Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project

Issue with inactivity of the featured album project
I have noticed that Revolver (The Beatles, 1966 release) has been the featured album project for quite some time now. This would please me if the article had been enhancing &mdash; however, this does not appear to be the case. Judging by the number of edits that have been made in the history, it seems as though a collaboration on the article had never really commenced. The current five-hundredth edit was edited on the date of August 22 2002; had a collaboration been occurring, I am almost certain that the five-hundredth edit would not have taken place three and a half years ago. My proposal is simple: change the standards of the featured album project. The inactivity taking place in the article&mdash;also evident by the past fifty edits that were made (the fiftieth being made on September 20 2005)&mdash;has left a dead branch for other album articles that could have been significantly improved within that time period. It disappoints me so. The album project must be changed or even removed from Wikipedia if its inactivity is as great as it currently stands. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding. . . (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Proposing a change seems quite reasonable to me. Further, albums by bands that do not have a number of editors actively interested in them might be good choices.  The Beatles albums may not be ones in which the whole project needs to pay special attention to.  Jkelly 02:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means, reorganize however you like. I had hoped this would take off, but it never did, so clearly a new proposal is necessary. Tuf-Kat 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have also posted this message at the talk page on WikiProject Albums. Now for the infamous awkward part: how do I actually change the featured album in the template that appears on every album article talk page? &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Go to Template:Album and edit away. Tuf-Kat


 * Am I allowed to add any name to the "current collaboration" section of the box or is there an election that must take place first? &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in the long run, there ought to be a process of some kind to decide the collaboration, but I don't think there's anything wrong with being bold and picking one arbitrarily to help get things started. Tuf-Kat 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I do hope no one complains about my selection though. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you freaking kidding me? A Gwen Stefani album over so many other worthy, classic candidates?!? Use a little NPOV next time. --Cjmarsicano 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured someone would complain as much. No, you see, that's actually the problem: too many "classic" albums are receiving the treatment of article enhancement. A mainstream album should at least deserve the opportunity to be upgraded. So come on, let this collaboration run for, let's say, at least two weeks? I think it would be fair. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, there needs to be references and sources indicated on the article. At the moment, the album is just a bunch of lists and to reach featured article status, the only lists that should be there are the track listing and maybe the musical personnel (which on this album is probably quite extensive). If you really think this album is worthy, I highly suggest writing more PARAGRAPHS about the album - how it was made, the history behind it, whatever impact (other than just sales - that means little here) it had, and so forth.  Go to my user page, check a lot of the albums that I've written about on here, so that you can get an idea of what the Gwen album entry needs. --Cjmarsicano 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The CotW ought to include anything of general notability, whether it's silly pop or a legendary recording. We ought to include some of each, so I think is entirely reasonable. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment of these articles for WP 1.0
Hi, I've begun assessing these articles for the WP1.0 project, with a partial listing of assessments now here. I wanted to make a couple of general points:
 * 1) The assessments are largely based on my rough judgement of layout, pictures, format, and length of content; it's hard for me to judge content, unless the language is atrocious.  I'm also not an expert in this field, although I am familiar with most of the albums, so please take a look at my assessments - if you disagree with any please feel free to comment, or change the assessment (along with an explanation of reasons, if possible).
 * 2) Most of the articles do not list any references, and that limits their use. Most of these articles contain large nos. of facts, where did all this information come from?  With major bands like the Beatles, there must be many well-researched books that can serve as sources of information, surely? In most longer articles, an extra picture or two (besides the standard cover picture) would also be nice, for example a concert promoting the album, the (different) cover used in France, or fans lining up to buy the album, if any of these are available.

I will try to complete the assessments soon. Thanks a lot for putting this list together, it's a great help! Walkerma 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no Amount in the WikiProject Albums, How many reviews are good?
Since there is no Amount in the WikiProject Albums guidelines, How many reviews are good? For example:
 * "The Dillinger Escape Plan - Miss Machine
 * Albumbox may need more reviews, with rating directly on it."
 * There are four with direct ratings on there...How much is "more"? I just want to create the best type of articles I can for Wikipedia, and make them WikiProject Albums compliant. Antmusic 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)