Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ricardo Arjona discography/archive2

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 18:05, 25 September 2012 [1].

Ricardo Arjona discography

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the minor sources issues that prevented the list to reach FL status have been adressed and i think it could be promoted this time. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Now that the minor issues that caused the article to not be promoted the first time around have been addressed, I see no reason to not promote this article. Zac 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unlink album per WP:OVERLINK
Same goes for singles
"List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications". Isn't it studio albums?
Same goes for other headers, along with their captions
Don't have bold text in references

TBr and ley 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed albums into studio albums, and don't understand why you say "overlink" if they are linked just once. Done with the third one. The last one is unnecessary and such bolding was added in the previous nomination for clarity, so i will keep it. Thanks for your comments. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no I meant overlink, as it is a common term, and thus, shouldn't be linked. As for bolding, see MOS:BOLD. Cheers, TBr and ley 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm Okay, i have no problem delinking them :) As for the bolding, i consider (and several users on the previous nomination) that it is better with the bolding, regardless of the guideline. Additionally, the guideline does not forbid the use of the bolding in references. Apart from that, as the references are grouped together, i.e. several references for various albums are grouped together by country, they need to be bolded, so you can differenciate which internal source supports which album, and if the album's name is bolded, this is achieved better. Same with singles. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. List looks good. Cheers, TBr and ley 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks peachy. TBr and ley 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments :) They're very welcome. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per last FLC. Erick (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick oppose lots of quick support, perhaps not many of them have looked in detail....

"fifteen compilation albums"? Infobox says 8.

Updated

"His 1994 release, Animal Nocturno, garnered international success and spawned the singles "Mujeres" and "Primera Vez".[6][7][8][9]" are four citations really necessary for this single, short sentence?

Leaved two refs, one for "international success" and the other for the singles.

"Latin Songs" chart is overlinked in the lead. And sometimes the Billboard is part of the link, sometimes it isn't.

Fixed.

Image caption in infobox should not have a full stop.

Done

"Arjona released his thirteenth album" his thirteenth "studio" album.

Fixed.

Can we have refs in numerical order? E.g. [17][9] and [17][6] could be [9][17] and [6][17].

On it.

"CD – cassette" why is this separated with an en-dash, not a simple comma?

Good, better with a comma :)

Why wait until the fifth usage to link RIAA?

Fixed.

You link Warner in the albums table but not Sony... why?

Fixed. thanks.

"Platinum+Gold[25]"? I would expect a space between the + and the classifications, and does this mean Platinum and a bit more? Or just Platinum (but was gold before)? I don't understand this classification.

AMPROFON uses that format. It certifies Platinum + Gold to an album that has sold enough copies to reach platinum status plus an additional number of copies equivalent to gold status. As an example, Platinum is 60,000 and gold is 30,000 copies. If an album sells 95,000 copies, it is certified Platinum + Gold.

I see "^" in the table keys, but I don't see it being used.

Removed

"Exitos a Mi Manera[35][34]" etc, see before about ref ordering.

Done

"Te Quiero" line of the table has a missing cell at the end.

Fixed.

Where are the first two promotional singles referenced?

Removed them, no reference covering them. Although they have both music videos.

Neither singles tables have captions.

I think i fixed it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think i have fixed all. Thanks for your comments Rambling Man :) Always welcomed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are release dates referenced, and which territory are they relevant to?

The release dates are the first ones with physical releases. They are relevant to the United States.

I don't understand, where is the reference, for instance for the release date of Animal Nocturno? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Thanks for the tip. They were all original research, never noticed. I removed them and left only the year, as appears on Allmusic. From Si El Norte Fuera El Sur onwards, the dates are those from Allmusic and/or iTunes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "Déjame Decir Que Te Amo" and "Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo" and "Vida" and "Marta" referenced?

The first two, i didn't found reliable enough sources. Although, they had music videos and such, so i don't know. "Vida" and "Marta" have their own articles, so they don't need to be referenced.

That's not true. What if those articles aren't referenced either? The facts here should be referenced independently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i wrote those articles and they are both GA. They are completely referenced, but i have no problem adding a source to it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list shouldn't rely on sub-articles to reference it. Imagine if you applied that to all list articles, some could end up without a single reference based on the idea that other "articles exist"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes you're right. I was just following the discography manual of style, but I understand your point. I will add them tonight :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the references. Anything else? :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I looked through the list and I really think it deserves the bronze star. Good job ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music..." returned to music is redundant already established he left the music industry

Is not redundant. He left the music industry but then he returned. How would that be redundant?

You've already mentioned he left the music industry in the previous sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated as by returning he obviously returned to music. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I still don't get your point and, as far as I read, it may be obvious that he returned, but if I say "he left", the most obvious thing i'd write is that he returned despite the fact that he left, as said before. So i don't catch up the "redundancy" you talk about. Otherwise, I'd like to as you to fix it if you want, ans I'm not able to do so and the copyeditor agreed it was the best way to express it. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Here is the bit I'm referring to: and its commercial failure led to his decision to abandon the music industry. Despite this decision, Arjona returned to music and released Jesús, Verbo No Sustantivo in 1989. I've emboldened the two uses of music for emphasis. The point is you establish that he abandoned the music industry in the first sentence. Therefore it is redundant to mention that he returned to the music industry, as the subject matter is music. Also the onus is not on the reviewer to fix issues, that is the job of the nominatorr, I've explained the issue, the only words you have to remove are to music nothing else needs changing. NapHit (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now i see it. I will remove them as i, now, understand your point. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

refs that are PDFs need to include the parameter |format=PDF

Although the {{cite web}} template does indicate that the file is PDF by default (and by the fact that i consider it needless), I will see if it's worthy to add the parameter. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added it and, weirdly, it looks good :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

I see that a couple of the paragraphs have been merged since the last FLC. I think the two current paragraphs are now overly long, and preferred the old four-paragraph lead, which I think had better-sized paragraphs.
In the second paragraph, there's one usage of ref 7 after an en dash that doesn't come immediately after punctuation. In this case, the best solution is to place the citation before the dash, immediately after "chart". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. Thanks for your comments Giants :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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