I am nominating this for featured list removal because... the article is a bit of a mess, there's an error in the opening line for goodness sake ("one extended plays"). Sentences such as "Tisdale has also recorded a soundtrack album, six singles and several other releases as her High School Musical character Sharpay Evans" are messy and uncomfortable to read. Another error is the sentence "...reaching a top-forty peak position in Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and more". The last sentence about her album sales is completely unsourced. Chart positions have been fabricated (probably by an over-zealous fan), and quite frankly, music video directors by the names of "unknown" are unacceptable for a Featured List. The references have many, many errors, particularly with the works, publishers, and inconsistencies with dates. Till 08:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who nominated this article for Featured list way back in 2009 and got it promoted, I felt obligated to reply. Some of the stuff in the lead you mentioned were already fixed or removed by someone.
- About the sales: People seem to change sales values in discography articles so since we don't have a reliable source for Tisdale's sales I've always prefered not to have it anywhere on the album's table so crazy fans wouldn't mess with it.
- About the music video directors: what would you suggest? Those videos directors are, indeed, unknown and if we just remove the word "unknown" we'd be assuming those videos didn't have directors which we also can't prove.
- About references errors: I would love if you help me to find what's wrong with them so I can try to work on them and make them good.
Other than that, I don't see any reason why this article is a mess. It still seems pretty organized to me since it was promoted back in 2009. But I still would like to hear more so I can work on it! Thanks. Decodet (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tisdale's musical career has not been something big so it's hard to write a long lead without putting irrelevant information. Included sources for albums, soundtrack and promotional singles, removed Korean chart column and replaced the [citation needed] tag with a reference. Decodet (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article still needs to meet WP:LEAD requirements. Also, there now seems to be mixed date formats in the refs. Which territories are the release dates relevant to? Or where they released simultaneously in US, AUS, AUT, CAN, GER, IRL, NZL, SPA, SWI, UK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the date formats in some of the recent refs, it was my mistake. I also added the countries in which those albums were first released. I'll try to work on and expand the lead as soon as possible. Thanks for your comments! Decodet (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not seeing too many major issues, and there's little or no interest in delisting this from the rest of the community, so I guess status quo should stand? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely can't pass in its current condition, the chart positions are still vandalized/fabricated and the references are still in poor state. Till 09:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Till, as an expert, would you be prepared to fix these issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Till - I noticed ONE fake chart position that I missed and it's already fixed. Instead of criticizing the entire article, you could just tell me what's wrong with it or try to fix them himself since you are an editor as well. Decodet (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct the only issue now is the references. Any sources that are online such as MTV and Allmusic shouldn't be in italics. The publisher for MTV is MTV Networks, and for Allmusic it's Rovi Corporation. There are some more references that are missing publishers such as Prometheus Global Media for Billboard and Daily Mail and General Trust for Daily Mail. Till 12:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I just cross-checked the positions with the references, and there are more that are vandalized. I feel so angry and betrayed right now. Till 12:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant the European peak positions for her singles and I've already added new ones since the Billboard chart history seem not to show the peak positions for the songs. If they are any more problems with the peak positions, please let me know so I can fix them. For now, everything seems good to me. I've also corrected the publishers in the sources. Let me know if there is anything else. Decodet (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, another two weeks have passed, no further comment going on here, so I suggest this is (and I mean it this time) closed as kept. There's no consensus to delist it, my major issues were dealt with, let's move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any minor issues withstanding can be addressed away from this FLRC page. Till 10:30, 20 December 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.
All needs to be updated following a new "tallest" building.
