Wikipedia:Peer review/List of best-selling music artists/archive1

List of best-selling music artists
I'm just wondering where people think this page could 'go next'? It seems to be doing a fairly good job, the state that it was in 12 months ago, but else do people think it could show or, simply, how could it be improved? Would images help improve the article and - most importantly - how far is it from featured list status? --Robdurbar 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great list that could easily pass FL. However I have some remarks. I'm strongly against using fan sites as reliable sources, they could easily inflates the numbers. Once it's nominated, I'll check for every source. As for the images, I strongly disagree with using them, it will mess the page, and not even flags for country since artists do not represent their countries. CG 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto on not liking fan sites - however, I think this is a case where only such info is avaliable. It is for this reason that the categories are 'claimed to have sold' and that the list notes that these are (reasonable) claims made by or on behalf of artists, and that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. --Robdurbar 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes made by the artists, record companies or news agencies, not by their fans. CG 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are very limited cases where a fan site might be considered a reliable source - in the case of The KLF, which is a Featured Article, we reference the KLF Discography (albeit with a disclaimer/note about it's origins). It's been on the internet as long as I can remember (early 90s) and has had peer review and scrutiny by KLF mailing list members for the same period of time. Without any doubt it's the most authoratitive discography there is. On the other hand, relying on fans for statistics like this - with or without a disclaimer - is a total and utter no-no as far as I'm concerned. If no reliable source is available the information shouldn't be used. Remember, we don't necessarily even report fact here, we report what is verifiable from reliable sources. --kingboyk 08:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - but the article states in its intro that these are 'claims not facts'. I do see where this argument is coming from, and wouldn't be against introducing such a policy to the page, but I don't think it is necessary so long as we retain an 'approximations' format. Robdurbar 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The references should be converted to in order to see the access dates. I also think that the list could be divided better. I propose that it gets divided by 50, 75, 100, 200, and 300 million. --Maitch 09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)