Jump to content

Talk:The Immaculate Collection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Immaculate Collection has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Immaculate Collection is the main article in the The Immaculate Collection series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2022Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

REFS

[edit]
She previously matched the record by Patsy Cline's "Greatest Hits" in 1995 in the USA with the 6 million mark.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Apoxyomenus, I'll try to improve this article, let's see haha. If you accidentally find articles discussing the production or promotion, they're very welcomed too :) Bluesatellite (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesatellite No problem, i'll do in case I found something.

Before its release
  • Dance Rap (pag 23 in PDF) | Cashbox 1990-10-27
  • Billboard (pag 106 in PDF) | 1990-11-03 | Including the first time usage of Q-sound in an album
More
Performance
Other
Most record sales in Singapore are of international (mainly English) records. Best sellers have included REM's Out of Time, Phil Collins' But Seriously, and Madonna's Immaculate Collection (Business Times, 6 March 1992). Pag 171 in The Struggle over Singapore's Soul: Western Modernization and Asian Culture by Joseph B. Tamney (2017)

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Italy: «E che in Italia è stato cinque volte disco di platino con 500 mila copie vendute».
Vera (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australia

Hello. I found this archived version of Herald Sun and it is never mentioned that The Immaculate Collection is the best-selling greatest hits album by a female artist in Australia. In fact, the staff writers never mention the album. Are you sure that info is correct and true? Vera (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi good caught. I don't remember if I mislinked/missplaced the proper url here, or if was a different archived version. Archive.org is down. Probably is true, but having a source was better. Anyway, I removed the info in the article by now. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert edit

[edit]

Bluesatellite this is the source from Hitlisten where it shows the album attained a peak position of four. The same page explain the last symbol from each chart-album information, where it reads above the page in "IKONFORKLARING" → BEDSTE PLACERING (PEAK). I also think the information about the best-selling greatest hits album by a woman in US, UK and AUS should be reinserted, either in commercial performance or legacy, as its part of the nature/type of the album. Not fancruft, as you wouldn't certainly heard about that from other record, eg. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should update the citation while changing the peak, as we can't assume people to know immediately where it comes. I've re-added the Denmark #4 peak tho, thanks for noticing. As for the best-selling GH claim for those countries, I removed it from the lede simply because it's just a bit too much, since the album itself holds the worldwide record. Also the claim for the US is a out-of-date and kinda questionable since Patsy Cline's Greatest Hits is also a RIAA diamond album. We never clearly know which one sells more among women. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bluesatellite Sure, I know the responsability of WP:BURDEN. Perhaps because I thought while reviewing the online Hitlisten link, the automatic template should contain it; at the end, I'm wonder how I didn't notice it. With the latter point, I'm sure that if article follows the current "trend" of some articles in having within commercial reception sub-divisions like "North America" and "International/Overseas" this would be added along with other stats in other's eyes :p, but not objections about your argument. Finally, just to let you know I found this comment about album's cover that might be useful: "The albums's colors of blue and gold resonate with some of the colors used in traditional images of Virgin mary" in Simon and Schuster's 2006 book "The Everything Mary Book: The Life And Legacy of the Blessed Mother" by Jenny and John Schroedel. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have always preferred simple and cohesive article like Featured Article 4 (Beyoncé album) over a gigantic article where every single non-major details are mentioned. This album is without a doubt among the critically greatest releases and best-sellers of ALL time, and IMO we don't need a bloated paragraphs to reassure its "greateness", in my humble opinion. Anyway, you don't have to ask my permission to edit the article. Please help me adding that artwork commentary :)) I would rewrite when necessary, cheers! Bluesatellite (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mostly agree with your point, the implementation of some data's information looks like WP:CHARTTRAJ in many cases. Done with artwork's comment. I didn't add that, as I found it minutes ago and also cuz, you're currently working on that under template "UC". Cheers. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Immaculate Collection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll be reviewing this article. Time to get Into the Groove! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    • Prose is well written. No obvious spelling or grammar errors.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • Lead: Accurately summarizes article and length is reasonable.
    • Layout: Correctly formatted and in standard order. Structure is standard for album articles.
    • Words to watch: All words of praise are attributed. One WP:REALTIME reference (discussed lower).
    • Fiction: N/A
    • Lists: Usage is standard for album articles.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    • References are correctly listed.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    • Statistics and opinions are held to a higher standard and should still be cited when in the lead. This includes sales, chart placements, and critics' rankings.
    Could you please point out which statement that require citation in the lead? MOS:LEADCITE does not say that sales or chart placements need to have direct citation in the lead. Delicate (Taylor Swift song) is the most recent music Featured Article as example in this case. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted statistics rather broadly, but if it's not even checked for in FA, then I'm not going to hold you to it for GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also remains the best-selling compilation album ever by a solo artist – The sources for this are from 2012. Do more recent sources exist to confirm that it is still true? Also, the word "remains" presents a WP:REALTIME issue, and the phrase "as of 2012" should be included (or preferably a more recent year if a more recent source can be found).
    The sentence rephrased. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick check on the reliability of sources raised concerns for the biography written by J. Randy Taraborrelli. Apparently he has a reputation for tabloid-style writing presented as biographies. Not a major issue as the book is not used for contentious material at any point, but I was curious about your thoughts on this.
    That biography has been used in many many Madonna GA/FA articles. I haven't found any issue with it so far. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations are otherwise comprehensive and reliable, primarily using web and scanned print news sources.
    C. It contains no original research:
    • Citations are comprehensive, spot check suggests they are accurately represented by the article.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    • No apparent violations. Score on WP:EARWIG test accounted for by attributed quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    • There's one major detail that seems to be missing. The article says that Minor alterations and additions have been applied to every track; for example, "Material Girl" has a new outro in place of the original fade-out. Pettibone also remixed "Into the Groove", "Like a Prayer", and "Express Yourself", which are significantly different from their original album versions. This should be elaborated on, as it leaves readers wanting on what sort of changes were made. Did these remixes change the songs beyond the use of QSound? Did any others have an entire segment changed like Material Girl did?
    It was a completely new production, with entirely different instrumentation. I rephrased the sentence, but I couldn't find sources to further describe the details. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also not able to find any obvious sources that discuss this after a quick search. The rewrite should be sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All other key areas (background, release, reception, performance) are covered.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    • All details contribute to knowledge of the subject.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    • Discussion of praise and criticism accurately reflects reliable sources.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    • I have to question the relevance of the Kenny Rogers image. He was not involved with the album, and he's only mentioned once in the article as a point of comparison.
    • All other images are relevant and suitably captioned.
    I'm not so sure either with the image of Kenny Rogers. Removed for now. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Hello guys, thank you so much for the attention and sorry for being late. I have addressed the reviews. :) Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All concerns have been addressed, and it reads Like a Prayer. I'll pass the article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Bluesatellite (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Singles

