Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rachel Stevens 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 by User:Matthewedwards 19:06, 7 October 2008.

Rachel Stevens discography
It's relatively short since her career wasn't exactly a success. I removed the B-sides and unreleased material based on the recommendation of MOS:DISCOG, but I don't have any objection to adding them back in if people think there's not enough material there. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support - will support once sourcing issues is resolved. Sourcing issues resolved as well as my comments to meet WP:WIAFL.-- S R X  00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.mvdbase.com/index.php? a reliable source?
 * See above for my response to the same question. If necessary, I can reference them to the bonus DVD of Come and Get It, but it seems better to avoid using a primary source.  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise http://acharts.us/performer/rachel_stevens?
 * The site's software automatically retrieves information from charts, and the Q&A page says the staff checks when there are errors in the software or source chart. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Their site states that they analyze the charts themselves and that the method is to cull information from the charts using their software. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That page also says "There may also be some errors in the charts, these are made by our sources or by the software which analyses new charts and adds them to the website." So either they sources they use may be wrong, and/or the software they use to cull information goes wrong. And they rely on waiting for Joe Normal to tell them when it goes wrong. What happens if noone spots a mistake? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in the archives of WT:RS, it was determined that it wasn't a reliable source for the reason I just gave, and the same page you offered :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to this discussion, which didn't really go as you say. User:Stephan Schulz commented that "it might [emphasis added] be better to go to the original sources".  The issue here is whether or not the site checks its information against the actual chart positions, and it clearly does if that's where it's getting the information.  The fact that it has a way for readers to notify it of possible errors (which still happen in reliable publicatons with editorial oversight) should only attest to its reliability, as compared to UWC in that discussion, which I'm pretty sure has no method of contact on its site.  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, he didn't add the emphasis on "might", and he said that referring to http://acharts.us/help - the same page you did; however, you have made a good argument. Let's see what others think before any other action is taken on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. As a sidenote, the "[emphasis added]" note was meant to indicate that I had italicized that; I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, just point out that only one person replied in the discussion, and that person wasn't definitive about whether or not it should be used.  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support
 * Not a nice photo of her - I think the one on her own article is better - at least you can see her face... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


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