Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/50 Cent discography/archive3

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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:25, 2 September 2011 [1].

50 Cent discography

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sufur222 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I have made vast improvements to the article since it was last a featured list, such as design, lead section and referencing (the references are far more consistent now). Also, as this is a discography, I have made sure that all chart positions possible are cited, in the correct manner. I now feel the article is far more worthy of featured list status than it was before, and on checking this list against the featured list criteria I feel it meets it to a very high level. Sufur222 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – In a career not even spanning two proper decades, the lead is just excessive. Goes into so much intricate details and its a super case of WP:UNDUE. Plus it exceeds the allowable split of four paras. I strongly suggest a revision, a copy-edit and a resizing. This is just the lead, there are other outstanding issues like tables not formatted per WP:ACCESS etc and unreliable referencing. This is almost up to the FL mark, just another thorough check needed. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Have reformatted through article extensively:

  • I have formatted every table per WP: ACCESS.
  • Have removed unnecessary information from intro and chopped it down to four paragraphs (although it's still a little long: however, I can sort this out).
  • Have nit-picked every reference, making sure it is formatted in as much detail as is given to me (some of the more obscure websites were more difficult.
  • Large copy-edit - checked carefully and corrected all grammatical errors.

Oppose

  • Lead details don't match infobox.
  • I don't see where the non-charting releases are referenced.
  • A lot of collaborations are unreferenced.
  • "as of 29 December, 2003" it's now August 2011. Best you can do?
  • Videos almost entirely unreferenced.
  • MOS issues in the refs (e.g. WP:DASH).

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment -- Have addressed most of these issues, although some remain in need of work.
  • Have made sure all lead details match infobox.
  • Every release in the discography that did not chart now has a reference which states that the song was a single.
  • Every single collaboration is now referenced in some form.
  • The date there, specifying the sales of 50 Cent: The New Breed, is sadly the most recent only one I can find. However, I am still looking.
  • Videos now all referenced, with given directors. (The directors given for "If I Can't" and "Stretch", however, are open to conjecture, depending on how you see the references. Also, I've discovered that there were two videos recorded for "Heat", but for now I can only find the director(s) for one.
  • I'm not an expert on MOS - although the article reads well enough, I need more detailed information on what needs fixing if I am going to make these improvements.

All in all, I have made a lot of progress has been made on the article recently, and with a little more work it could be right up to standard. However, I really need more editors helping me on the page: over the last few months, I've probably done about 95% of the edits, and I'd freely admit I'm not perfect. I may look for extra help from other editors, as they may bring more reliable references and a better quality of writing, or perhaps you could suggest other routes for me to take.

Thanks for the help! Sufur222 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My friend, you should've taken this article to Peer review before nominating this article. That way, I could help you with prose issues and reference formatting. I'll list a few examples right now:

  • "released on the record labels Columbia Records and Interscope Records"
  • This sentence has no sources.
  • "In this discography, music videos and collaborations are included as well." This should have been integrated into the very first sentence.
  • "4 February, 2003" Inconsistent with other date formats used in the article. Pick one and stick to it.
  • Why is there a colon after the date?
  • That whole sentence is looooong.
  • "After Eminem took an interest in his work" Who's Eminem?
  • "peaking at number one on the US Billboard 200 and charted in the upper regions of many charts worldwide." You use "ing" in the first clause and past tense (ed) in the second. Ungrammatical.
  • "commercially successful singles" Comma at the end, please.
  • You have to split that sentence up, it's too long.
  • "first four days of commercial release" What you do you mean by "commercial" release?
  • The following sentence is also a monster.
  • "50 Cent also starred in the semi-autobiographical movie"
  • Billboard Hot 100 Overlink.
  • "behind only the Kanye West album Graduation, selling 691,000 copies to Graduation's 957,000" Confusing to read.
  • "It was later certified gold in the United States with domestic shipment in excess of 500,000 copies,[8] and produced three singles, including the international hit "Baby By Me", which charted in the upper regions of various national charts worldwide, and peaked at number twenty-eight on the Billboard Hot 100.[4]" Split and reword.
  • Never use the word "currently" in an article. You could say "as of..."

You have some very long sentences in the lead that are hard to read. There is also some redundant words that should be cut out. Also, for the music videography, I'd recommend another column reserved for a very brief synopsis for each video. Also, references are footnotes too, so adjust the heading names. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Your advice is much appreciated. I have addressed every issue you have mentioned above (except for the video synopsis column), and have re-written and split up all of the overly long sentences in the lead: I have also removed every word or phrase that is not entirely necessary, and in some cases added more appropriate information. I feel it is of much better quality now. Sufur222 (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I see what you're getting at (although it doesn't actually say "4× Platinum" anywhere on the page). Instead of requesting for the FL nomination to be withdrawn, why not ask me to fix the problem? This is what I have done - every sales figure that is only based on the certification given has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, don't think I haven't been reading the comments listed above, and I am constantly working on the article (virtually alone, I should mention, as no one else seems to want to help) to bring it up to standard. Sufur222 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I am perfectly aware that sales and certifications do not always correspond, and that 4× Platinum does not always mean 4 million sales - for example, Curtis is listed as having sold 1.3 million copies in the US, yet it does not have a RIAA certification. I know some things. Sufur222 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes #s 20 or 33 reliable?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, not a lot. Have replaced the aforementioned sources with hopefully more reliable ones - check them out if you wish, to see if you think if they are appropriate. Please mention any other issues with the article as well. Sufur222 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hip Hop DX → HipHopDX. I didn't check if you did or not, but remember not to use it for sales as it has been incorrect for such information in the past. SoundScan is the way to go. Otherwise, it's considered reliable for reviews, other news... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:20, 1 September 2011 (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/50_Cent_discography/archive3&oldid=1141921944"