Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Led Zeppelin 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 Dabomb87 18:51, 26 January 2011.

Led Zeppelin discography

 * Nominators: ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC), 

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose—Oddly enough, this article has gone worse since I last saw it only a few days back. I had told the nominator that he should hold off nominating it here, and still think so:
 * The lead has gotten worse since I copy-edited it. For example, its fourth sentence has four five instances of the word "certification". While all their albums have only year of release mentioned, The Song Remains the Same (which also happens to appear un-chronologically) has its full release-date—twice. I also see many MOS inconsistencies such as both capitalised and uncapitalised "Multi-Platinum" (shouldn't it be uncapitalised throughout?).
 * I don't know what issues you have with that "certification". The Song Remains the Same: What do you mean with "twice" released, as VHS and as DVD? Done. No, Multi-Platinum is a proper noun.
 * Repetitive word-usage doesn't make for good writing. Music recording sales certification uses small-case gold and platinum.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to. Do you mean, I use "certification" too much. Well, then give me a synonym for that. If you are refering to the capitalizaion/lower casing of the words "Gold" and "Platinum"; that was already solved by rambling man above. Either I should capitalicize all platinums/golds or not. I decided to capitalicize them.


 * "All of their original studio albums have reached the Top 10 on the Billboard album chart in the US, with six reaching number one spot." - this is redundant to the rest of the current lead.
 * deleted.
 * The lead is missing some key info, in my opinion. Their fourth album was originally released without a title, as the band wanted to see how successful they'd be if they didn't use the Led Zeppelin label on it. Also, the band pioneered the concept of album-oriented rock, which is why they released so few singles.
 * added a sentence about album-oriented rock.
 * (I've been wondering if an album-by-album discussion is the best way to go about the lead actually. Since practically all of them were chart-topping multi-platinum sellers, its a little repetitive right now.)
 * ok
 * Have you searched for sales figures for individual albums? (I am sure newspaper articles, or newer books on the band might have some updated numbers)
 * no need.
 * What do you mean? I think including the sales figures for individual albums would greatly increase the value of the article. If there is absolutely no data about individual albums, of course there's no problem. But a thorough search needs to be done first.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... Please give me one featured disco that has books or worse newspaper as reliable source for charting!?


 * What is the purpose of Note C? And why are these album-related notes in the singles table? What is "^ No commercial or promotional single was actually issued. Chart number represents radio airplay of album tracks" supposed to point to?
 * It wasn't written by me, only to clarify. C means, that the liner notes of Led Zeppelin Boxed Set 2 categorize Coda as a studio album. Done. Deleted
 * Why is that image with Led Zep IV supposed to be? The note doesn't explain it.
 * I don't understand why not. Are liner notes not reliable?
 * In the studio albums table, there is the pic of the four symbols (just under LZIV). I don't see an explanation for the picture anywhere.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't understand you, sry. Deleted.


 * Could you double-check your Billboard ref (#16)? Refs 8, 13–15, 28–30 go to different websites, but their citation info (apart from the language) is identical. Is MusicBrainz a reliable source?
 * What is wrong with 16? Yes they are going to different websites, but they are no dead links. I used brainz only to clarify that candy store rock is a single; in my opinion reliable.
 * Why is the Billboard link pointing to the Billboard.com homepage instead of the specific LZ charts page? MusicBrainz is a "MusicBrainz is a user-maintained open community that collects, and makes available to the public, music metadata in the form of a relational database, so it cannot be reliable source. —indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an archivation of Billboard albums on/at Allmusic. I have replaced the link, that linked to the home page of Billboard. I don't know what source you want for that single, but musicbrainz seems to be the best. I hope you can make an exception?


 * Are you sure the songs that charted from Mothership were singles? I thought they charted solely on the basis of iTunes downloads?
 * Changed.
 * The table still lists them as singles, and single-count remains 26.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * done, but I didn't separate the downloads from singles, but merged them together.