I know they're not major issues, but I need subject-matter experts to ensure the list is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist due to concerns with the WP:MOS, and outdated, as well as tags. TBrandley 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as failing 3.b. I see no reason to have this list outside of City of Salford. Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For goodness sake, have we all forgotten how easy it is to fix things? I do realise though that it's even easier to plaster tags and initiate deletion delisting discussions, so ... MalleusFatuorum 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the maintenance tags were there when I found it, and in my nomination I stated "I need subject-matter experts" to help to ensure the list is both accurate and meets the current standards. Also note this is not a "deletion discussion". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that you did add the tags, I was making a general point. So far as the points you raised are concerned, I think the date formatting is consistent now, the punctuation of the image captions corrected, and the dashes fixed. The rest I'll work on later if nobody gets there before me. MalleusFatuorum 16:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also made the tables sortable and WP:ACCESS compliant, and made a start on updating the article for buildings completed since it was written. MalleusFatuorum 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - good work. Some minor issues:
"taller than 50 metres" every building listed is 55 metres or taller, so can we confirm there are no buildings between 50 and 54 metres tall in Salford?
"This list of the tallest buildings and structures in Salford ..." we don't start featured articles with "This article about ..." so that needs to be updated.
Note (a) is referenced but note (b) isn't.
"Cathedral Church of St. John the Evangelist (RC)" caption, either ditch (RC) or explain it. I don't think it's necessary.
Why the difference in minimum height of those buildings listed (50m) and those proposed (60m)?
External link needs to be explained rather than just linked.
The basis of the list is here, which lists no buildings between 50 and 54 metres high.
Fixed.
Fixed.
No idea, it was like that when I came across it.
The external link was pretty useless anyway, so I've removed it.
Fundamentally though, the accuracy of this list is compromised by the lack of available information on the several high-rises built in MediaCityUK in the last few years, such as Blue, Orange and White. I've failed to come up with any reliable sources, despite asking for help from the developers and the architects, so unless anyone can do better than I've been able to do I think this article will have to be delisted on that basis. MalleusFatuorum 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work on the list Malleus, it's in a much better state. I also appreciate your candidness regarding the potential compromise resulting from limited info on the newly developed buildings. I was hoping we could find an SME to contribute, or at least someone with access to that kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still possible I'll hear something back from either Peel or the architects, as it's less than a week since I contacted them, so fingers crossed. MalleusFatuorum 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have pretty flexible time constraints here at FLRC, so we can leave it another week or two. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now have some better news to report. I've just received an email from the developer, Peel Group, confirming the heights of the two towers I was most uncertain about, Blue and Orange. I'm still hoping that Salford City Council's web site will soon once again allow access to approved planning applications, to be able to provide an easily available reliable source, but failing that I could presumably forward the Peel Group's email on to OTS? MalleusFatuorum 16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any more opinions here? There's one delist that's pre-Malleus' work, and another on 3b grounds that I don't understand; a list of tallest buildings isn't ideal for a main city article. This is in no consensus territory right now, so hopefully some more reviewers will speak up. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malleus' great work to improve the article. Great job! TBrandley 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm really happy to see the list has been massively improved by Malleus and think the remaining tweaks are in the margins of whether or not we should delist. It would be better if we could reference everything perfectly, but that's not going to happen. I also fail to understand the "logic" behind Nergaal's 3b oppose, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. So, from all of that, I'd go for a keep.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 2 December 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.
"As of November 2008"... well it's December 2012, is this list up to date?
Floors column sorts incorrectly.
Many notes in the table unreferenced.
Can't be interested in continuing this review, too much wrong and no sign of any interest it being fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 December 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.
This five and a half year old FL is seeing the wear of time. Specific issues:
Starts with "this is a list of..."
The article lacks a proper lead which introduces and summarizes the list.
There is no real explanation of a state and a territory and a brief difference definition.
Parts of the prose is unreferenced.
The referencing is difficult to follow. How is the table sources? For instance, I cannot find that any of the general references lists the 2011 population estimate. Individual columns should probably be referenced with inline references.
