some such), but that doesn't always work.
Does that help any? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the refs, and the issues seem to have been resolved, although there may still be a couple outstanding errors. All of the works that aren't directly from the chart's official websites, I've just used the URL. Seems like a better option than just picking and choosing from the specific site. I've removed the nvpi links, as something seems to be wrong with their website and/or they went and changed their links around. I'll search for a new source for them and readd them on a later date (or possibly just try to make an archive of the page). — Status {talkcontribs  03:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! We're getting there, although I have (of course) a few more items to look at. Some are old, some new:
  • Ref 11: For the dutchcharts.nl site the publisher is Hung Medien / hitparade.ch (I know it's a bit weird). The copyright line is at the bottom of the page.
  • Mangled dates on Ref 21 and Ref 73.
  • Ref 20 looks right to me, date-wise, as the Disque en France site shows no publication date for the page. However, Refs 51, 53, 59, 61, and 66 all show a publication date of the reference, which looks wrong. It seems you are using the certificate date (Date de constat) here (I only checked one). I think these should all be like ref 20.
  • Ref 69 is now 404.
  • Ref 79 is a review on AllMusic. Ref shows a publish date of 2006-07-11, but AllMusic shows Jul 11, 2006 as the Release Date. I don't actually see the publication date of the review, which is what's supposed to be in our ref. Please check all the AllMusic review refs for this.
*See Ref 40 (x2) and Ref 78. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization: AllMusic (my preference; see the title bar on their site) or allmusic, but not Allmusic. See what I mean?
  • I see you changed some of these, but see also the "General" list (do we still need that?) and Refs 8, 40, 42, 72, 73, 78, and 82 through 85. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86: Mostly just curious on this one: How you know publisher for Rap-Up is "Devine Lazerine"?
  • Hmm, you didn't answer my question, you just changed it. Does that mean Lazerine is not the publisher? (I have no clue, and I detest that site. I was mostly wondering where you got that. Was it just a mistake?) Anyway, I'm not thrilled with the change you made, as we shouldn't have duplicate (or near-duplicate) publisher and work. If Rap-up.com is the work, leave the thing in the parentheses out. If the Rap-Up you're linking to is the work then let the {{cite}} template italicize it, but then leave Rap-up.com out of there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just based it off of how it has been used on articles in the past. — Status {talkcontribs 02:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't oppose because of just this, but I'd still like to see it changed (as I tried to explain above). It bugs me a little, is the thing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. Don't forget my old note above about the date in Ref 24. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues have been address accordingly. As for ref 69, their website states: "The RadioScope website is currently down following an intrusion by hackers. A replacement site will be available shortly." — Status {talkcontribs 10:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't know what to do about that one; leave it and wait, I guess.
  • Hey, do we still even need that Billboard ref in the little General list? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the list. Don't see how it really adds anything. — Status {talkcontribs 02:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. I couldn't see it either, as we seem pretty well covered with inline refs. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and found a RIANZ weekly chart showing that "On The Floor" really had double-platinum by that date. I've taken the liberty of throwing a ref to it into the article. I also took the liberty of leaving the Radioscope ref (Ref 69, still 404 as mentioned above) in there, I guess in case it comes back to life again while the RIANZ server is down one day. Feel free to remove the Radioscope ref yourself, though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to pick it apart, but this article looks good to me now, and I support the nomination. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Jennifer Lopez does not make a guest appearance on "Que Precio Tiene el Cielo". The source provided doesn't even support it. Also where is "No Me Ames"? That title was also released as a single. EDIT: Just read in the history page that it didn't have a source so here is one. Erick (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Reviewed the list again, and the only thing I saw is that ref 34 needs en dashes in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Gimmetoo (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* I posted on the talk page of the article some 6 weeks ago concerning an issue of verifiability that has come up a few times before. It has still not been addressed. I do not consider this list featured quality. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly a reason for an article to not be an FL, especially since remixes are almost always merged with sales/charting of the original song. See "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)" and "S&M". Would a note about the remix satisfy you? — Status {talkcontribs 02:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They charted separately, and you know that. The non-remix version never had one of those peak positions. The non-response on this issue for weeks is indicative of the page's maintenance. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite frankly, I didn't even see the comment about it on the talk page until right now. I'll go separate them right now. I'm seeing the difference to my examples now; different albums. Don't think "I'm Real" should be split though, because the Murder Remix was released alongside it. (Why did she have to do such a confusing thing with her singles?) — Status {talkcontribs 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should be noted that in the US and Canada, the peaks were merged together. This is why I merged them in the first place. I'll add a note saying that. — Status {talkcontribs 02:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - additional concerns since the last outing I'm afraid...
  • Concerns over the reuse of abbreviations that link to different things, please see my comment here.
  • Should sales figures have an "as of" now we have digital downloads? E.g. see Iris which has smashed back into the UK charts because of The X Factor. Perhaps this is something for WP:DISCOGSTYLE again. I've started a discussion there.
  • Certification/gold/platinum not linked in the lead.
  • "received moderate success" do you "receive ... success"? Or should this just be "were moderately successful"?
  • "Today, Lopez has sold over 55 million records ..." that will obviously depend on when "Today" is, and the wikilink you use suggests "only" 50 million...
  • Can you direct me to which reference cites the catalogue numbers of the releases you've chosen to add?
  • En dash indicates that it didn't chart or didn't chart in that territory.
  • CRIA website is down so all links to that seem to be dead. They say they're updating, so you'll need to make sure all links there work.
  • Where is "No Me Ames" referenced? It didn't chart anywhere so there's no clear evidence it ever existed.
  • Ditto for "Louboutins"
  • Ditto for "El Ultimo Adios (The Last Goodbye)"
  • And "Fresh Out the Oven" and "(What Is) Love?"
  • Table captions are pointless if they simply repeat the section headings.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The abbreviation issue hardly has anything to do with this article specifically. If the standard changes, the article can be updated accordingly. I find it extremely unfair to oppose an article because of an issue that involves every single discography on Wikipedia. As for the unsourced singles, details of each release is on each separate page. If you'd prefer though, I will add a source next to them if you'd like. The rest of the issues have been resolved. — Status {talkcontribs 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it's unfair but DISCOGS people seem to insist on keeping to their style guide. I've only just noticed this. I'll continue to oppose (sorry) until there's a decent discussion here. Shouldn't be using the same abbreviation for different links. Too confusing. No need to thank me for the comprehensive review by the way. To the other points, yes, a source is required next to each unsourced single etc. Sales need to be worked out too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good work and thanks for taking on board the discussions about sales figures and certification links. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wikipedian Penguin (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The article seems to be getting closer to getting the bronze star. Just one comment, where are the WP:NBSPs? This is part of the Manual of Style, which WP:WIAFL enforces. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, cool. Another MOS stick with which to beat our nominators...! Yep, well if it's in the MOS it's in the MOS. I've got some reading to do!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Care to explain it to me once you have? I don't get it. — Status {talkcontribs 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • NBSPs (non-breaking spaces) are put inside dates, measurements, times, and anything else that being broken to start a new line would disrupt them. NBSPs are written with (ampersand)nbsp(semi-colon) and are invisible, but prevent the group of words/numbers from being broken just to start a new line:
    December(nbsp)21,(nbsp)2012 appears as December 21, 2012.
    6:30(nbsp)pm(nbsp)ET appears as 6:30 pm ET.
    18(nbsp)lbs. appears as 18 lbs.
    The link gives a better explanation. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Amazing work, you two. The article looks polished as ever. You can collapse the discussion above if you want. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:22, 26 October 2011 (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/Jennifer_Lopez_discography/archive1&oldid=1151048996"