Wikipedia:Peer review/Santana discography/archive1

Santana discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
hello,

I've added this article to peer review, because I want to know, if this article may be a FL. But I'm not sure in few things:

1. Is the infobox k? Should I change the colors? Make a suggestion!
2. The "citation needed" in the "Sales" division really disturbs me (and other maybe too). Is it possible to remove it and to be a FL?
3. I have too less information about some albums. for example I can't find the label, or release date. I googled all of them, but I couldn't find anything. Is it k to replace to missing informations to three question marks?
4. Should I add singles, even if they didn't chart?
5. I don't like the guest appearance part. Can you suggest something?
6. I delayed the videography part to Santana videography. Was it a good idea or not?
7. Are B-Sides notable?
8. In the "Sales" and "Certification" sections I have no idea if I should array the country recordings certifications to an alphabetical order, or is it necessery to order it to a chronological order? Or maybe importance, i.e. US than UK and the other in alphabetical order? Please make an advise.

thx -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request: I am prepared to review the article, but could you remove the coloured effect from the above list, so that I can read it more easily? It's a great strain at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I will be with you soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Review from JohnFromPinckney

As Brian is apparently busy at the moment (and since you [Pumpkin] asked for a review at WikiProject Discographies]), maybe I can just put in a few notes here. Mine are numbered, too, but don't correspond to your concerns above.

1. The first sentence should explicitly mention Carlos Santana (with link) as well as "his band Santana" as you already have it.

    Done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

2. In the intro, it's correct to italicize the mentions of album names, but inappropriate to make them bold.

    Done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

3. You're right to be concerned about the unreferenced sales figures, but there's an easy fix: delete the whole column. Almost all of the figures shown are unsourced, and those that do have references point to either Last.fm, which I don't consider a reliable source, or the German BVMI page where one can search for certs. These latter figures, like many of the unreferenced ones, appear to depend on conversion backwards from the certification providers, although they certify variously based on sales or shipments. In any case, the consensus I've seen again and again is to remove all unsourced "sales" figures, and provide only those which are specifically reported in a reliable source. These won't be complete or regularly updated, and so it's no shame that the page doesn't have any such figures. In which case, best to just delete the columns. (The tables in particular and the page in general will look much better all in one swoop.) See WP:DISCOGSTYLE for a few words about what should be shown in a discography, and how.

   can you tell me some good sources, on WP:RS i didnt find for music charts or certifications.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

4. What are "Unofficial albums" and why are they being listed here?

   i dont know, its from the template-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

5. The page currently shows up to 20 charts columns for singles, when we try to keep the number to 10 or fewer. See WP:DISCOGSTYLE again. Showing two charts in one column, as currently attempted with the Adult Contemporary charts, is not useful and needs fixing. EDIT: Yikes! I just realized you have two tables for the singles, one with 20 non-Billboard charts, the other with 19 Billboard charts. I hope I've already made clear this is the wrong way to go about it; we show up to 10 charts in total, chosen for a balance of relative importance and the artist's success on them. —EDIT added 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

   well, what charts should i remove?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   i think all charts are usefull, if only 10 is a must be, how about US (billboard 200 or 100??), UK, AUS, NED, GER, SWI, BEL fla., BEL wal., hot latin pop air, hot adult contemporary? -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

6. Certs and sales again (because I got down to the Singles Certification table): Delete the sales column, because they are based wholly on the certs. The certs are for sales and shipments, depending on the provider (and date of the award), so it's misleading and unnecessary to show anything there. Change the heading of the certs column to match the example at – you guessed it – WP:DISCOGSTYLE, and the interested reader can click through to our article listing the various cert providers and the thresholds they use for award determination.

   i like the sales column, but i have to do that :(-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Done-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

7. You asked about the infobox. I have no problems with the colors (although I notice they are rather pumpkin-y), but what did bug me was the wrapping of the long titles for the guest appearances. I don't know what to do about this, other than to look at other articles to see how they handled it. I'll leave that to you, though.

   yes i dont like this, too. can i rename it to "Cameos"?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Sheesh, what's this guy doing in so many other artists' work? Can't he get a regular job? Oh, er...

   deleting?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

9. Splitting off the videography seems quite appropriate. Good choice.

   yes, thx-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

10. Since I mentioned WP:DISCOGSTYLE so many times, I may as well point to the fact that it was recently changed to match requirements of WP:ACCESS, which is part of the Manual of Style, a factor considered in FL reviews. I can't say whether this page is close to ready for an FL nom, but you should be aware that the look of these discog pages (esp. the tables) will start to change from the look you've got now (copied, no doubt, from some other good page) to the look shown in the WP:DISCOGSTYLE examples.
11. Yes, I believe consensus is to list all released singles and albums, even if they flop. What's often discussed, with much weaker consensus, is the listing of every damned thing the artist produces. I think the most recent discussion ended at: show all official albums in the Albums section; show all official singles in the Singles section; show notable other songs (read: non-singles which charted) in a section separate from Singles.

    k-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    i just found 2 non-album singles. should i separate them anyway?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    what should i do with the unofficial albums? maybe deleting them?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope this list is helpful to you. Brianboulton has a great deal of experience with promoting articles, I have none. Do listen to whatever comments he has to make about the article. And good luck! Respectfully, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: First, I apologise for the delay in getting to this, having promised a review. I have had very limited online time this week, with several things to keep abreast of. I am grateful to JohnFromPinckney for his detailed review. I don't want to repeat his points, so I'll just say a few things:-

• In my view the tables are overcomplicated. I've looked at various discographies at FL; none of them that I have seen have a sales figures column, which in your case has brought a host of citation tags, and a very unwieldly appearance for some of your tables. Use existing FLs as a model.

what about Madonna albums discography? It has a sales column.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are numerous disambiguation links; use the toolbox in the top righthand corner to identify and correct.
• I am unconvinced by the image licensing. There is no proper source information; was this photograph taken by the uploader, and if so, how do we know this? There is no current WP editor called Magikman6386.

i can replace the image, i.e. or , or are they not correct?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)