Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Evanescence discography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Evanescence discography

[edit]

Evanescence discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this a good bit and made massive expansions to the lead, and otherwise think that the article is well formed, helpful, and adherent to the FL criteria, for the most part. I will need this to be an FL if I wish for the studio albums to be a good topic. Evanescence is an icon in 2000s alternative metal (or generally "Modern Rock", for those reviewers who are uninformed) and I've taken it upon myself to improve their articles as best I can.

This is my first FL candidate, and I'm not entirely sure if it's perfect. I had my first GAN fail too, so I can only learn from experience. If anything is currently amiss, it'll be fixed within the next few days. I know there are two things that I will fix:

Dead links will be done in a strafing run tomorrow, and the chart positions for Going Under and Lithium should be changed to reflect Bubbling Under per WP:USCHARTS. (now resolved) Otherwise, I want to get more comment because I'm sure it's pretty close. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Quick drive-by comment to remind me to come back later: the ref for the UK chart in the singles table only covers top 75 positions, and therefore the number 174 position for "Lost in Paradise" is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with a citebundle. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yeepsi

[edit]
  • "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, and released their debut full-length album Fallen in March." Wouldn't this be better as: "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, with their debut full-length album Fallen following in March." to avoid the use of "released" twice in the same sentence?
  • Under the Promotional singles section, both "Imaginary" and "Missing" need citations (you can cite the liner notes[2][3])
  • For the Other appearances table, change the text style from center to left.
  • Also, remove the entries for "Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" from the Other appearances table. Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE: "What should not be included ... previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases." Yeepsi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, thanks for your comments! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yeepsi (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Very few copies of these copies were made" - need better wording here

How did I not notice that? Something I missed during expansion. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" managed to peak in the top ten" - why not just "peaked in the top ten"?
Done. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to their first album having sold so many copies, and the second so many units. Are these the same thing?
Done. Actually, I should've fixed that a bit ago. I learned on Tuesday they are not the same. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "managed to attain chart success" - again, don't see the need for "managed to"
Done with this and a few other instances it appeared. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other appearances table is unsourced
Done. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see the need for the "type" column in the videos table, no other such articles have this
Done. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put references next to those too. --DME's phone, 9:39 EST

Source review

[edit]

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC

  • You're very inconsistent as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you either overlink or never link (Billboard, MTV News, ). You should be consistent.
Done. Didn't know overlinking in the references was a thing. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some formatting: MTV News needs no italics. Billboard.com should read Billboard and Allmusic should read AllMusic. australian-charts.com → ARIA Charts
Done. The ARIA one would actually be Hung Medien, that URL just randomly got jammed in there. I assume everything MTV is excluded from italics, then? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything done. MTV News is still in italics, it's still Billboard.com. Publishers should be linked on first instance but I don't see that in ref 3, 4, 10. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I wrote this before I saved this. I lost power at some point last night, so I never saved it. Apologies. '^^ dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completeness: check.
  • For the music videos, convert the external links to references.
Should there be a publisher? If so, how would it be written? Also, should I add the date it was published to YouTube in the date parameter? I've never had to cite YouTube. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be very difficult: <ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM|title=Evanescence - Bring Me To Life|accessdate=September 9, 2016|publisher=Evanscene}}</ref>
  • Spot-checked the YouTube sources (all of them come straight from the horse's mouth) and ref 1-10. Ref 1 says that the band has sold "close to 25 million" whereas the article says "more than 25 million". Is Rockonthenet a credible source?
To be clear, is there anything wrong with the YouTube sources? I don't know if "straight from the horse's mouth" is a good thing or not, I've never heard that phrase. (If emphasis is necessary, yes, really.) dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no issues with the YouTube sources, but other ones need to be resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that this one is now resolved. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 03:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I believe I have completed your requests. Did I miss anything this time? The person that was previously involved with everything Evanescence (see their page here) did it the long way and defined all the references at the bottom (I hate when I have to dig through all those!). So it's very possible I missed some. But I did my best to fix them and will correct any further mistakes immediately. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated to references, but all the tables need to meet MOS:DTT, not a few. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still unclear to me what you'd like to happen. I've no idea what's wrong with the tables, I compared them to In Flames discography, Slipknot discography, Disturbed discography and Paramore discography and I see nothing missing (though, admittedly, the Disturbed one does have other problems). dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what or how they are, you should be consistent with the !scope="row" in tables. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so now I see what you're trying to get me to fix. But I still don't know how to fix that. Which part is it that you're even referring to? Are they within the same subsection, or are you speaking about something otherwise? I'm still confused. Remember, this is my first FLC. '^^ dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been more clear. You see how there's "Title" first before "Year" in the singles section and there's a slide gray shade in entries under "Title". That's what you get by applying !scope="row" to them before writing the titles. See, for instance, Taylor Swift discography; it has that in every table and is consistent with them. You should be too. FrB.TG (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean make the promos and officials' years consistent? I do notice that is different now. I can fix that ASAP, but I'm busy with life right now. I have to limit my Wiki time. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of making the asked changes myself (based on other FL-class discographies) since I feel like I wasn't being clear enough. One can always revert my edits if disagreed with. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my density when it comes to list formatting. Thanks for the help and support! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem. I like to help new users at FLC since WP formatting can be a giant pain in the ass. Given that it's your very first, you did just fine. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Evanescence_discography/archive1&oldid=1076193054"