[edit]

Shouldn't the re-release of "Holiday" and "Crazy for You" be listed under the Singles section of the article as the re-release of "Oh Father" is listed as a single from Something to Remember? MCMCTT (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Holiday" and "Crazy for You" were already released as singles in the UK during its original album era, while "Oh Father" wasn't a single in most countries during its original album release. Per Template:Infobox_album#Template:Singles. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

[edit]

The Immaculate Collection debuted directly at number one in Argentina. Vera (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thank you. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are all men

[edit]

Interesting that a page about Madonna's first collection contains no photos of Madonna and two photos of men, one only tangentially even related to the album. I'm not good enough at editing to fix that. But we should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A82:9B80:402:962F:863E:D392 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Holiday" and "Crazy For You" singles

[edit]

"Holiday" and "Crazy For You" should be listed as singles for this album. Both singles were released in 1991 explicitly to promote the album ("The Immaculate Collection" is indicated at the back of both singles). The guidelines in Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles do not apply in this situation.

"For songs that appear on more than one album, list the song as a single only for the album(s) where the single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of that album. Examples:

  • If a song is originally released as a single during the marketing and promotion of an album on which it also appears, and is subsequently included on a compilation album, list the song as a single only for the original album and not for the compilation album. (They were also released as part of the marketing and promotion for The Immaculate Collection)
  • If a song is originally released as an album track only, but is subsequently released as a single to promote the release of a compilation album, include the song as a single only for the compilation album. (They have been released for both the original album and The Immaculate Collection)

For complex release scenarios where it may not be obvious that a single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of the album on which it appears, seek consensus on the talk page for the album." Theknine2 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Totally agree with Theknine2. Vera (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Immaculate_Collection&oldid=1252074306"