Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/KT Tunstall 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 promoted 17:58, 31 March 2008.

KT Tunstall discography
previous FLC


 * Self nomination: This discography contains the official releases of Scottish singer KT Tunstall. The last time this article was nominated it did not receive enough votes. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Definitely a good start. I do have some suggestions:
 * I'm not sure how your monitory displays the first table, but for me it's forced to squeeze onto the leftside of the infobox, which makes it really really tall. There's a few solutions to this, all of which I would recommend: expand the lead (see below), trim down the infobox (also see below), add clr to the end of the lead.
 * The lead is a little short. It covers all of the section, but you could definately put some more meat on those bones.  A little bit more info about Tunstall herself would a good start.
 * I'm not sure if I see the point in separating the acoustic album from the other albums. It's still an album, no?  It doesn't matter what it sounds like.  I'd recommend just merging it into the main table.  This would also take out at least one part in the infobox.
 * The Catalog numbers are great, but I'd recommend putting a # in there to make it clearer. ie (CDRELX #06).
 * Some of the column widths need some work. First, it would be nice to be somewhat consistent between tables with similar columns.  Second, the current widths make the tables unnecessarily tall (at least in my somewhat low-res monitor).  My suggestion to solve this is manifold: trim down the widths of the chart columns (all of which are wider than they need to be for the content), and broaden the Title and Sales/Certifications columns to avoid information jumping down to the next line uneccessarily.  It'll take some experimenting, but you could definately get the majority of the rows to be 3-4 lines.  Eye to the Telescopes row is 10 lines for me right now.
 * The header for the charts should be "Chart peak positions" or "Peak chart positions" or something like that. Right now two are "Chart positions" and one is "Peak positions".
 * Switzerland is usually abbreviated as SWI in discogs.
 * The EPs table has the Label, but the other don't. I'd recommend incorporating that into the other tables, and putting the Catalog number after the label.
 * The demo albums were never commercially released and therefore don't have catalog numbers. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes perfect sense. I'd still recommend putting the catalog numbers after the Label though, not the title.  For instance, I assume Eye to the Telescope is cataloged as CDRELX #06 only in relation to the Relentless Label.  And I assume that the Christmas album is cataloged as #5099950772421 in relation to EMI.  Right now it's not always clear. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Throw me a Rope should have dashes in all the chart cells, since apparently it didn't chart anywhere.
 * It was only released in the UK, so not eligible to chart anywhere else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. However, I'd still say the dashes apply.  It's not so much a question of eligibility, as it is whether it charted or not.  If it wasn't released in a certain country, then it didn't chart.  That's why the legend for the dash is typically worded on the vague side, to account for cases like this one.  I see that you've changed it from " "—" denotes releases that did not chart." (as it appears in many discographies)  to " "—" denotes singles that were released but did not chart."  I don't see this as something necessary to qualify.  (Also, the legend is missing from the Albums table.) Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that seems like alot of stuff, but hopefully it doesn't seem too bad. Drewcifer (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's two instances of 2007 in the B-sides table.
 * ALSO: I think the chart names could be abbreviated a little more succinctly in the singles table. U.S. Adult Top 40 takes up 4 lines, and it's just the header.  Take a look at other discographies for some common abbreviations. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten everything. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added all your suggestions into the article. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the charts info is unreferenced.
 * I think that New Zealand and Germany charts are still unreferenced. Also, for the sake of clarity, I'd recommend turning those into in-line ciations rather than general sources, just to make the information and the source of that information clearer.  That's just a suggestion though, take it or leave it. Drewcifer (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added references that cover those charts. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks very good, all of my suggestions have been taken into account. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The acoustic album. Is that the release date of the website, or it's physical CD release date? I think both should be included.
 * The article doesn't state the album's original release date and I cannot find it anywhere else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then make it clear that the date given is for the physical release. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For consistency, World, UK and US sales should be included for all albums
 * UK and world sales aren't available for KT Tunstall's Acoustic Extravaganza and Drastic Fantastic. At least not from reliable sources. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * References are needed for the demo albums
 * I removed the demo album section because I cannot find references for it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it. The size of the article shouldn't be an issue any more either, as another album, three singles and videos have been released since. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment- Think about joining the B-sides in the singles table, like in the U2 discography article. I don't know what the manual of style says about this, but I think it is more clear.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, as it's a discography, not a songography -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to lie, I've never even heard of her, but the list seems to be good enough although it is a tad on the short side. I was wondering if Amazon useable as a source? It's a sales website, so I'm not sure if it would fall under WP:RS. -- Scorpion0422 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Amazon.com references and replaced them with articles instead. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I like all the discogs on here. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a valid enough reason to support this list though. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. All my issues have been addressed, and as I said, I don't think WP:SIZE should be an issue any more, but the B sides table concerns me. I do think this info is interesting and should be included somewhere, but perhaps not here. Each album track isn't listed, after all. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * B-sides are listed in the Powderfinger discography and Alice in Chains discography (both of which are featured lists) just to name a few. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as many FL discogs don't have it, too. And for me a discography deals in releases whereas a songogrpahy, I suppose, would deal with songs. -- Matthew 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me, I'll Support. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.