 * Why is US the last country in the charts columns, but the first in the certifications?—indopug (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alphabetically sorted.
 * but now UK is at the start of the charts, and the middle of the certs.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Separate charts or territories should be represented by their own column; the artist or band's home country comes first, followed by an English-language alphabetical ordering of countries (with the option to prioritize English-speaking countries before others), then followed by international, multinational, or worldwide charts if available. In the case of multiple charts per country (such as the various Billboard charts), these should also be in alphabetical order of country-name then chart name. from WikiProject Discographies/style.

Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go on nitpicking, but I simply don't think this article is nearly ready enough for a band of this stature. I suggest withdrawing this from FLC, so that you can work in leisure. A number of major questions need to be resolved—how to deal with their untitled fourth album; whether Coda is a studio album or a compilation; whether the band released music videos (none of which are mentioned here); how best to write the lead etc.—indopug (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I don't collect withdrawals. The thing with music videos I wrote you before seems to be resolved; the so-called music videos are just pieces from concerts (BTW I can't watch that video above); don't forget that this is a discography, not a videography. And that case with Coda was also resolved, here you can find the answer. I recently found a comment here; you asked there if Coda is a studio album or not, Scieberking gave you the link above. BTW: I requested a copy-edit yesterday and is now done.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Still opposing:
 * "It received several sales certifications, including an eight-times Multi-Platinum certification from the national American certification and a Diamond certification from the national Canadian certification"—um, what?
 * Why are there two different notes named [A]? Why does clicking the [A] next to the Mothership songs lead to "The liner notes for the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2..."?
 * "Since their break-up, the band have released numerous compilation albums and live albums from older concerts, including the live album How the West Was Won, which peaked at number one on the Billboard charts, and the compilation album Mothership, which produces seven digital downloads and were released on the same day Led Zeppelin's entire catalog became available in digital stores, in the iTunes Store including."—prose issues aside, what other digital store features the Zep catalogue?
 * "Led Zeppelin are one of the best-selling rock bands of all time."—cite?
 * The numerous Hung Medien cites are formatted identically. Please add the name of the website/chart to the reference. For example, for the Dutch chart ref: "'Extended Search: Led Zeppelin' (in Dutch). DutchCharts.nl. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2010-12-15."
 * Have you double-checked all (any?) of the chart positions, certifications and references for comprehensiveness and accuracy?
 * According to its Wiki article, Led Zeppelin Remasters was certified in a lot more territories than 4 currently mentioned. (Although you obviously don't need to include all of them, most of the studio albums have 6 certs., so I guess that is the limit?)
 * From where do you get that SRTS charted at number 24 in the Netherlands?

Again, these are just a sample of the issues I found in the article. Fixing just the above will not make this article FL-worthy; a thorough, top-to-bottom re-working is needed from you. FLC is not the place for that.—indopug (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure three American charts are needed in the singles table? The band did chart in a number of other major territories. Also, why does Switzerland come after the US?
 * Coda was released only on CD? And weren't albums since the 70s normally released on cassettes too? (I'm not sure, but it warrants investigating).


 * Removed useless repeating
 * Done
 * Split long sentence into two sentences.
 * Why if there's an article about the best-selling artists? However, I deleted it.
 * Done
 * OK, let's go (album)
 * UK → Checked √
 * AUS → Checked √
 * CAN → Checked √
 * FRA → A lot of false peak chart positions :/. Done √
 * GER → Same and replaced url. Done √
 * JAP → Ugh... will do tomorrow, hope my katakana helps here :/
 * NED → One was false. Done √
 * NZL → One was false. Done √
 * NOR → Checked √
 * and last but not least USA → Checked √
 * (singles) will do tomorrow
 * You are right. Deleted Billboard ref.
 * Deleted 2 other refs
 * Will search tomorrow

Thank you for more comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Only to clarify: the tables and its content was not made by me .-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is completely irrelevant. If an article is brought to FLC, solely the content of the article is judged. When anybody points out shortcomings, they are just highlighting flaws in the article, and are not saying that you made those flaws.—indopug (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will withdraw it, as I see issues with the english-speaking, chart positions, like Australia and UK, and will look into this list more deeply afterwards. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


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