Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Santana/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 The Rambling Man 15:09, 6 December 2010.

List of awards and nominations received by Santana

 * Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review is closed ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of addressing my concerns, as I was still not happy with the state of the grammar. Therefore I will recuse myself from further review.  Jujutacular  talk 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Prose.
 * Grammar: "an Mexican"
 * Done, look above.
 * Yay. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Latin Grammy Award is an award, which are given to musicians, who have contributed to Latin music."
 * It's comprehensible, that this award is given to latin musicians, but I couldn't design an another sentence.
 * How about: "The Latin Grammy Award is an award given to musicians who have contributed to Latin music" or "The Latin Grammy is awarded to musicians who have contributed to Latin music." &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it the same as I wrote before? Reworded.
 * Article undecided whether Santana is singular or plural.
 * Done, look above.
 * No, not done. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Proofreading: "including ten[4] and two nominations"
 * Done, look above.
 * Yes, but still suffers from problem in next item. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The following I changed to: "The band was also inducted into the followings: Grammy Hall of Fame,[5] Hollywood Walk of Fame,[6] Latin Grammy Hall of Fame[7] and NAACP Image Hall of Fame.[8]" Better?
 * Uses phrasing like "fifty-one awards and seven nominations" throughout as if they were two unrelated things.
 * Done, look above.
 * This is a problem throughout the article. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean I should delete the nominations in the whole paragraphs and just write the awards? done I reworded like this: fifty-one awards from fifty-eight nominations.
 * Caps: "First band with over 5 Million record sales worldwide"
 * Changed
 * No. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes (computer problem)
 * The description under "Hollywood Walk of Fame Award" needs a quick and thorough replacement.
 * Done
 * Where? In your Sandbox? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about now?

2. Lead.
 * No; grammar errors, basic formatting mistakes, awkward phrasing. Needs copy-editing/re-writing.
 * Done, look above.
 * No, not done. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

5(a). Style.
 * Formatting for book title against MoS.
 * Maybe it's OK now (couldn't find MoS especially for books, but I looked at Help:Footnotes).
 * Caps in "Further Reading" heading per MoS
 * I don't understand; the first letters were capitalised. Should I rewrite to "FURTHER READING"?
 * Page is hard to parse with all those one-entry tables.
 * Any suggestion?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

References
 * Need formatting per MoS
 * Is it Ok now?
 * Why, did you change something? The date formats don't all match in the refs section. Magazines and books should be italicized. Web site names should not be italicized (my personal preference) OR they should all be italicized (default of templates like cite web). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Italicized and non-italicized.
 * A quick check of just a few refs (#5, #6) showed semi-invented titles. Cf. refs 21–23.
 * The problem is that I don't know the publisher, like californian music awards.
 * Huh? If you don't know the publisher, where did you get the reference? Ref #22 is a public wiki anyway, so it's of no use here. But I was complaining about the titles being products of your imagination, which has no connection to you knowing the publisher's name, AFAICT. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed from (#5, #6)
 * "Grammys for Santana" to "Grammy Awards for Santana"
 * "Induction in the Hollywood Walk of Fame" to "Induction into the Hollywood Walk of Fame", did you mean this?
 * (#21-#23)
 * Capitalized "Californian Music Awards"
 * I know wikimusikguide isn't a veriable source, but I coulnd't find any better (except the "spam link", that I mentioned above). Replaced link

more: doing added more awards after I had whitelisted it-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) done &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added bio in pdf format with publisher
 * Made a request to mark website as a white-list and added reference
 * Took several cleanups-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref #24 is suspect. Are both claims really confirmed on page 1888? How many pages are in that book, then?
 * Done.That was an error made by Dash Solver
 * Are you even answering the same issues I've mentioned? Or are you typing answers to questions on another page? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm answering and I changed from "page=" to "pages=" long before -_-?
 * Oh I don't know what happened, but much of my improvements Were not changed. My computer is lagging today, I don't know why (maybe overload).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment GreatOrangePumpkin, I just saw that you left a message on my Talk page to "Stop insulting [you]." I don't know what insult you are referring to, as I haven't edited this page since 19:58, and you made multiple edits here before leaving your note at 21:37. It doesn't make sense.

