Talk:Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeStronger (Kelly Clarkson album) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
April 2, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Sources[edit]

Feel free to add more! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

This article is in severe work of editing; it is out of date and needs a 'mop up' in how it is written in certain areas. If you have the time and notice any flaws then edit it to help improve this article. Lovepickle (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?[edit]

This article is looking pretty good. Does anyone have ambitions to nominate for Good article status? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ i second this motion. Though as a guide we don't normally nominate an album article until the artist is releasing their next album. This is because more singles could be released and the album could be re-released etc which would mean new information becomes available or information becomes available which could change the nature of the article (e.g. an unsuccessful album could become successful after a re-release). Until the album is completely unfinished it is probably unwise to consider GA status. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard of this "guide" before. Articles can always be updated. As long as the article is stable and meets GA criteria, no reason to wait around for possible additions. I encourage a significant contributor to the article to go for the gold!... er... green (symbol). :) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above was just my experience. I've had a number of album articles in the past declined because the subject was deemed too knew for the reason given above. Its just something to be aware of. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Album ratings[edit]

Diff

Nuetrality doesnt need to be explained. I copy-edited and improved the prose, and my revision of the ratings template reflected the proportion at Metacritic, which was significant enough to regurgitate its score in the template when it's already elaborated on in the section's prose first two sentences. The Boston Globe is not more notable than The Independent, and this template is called "Album ratings", i.e. scores, so subjective labels such as "favorable" add nothing that isnt established in the prose. The template is meant to be an optional suplement to the necessary prose (MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception). Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits do need to be explained if you expect other editors to know why you made those edits. The proportion at Metacritic was already reflected by the reviews that have been located in the article for a while. The Boston Globe, The New York Times and The Washington Post are more notable than The Independent, Now and Sputnikmusic and subjective labels add as much to article as star ratings. Now that the issue is being discussed it should go back to the previous version until there is consensus for the changes. Aspects (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The past is not an excuse to prevent improvements, (wasnt the poorly written prose there "for a while", yet that didnt need consensus to be improved?) and I'm not going into a subjective discussion on the notability of publications who did not rate the album. The ratings template is for ratings. Are you interested in improving or making the album's reception look more respectable, b/c that's all your revert is doing. It's not taking into account that the template is meant as an optional supplement (originally introduced only to fascilitate BOTS' moving of reviews from the infoboxes), nor the exclusion of brackets or parentheses, the correct MOS. I find it laughable that you think the ratings template having only two mixed scores is reflective of Metacritic, which shows 5 mixed, 5 positive, and 1 negative. And Metacritic's score being repeated in the template is simply redundant with what's directly elaborated on in the opening sentences of the prose. Please tell me what guideline or policy says the previous revision should be kept until there's consensus for change. Otherwise, I am reverting your edit on the basis of the quality of the arguments presented here. I dont need consensus to make a constructive change. Dan56 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article[edit]

I don't really know how to do it but I think this article has what it takes to be a GOOD article. Can someone please nomintate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.173.44 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Idolator 1":

Reference named "EW 1":

Reference named "AOL":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stronger_(Kelly_Clarkson_album)&oldid=1202603032"