Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple/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 Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013.

List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple

 * Nominator(s): Another Believer  ( Talk ) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted. — AARON  &bull; TALK   22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.
 * I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers).  Ruby  2010/  2013  21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Great work!  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Source comments –
 * What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?
 * This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


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