Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album/archive1

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 promoted by The Rambling Man 17:49, 1 May 2011 [1].

Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album

[edit]

Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FL criteria. I also have received help from User:Another Believer who has promoted multiple Grammy lists before.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Crutiques
    • Are their any possible not redirects for the following: Music (album), Rock Steady, and Seal (album), which if they do will you please fix them.
    • Sarah McLachlan alt text singing is misspelled.

Done Both--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • You could insert a winners by country table like it is say List of Masters Tournament champions if you care to do so. I think by emphasizing it in the lead that would be a nice add to the article.

Most Grammy's don't have this list but possibly later I may add it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerns
    • I see four redirect in the references just go look in the toolbox for them.

Working on it--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I give you some credit for putting work into this article, and lending your time to the nomination of this article. I hope it goes well for you Blackjacks101!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promote to FL, Support This looks up to standard to me!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You could say "pop music" in opening part of the lead instead of just "pop".
  • "honor was first presented at the 10th Grammy Awards (1968)" not overwhelmed by that date in parentheses, you could rephrase... "honor was first presented in 1968 at the..."?
  • No need to try to disambiguate The Beatles (band) (in the table) - there really is only one The Beatles!
  • Seal (album) is a dab link.
  • Bobby Gentry is actually Bobbie Gentry according to our article.
  • Spell Jamiroquai correctly.
  • Ditto for Avril Lavigne, (not Lavinge!).

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
  • Comments
    • Are there any controversies that can be added to the lead? What media thinks about the award? A sentence or two would be beneficial.
Alas I have researched multiple times for such controversies to enlarge the lead yet the category seems to have a boring history.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominees are too important to be so small. Make them bigger, not as big as the winner, but still. I think font size 90% would work.
Almost all featured Grammy lists have the same font size, so I was still trying to keep it all the same. Is that ok?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not change the fact that it's too small. I don't think it's a lot of work to enlarge them, so I still want to see them larger.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does make the list inconsistent with other Grammy lists with FL status, but I made the change per request here and on my talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the 1995 nominees, first link to Seal is a disamg., please fix it.
Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two links to List of Grammy Award categories on this page; the one in the see also section can be removed
Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Category description guide" does not have the citation on its 3rd page.
I don't quite understand, do you mind clarifying?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded pop vocal tracks" citaion is not on the 3rd page of 52nd OEP Category Description Guide.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see now. It's on page 1. Silly mistake.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the 1967 Grammy finalists reference, you have "10', which should be changed to "p. 10".
Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any changes.--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page parameter is designated as 10; this is done correctly and its appearance is based on the display commands of the "cite journal" template. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the various citation templates use different formatting which is a nightmare. This usage of the template is correct (although possibly undesirable). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • CBS News is linked twice in the references; once is fine.
Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! If you can clarify on a few that would be most appreciated!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Give me a bit because I'm busy to get to them today, but I'll get them done by tomorrow! --Blackjacks101 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Rock on the Net reliable?
Numerous conversations between editors have been discussed to create the consensus that it was a reliable source. Almost all featured Grammy lists use it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to one of those discussions, please?--Cheetah (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion here. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have a consensus, does it? One is undecided, the other is tempted to use. It's only for 3 ceremonies, I think it's possible to substitute them.--Cheetah (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try but multiple other Grammy lists use this site as a source and it hasn't brought up any problems, since most discussions on the topic lead to the consensus that it's okay to use.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think compromise here can dictate that if a more reliable sources than Rock on the Net can be used, it should. If a more reliable source cannot be found (I have seen instances of this), Rock on the Net should be acceptable. No? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(→)I see what you're saying here, but it means that we all will trust editors even more. There will be some who are too lazy to look for reliable sources and use this Rock on the Net website instead. By the way, the 41st award nominee list is at CNN, as well as the 40th. If you're more of a MTV fan, you can click here for the nominees of the 40th ceremony. --Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just replaced all of the Rock on the Net links! Thanks again for the comments.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I just fixed some vandalism, now I think is good enough to be a featured list. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the issue was raised here, I just wanted to direct any interested reviewers here for a discussion about the potential use of 90% text size commands in the Nominees column for all Grammy lists. Feel free to weigh in. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The lead is a bit short, but I think the list meets criteria. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments

Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done All! Except I'm not quite sure about the invisible columns/rows? I posted a comment on your talk page as well about it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this edit which I think solves the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 30 April 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/Grammy_Award_for_Best_Pop_Vocal_Album/archive1&oldid=1138480307"