Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kesha 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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:05, 7 September 2010.

Kesha discography

 * Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The lead is engaging and contains valuable information that accurately summarizes the body of the article.
 * 2) All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion.
 * 3) All chart positions are properly sourced and are properly updated.
 * 4) All sources are properly formatted, accurate, and reliable.
 * - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I still don't like that non-releases are included, but if it's that big of a deal to keep them in here, I suppose it's not too large of a concern. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, if it ever becomes a rule or guideline not to include them for FL requirements ill remove them with out hesitation. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should probably place non-print sources in the publisher instead of work field though. Perfectly acceptable and it reduces the amount of markup in the ref. – Chase  ( talk ) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is there a reason why the year columns for the music videos and collaboration sections are at the end of the table? Just wondering, because I've never seen it done like that on any other pages, and none of the featured discography pages seem to be like that (for the music videos section, at least). Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was actually Lil_℧niquℇ №1 who changed it, i dont really care either way. His reasoning was which is most important as your reading? The song or the year it was released? which if you think about it it actually makes sense to have the year last. BTW thanks for making some corrections to the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may change if you disagree as i have no strong feelings either way. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem! Well, the year is used as the first column for the single and album tables throughout, so I just thought it should be the same for consistency. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * mhmm, i could really care less but ive changed it back to year being first as thats how it is for the rest of the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. Per WP:wikitable and WP:ACCESS articles are undergoing some changes to meet accessibility guidelines. When using a screen reader (blind users will use such software) the screen reader should read the most important peice of information first because it is the first thing said by the reader which is the identifying piece of information. For users who cannot see the make-up of the tables the song title is the most important piece of info not the year. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For machine readability it is also desirable to get rid of the rowspan, so each line has the year. Example: Helena Bonham Carter. Note the table is also sortable and the colour has been removed. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will now support, but I think that the lead could also do with a bit of wikifying, particularly that of genres and countries. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and i added more wiki links. :) - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support &mdash; Everything looks good with the discography now. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral Issues resolved, I'm not 100% sold on 3b, but I withdraw my oppose. Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. The lead section needs a copy edit. The prose is quite choppy, sentences shouldn't start with "but", there are commas where they shouldn't be and no commas where they should be. I would also suggest that you consider including her full name (but I don't consider that a big deal). Also, the last sentence of the lead doesn't have a citation and is there a photo where she doesn't look drunk? They're not fundamental issues and could be addressed fairly easily, but they're worth fixing. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed "But". I believe i have fixed the punctuation, i may have missed some. Please be bold and correct any i have missed. Please and Thank you. And there are very very limited free images of Kesha. This is one of the best unfortunately. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you've addressed my more trivial concerns, but what about the choppiness of the prose? FL criterion #1. What of the uncited final sentence? As things are, I'm going to have to oppose per criteria 1 and 2. I don't wish to cause offence, the idea here is to get the best possible article, but it doesn't fall to the reviewer to be bold to make sure an FLC meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has since reached the top forty in six countries (three of them being top twenty peaks). Doesnt need a source. Thats what the body of the article is for. Please be more specific about criteria 1 and 2 or i cannot improve it. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose is very choppy—there are a lot of very short sentences and it's difficult for the reader to retain interest. Also, as Courcelles pointed out above, you make inconsistent use of the serial comma. Personally, I despise the damn thing, but you need to make up your own mind on whether to use it or not. As for the prose quality, have a look at Taylor Swift discography and some other fairly recent FL discographies. While the first paragraph of Swift's is structured very similarly, it make s much better use of varied sentence structure to hold the reader's interest. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some copy edits which I hope will be adequate. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I decided to copy edit it myself and I'm now satisfied with the prose and the other technical aspects. On 3b, although there isn't much of a discography, I believe it's of more use in its own article than it would be merged back into Kesha, not least since it would more-than-likely be split again in the near-ish future as she releases more music. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Was her debut album really realised worldwide on the same date?
 * you choose to first release date, which was January 1 - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  -
 * Says who? Perhaps just clarify in the lead where it was initially released. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest adding the word "from" as this is a quick solution? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly i dont really care, if you want to change it please do. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've promoted, but please be address this issue in a timely manner. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


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