Wikipedia:Peer review/The Saturdays discography/archive1

The Saturdays discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i feel that is a good representation of the bands work and is well referenced and written. i still have a music video director to find i know, but please could anyone suggest improvements that could be made to the article before i take it to FLC.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments:While this is a decent start, I have some concerns that this is even eligible for FLC. Regardless of that, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Number one concern is that this list os too short and thus does not meet the Featured List criteria, specifically criterion 3b: (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. (empahsis mine). This group has released one album with another on the way (plus five or six singles and their associated videos, see more on that below). I think the content is too slight and that all of this material could just as aeasily be included in the main article on The Saturdays. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria

with regard to it being too short, the recently promoted Duffy discography only includes 1 album and 5 singles and videos. although it does also include a small handful of other appearances as well, i'm sure i could find some of those for the saturdays. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several discographies that are FLs all given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies - the criteria for FLC have changed in the past year and there may be older FLs that do not have as many albums, but my guess is a discography article needs about 10 albums before it can be a FL.

as i said above, plus there are many more FL discographies which have only a handful of releases. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article contradicts itself in multiple places - the lead says The discography of The Saturdays, a British pop group, consists of one studio album, five singles, and five music videos. The infobox lists two albums and six each of singles and videos. The article itself lists one album and six singles / videos. I know part of the problem is that an album is scheduled to be released in October, but the article needs to be consistent. I also think WP:CRYSTAL BALL would argue in favor of reporting that an album is planned for later this year, but I would not count it in the totals yet (as it has not been released).

i hadn't even noticed that, so thanks! Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The single "Issues" was released in 2009 according this list and its own article. The video was apparently filmed in late 2008, but was it really released before the single (the article lists it as 2008)? This seems like another contradiction (aren't videos released when singles are, to promote the song?).

the music video for Issues was released to UK music channels in december 2008 to raise awareness of the song, and the single was released in the first week of january 2009. so video 2008 and single 2009 is correct. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also looked at the article cited for Issues in the video - here. It says that Issues will be released on January 5, 2009. It does not name the video's director (which is what the ref follows).

oops! i didnt add that and forget to check it, my bad. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Except for the different date noted in the last two points, the table for videos just repeats the names of the singles with a director's name added - could there just be a column added to the singles chart for video director and these lists could be combined?

thats what the music videos table for every single discography is.... Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example UK Singles Chart is linked twice in just the lead.

changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The prose could use a copyedit - for example They released their fifth single "Work", on June 29, 2009 and [it] peaked at number twenty-two [on the] UK Singles Chart.[2] Try printing the article out and reading it out loud slowly (preferably after a week of not editing it).

something else i missed! thanks Mister sparky (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments I highly doubt this list would get very far at FLC. Namely, the list is very small, and in all likelihood would be better suited as a section of the group's main page, rather than on it's own page. A similar thing happened a while back with the FLC of the Young Divas discography. So my only suggestion would be to merge the content back into the group's main page. All of the lead would be redundant, so really it would just be a matter of copy+pasting the tables over. Drewcifer (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

as i stated above, the Duffy discography is of a similar size and passed not too long ago. So if that is long enough then why isn't this? makes no sense to me. why wasn't that merged? Mister sparky (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not the same. Duffy's discog has 25 separate list items, this one has 15. There is also a unwritten rule-of-thumb that most lists should be at least 10 list items to warrant a separate page. Though this list exceeds that, I have always argued that music videos are merely extensions of singles, so I wouldn't count them towards a total. Which brings this list's total down to 9. Like I said, it's an unwritten rule, and there are exceptions to these things, but I'm just trying to warn you of the type of comments that await you at FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i didn't mean it to be in an argumentative way btw, was just questioning :) i don't see the point with merging it back into the band article as the next album is due out next month and another couple of singles are scheduled for release in the coming few months so was going to wait till then till it went to flc anyways. was just after any other improvements that could be made. Mister sparky (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to wait for the second album to be released next month? That way there would be no problems with eligibility and the article would be longer. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

thats exactly what i just said above your comment... :p Mister sparky (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think waiting for more releases is definitely the way to go. Though I'm not sure one album (and maybe 2 or 3 singles?) would do the trick either, but it would be a step in the right direction. Drewcifer (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)