I must also say, however, that I am sorry I took a swing at trying to review the article you nominated. Not only is it quite unready for Featured status, but you have taken a weird approach to the review. I should have known better following our last interaction, but then, I guess I'm a slow learner. I don't like that you interleave replies between my notes contrary to the instructions, but I see that happens a lot. I really don't like the way you move my signature around so that a reader may mistake your words for mine. And I can't understand why you think it's okay to strike out a bunch of my comments and notes when they haven't been addressed yet. I hadn't even read all of your replies before you started striking out the text. Once again, it makes me wonder what you think we're doing here. It certainly makes me wonder what I'm doing here.

I believe the best thing is for me to withdraw from this process. I remain opposed to this article being promoted without considerable work being done, but you or whatever FL honchos end up reviewing my notes may choose to disregard them, as I no longer expect to respond to further claims of "done" or queries whether it's "okay now". &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Lots of problems with refs: There are also lots of problems with the prose, which really needs a copyedit from a native English speaker, but the referencing issues are the most glaring faults for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the references have "titles" which are completely different to the actual title of the source. For example, ref 12 has the title "Santana received his World Records", but the actual title of the source is "Grammy Awards 2010: Continuing a Record-Breaking Tradition".  Similarly, ref 30 lists the title as "Patrick Lippert Award for Santana", but the source actually has the title "History of Rock the Vote".  Why have these "fake" titles been used?
 * I misunderstood; I thought I must write titles alone. Done
 * Ref 5 has a wikilink in the "title" field, remove this as it blocks the actual link to the source. Also the title of the source is not "Grammy" anyway.....
 * done
 * Ref 19 lists the publisher as Billboard, but it is actually on something called www.mexiko-lindo.de. What is this, what makes it a reliable source, and why is it being claimed that the publisher is Billboard when it blatantly isn't?
 * Yes, but the awards are called Billboard Music Awards, so the publisher is Billboard, or not? And I think it's a reliable source, because this site is about Mexico and the people, including Carlos Santana. So I don't think they invent this awards and put his name. Maybe I should contact this page and ask where you found this awards and nominations.
 * The "publisher" field refers to the publisher of the source, which in this case is the mexiko-lindo website. Please read WP:V which will confirm what is considered a reliable source.  I can't see anything which would indicate that this site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and given that it appears to be a travel site, I doubt it is run by experts on music.  More reliable sources for these awards must surely exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Medallion" is spelt wrong in the title of ref 26
 * done
 * What makes aceshowbiz.com a reliable source?
 * Well, it's like the german page above: It's might be a spam-site but it's not a list of awards, that this author invented. And I also ask to whitelist this, so it would take me much time to revert the edits.
 * Refs 25/27 seem to suggest that both facts are referenced to page 1888 of the International Who's Who 2004, but according to this, the book only has 1888 pages. I'm guessing that the source information is not on the back cover, so what page of the book is actually referencing those facts?
 * Huh? The book has 1888 pages. The page is 1478. I added this page to the book reference, although I think it wasn't necessary to do this, because the page can be seen at the bottom.
 * Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * There seems to be a cite error on the page with the references "cMA2" and "CMA".
 * oops forgot to delete this. done
 * "In the following years, Santana sold more than 100 million album copies to date." is it possible to get a reliable third party source for this?
 * I couldn't find any references, proofing that they sold more than 100mil.
 * How reliable is Rockonthenet.com? it looks like a fansite, and I can't seem to find an About page.
 * No it's not a fansite at all. I found alot of featured "awards and nominations" which contain this ref, for example: List of awards received by U2
 * Other pages using it is hardly concrete evidence, any FLCs in the past year or so which have used it? Afro  ( Don't Call Me Shirley ) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if I remove this source, more than half of the awards should also be deleted. This page has archivated famous awards. I would use the official grammy awards website, but unfortunately this site was updated and only nominees from the years 2009 and 2010 are shown.
 * After looking over the website again, I found an FAQ (stupid me as it was in plain view). looking over the FAQ though it doesn't settle my concerns "Artist Information pages are created from a thorough search of all artist websites including fan pages and record label profiles.". Afro  ( Don't Call Me Shirley ) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have concerns over Hollywoodusa.co.uk as well, I can't seem to find an About page on their website.
 * Added official website.done
 * Wouldn't it be easier to use the actual ref for 20 and 22? Afro  ( Don't Call Me Shirley ) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * what actual ref? I am sure, this book is a good reference, especially who is who.
 * Well 20 and 22 seem to be using "" wouldn't it be easier to have this in the reference than "The International Who's Who 2004: 3"? Afro  ( Don't Call Me Shirley ) 12:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it allowed to add books in the notes section? I thought they should be separated. If so I will do that.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm dropping this point after reviewing some recently promoted FLs. Afro  ( Don't Call Me Shirley ) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


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