The table is not accessible as it does not comply with WP:DTT
No explanation of why some columns are green
Use of hyphens instead of dashes in the table
Inconsistent date formatting
Mix of inline referencing and footnotes for comments
Far too many see also links (if relevant, these should be made into a navbox)
Personally I would like to see a map of the states with names. Although I am fully capable of placing state names on a map, most people (even Americans) are not.
I would have liked to see a population density column.
The sister project links bar is just confusing as there as far as I could see are no corresponding entries in any sister projects.
Delist about half the article is a nest of "See also" articles, and the issues above seriously compromise this list's current "best Wikipedia can offer" tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been a month now, no action here.... suggest we move to close this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Agree with the nominator's concerns. Not one of the best lists Wikipedia has to offer. Till 00:50, 16 December 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.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because... I almost fell out of my chair after seeing this mess of an article with the bronze star. The lead sentence should not be in bold, 'twenty three' should be hyphenated and 100 and 200 in Billboard charts should not be in italics. All I see is 'the band', 'the band', 'the band' repeating over and over. There is no-where near the required amount of referencing. The biggest killer is the state of the references, including inconsistencies with date formats (January 1, 2000 or 2000-01-01), incorrect works and publishers (billboard.com) and bare links for references 78-93. The album certifications use certifying bodies (ARIA) whereas the singles table uses the country's abbreviations (AUS). Till 08:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I almost fell out of my chair after seeing this mess of an article with the bronze star" - well that was unnecessary. This discography has been featured since before your account even existed, so obviously it isn't going to be meeting our frequently changing standards. Anyway...—indopug (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies and further comments
The lead: yeah this needs a thorough copy-edit. Reads rather dully and repetitively.
"no-where near the required amount of referencing" - where? In the lead? Not required, per WP:LEAD, as the chart numbers and certifications are covered by cites in the tables below. Of course, stuff in the lead that isn't supported by the tables will require refs (already in place).
"inconsistencies with date formats" - done. (there are scripts for such things)
"album certifications use..." - done.
"incorrect works and publishers (billboard.com)" - done, I think.
"bare links for references 78-93" - before we start filling these out: should we even be listing fan-made videos (no matter who paid for them) here?
The tables have to be cross-checked with references for accuracy of the numbers. There's been a lot of moving around of charts of late.—indopug (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a quick look...
Lead and infobox doesn't tally up.
Album release dates - where are they referenced and for which specific territory are they relevant?
Live albums has an incorrect caption.
If Five Songs and a Cover didn't chart, where is its existence referenced?
The "x" note needs a full stop.
Notes should be referenced.
Where are the promo singles that didn't chart anywhere referenced?
Blank cell for the director of "Generator".
Where is any of the "Other appearances" table referenced?
Delist as no issues are being addressed, and it does not meet lots of FL criteria. TBrandley 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will try to update the article in the following days. Regards.--Tomcat(7) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this has been nominated for over two weeks now so we'll need to see some immediate improvements. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I updated the article. Is work still needed? Regards.--Tomcat(7) 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check those embedded tables are accessible. I'd suggest poor old User:RexxS (he's very much overworked and very much under loved by us) gives you some advice on whether these tables are really accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bother our beloved RexxS with such trivial matters. These tables are clearly not accessible. (See MOS:DTT.) Goodraise 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only because it does not have the captions? Regards.--Tomcat(7) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are made to look good, at the expense of inexperienced editors and readers using alternative methods of viewing Wikipedia. They use table code for layout purposes, which should be avoided wherever possible. Goodraise 00:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist on accessibility grounds alone. The faster the "Imitate me!" sign is removed from this list the better. Goodraise 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I am still working on it. Regards.--Tomcat(7) 15:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well as long as that is evident, the nomination can remain open. It's been going for over two months now. If nothing substantive is done to fix the accessibility in the next week, I'll move to close this FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are too much outstanding work, plus I am busy in real life. I think withdrawing it and start working on it next year is a good idea. Regards.--Tomcat(7) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest an uninvolved director/delegate closes this as delisted given this outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 10 December 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.
