Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Christmas number one albums (UK)/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 Dabomb87 21:47, 24 October 2011 [1].

List of Christmas number one albums (UK)

[edit]

List of Christmas number one albums (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that it is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The table currently fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for info on how to rectify this
  • Which parts of WP:ACCESS does it fail? I've added !scope=col to the main column header – do you mean the cell that identifies where the chart stopped including compilation albums?
  • Links should not be bolded, to stop this happening add the parameter plainrowheaders in between sortable wikitable
  • I think I've done that, but it doesn't seem to have made any difference...
  • I would create a separate section for the Notes and not make them small.
  • Done.
  • Regarding the six references bunched together at the end of note a, they have all the information that is in the table in them. So I would use them as general refs and remove the individual references in the table.
  • Completely remove the fifth column? Okay, done.
  • Done.
  • Ref 11: Daily Telegrph needs to be italicised
  • Done.
  • Ref 14 is a dead link
  • Replaced.
  • Gigwise has editorial oversight, and I'm reasonably sure that it also has the fact-checking that we require from reliable sources. From what I remember, I found that particular page in a Google News search, and they're apparently notable enough for a Wikipedia page, so I took that all to mean that it was sufficiently reliable for us to use.

NapHit (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The list doesn't sort properly. The cell with the text "From 14 January 1989, compilation albums featuring various artists were no longer included in the UK Albums Chart." gets thrown into a position where it makes no sense.
  • I made that particular row unsortable, simply because that cell is only really relevant when the number ones are sorted by year (the list's default position). Ideally, the row would disappear if the list were sorted by anything else (i.e. artist, album or weeks at number one) because then it is no longer relevant, but I can't think of any way of achieving this. Any suggestions?

Support – looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "and each week's new number one is first announced on Sunday evenings by on the The Radio 1 Chart Show." The "by on" has at least one excess word, maybe two.
  • Agh, how did I miss that? Fixed.
  • Should "per cent" be one word?
  • According to MOS:PERCENT, "per cent" is the British spelling.
  • Number-one albums: Remove hyphen from "most-successful"?
  • Done.
  • Could move the Take That link up one sentence to the first mention.
  • Done.

Comments from WFCforLife

  • This list's use of "as of 2011" is problematic. Usually when an article makes potentially dated statements such phrases are useful. The problem in this specific instance is that Christmas hasn't come yet, and the lead will be incorrect whilst appearing up-to-date when it does. I have offered suggestions on how to get rid of it below.
  • I'd suggest changing the bookmakers paragraph, from "For example, in 2010, British bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes both issued odds of 2/5 on for Take That to top the album chart at Christmas—as of 2011, these are the shortest odds that William Hill has ever offered for a prediction on the festive number one album." to "For example, in 2010, British bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes both issued odds of 2/5 on for Take That to top the album chart at Christmas—at the time, these were the lowest odds William Hill had ever offered for a prediction on the festive number one album." Using this wording means that the phrase will not go out of date even if a new record is set.
  • The "21 of the past 25" statistic should be reworked to explicitly state the years involved. "As of 2011" is ambiguous; "between 1986 and 2010" is not.
  • Finally, I would suggest changing "As of 2011, 52 different albums..." and "As of 2011, there have been 52 different..." to "As of Christmas 2010, ...".
  • Just as a note, I've done the access work that I believe was being referred to above.

Once the above is done, as I assume it will be, I can be considered a Support. I think that the list is great, and would be a good candidate for today's featured list on Boxing Day. I like how on top of highlighting key aspects of the list, the prose gives additional background information on why the list matters. —WFC— 22:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all the above changes that you've suggested, although I have put "December 2010" rather than "Christmas 2010", simply to make use of the {{As of}} template. If you think "Christmas" would be better, I'll happily change it again. Thanks very much for the review and the support, and thanks also for fixing the access problems - much appreciated! Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (sorry to have taken so long to get here)
  • "The Beatles have released seven Christmas number one albums, more than any other artist." would prefer "any other act" (as I find it hard to accept "artist" being used for a group.
  • Done.
  • I see no good reason to capitalise "Original Soundtrack" in the table, just "Original soundtrack" should be fine.
  • Done.
  • "Singer Marni Nixon provided vocals..." reference for this?
  • Done.
  • "Elton John has topped the albums chart twice at Christmas, in two consecutive years." No need for the "two" here as it's self-evident.
  • Done.
  • Do you need to abbreviate OCC? You only use the abbreviationce once but use "The Official Charts Company" a number of times afterwards, mainly in the references.
  • Fixed.
  • I see no relevance in the last two external links to OCC's Xmas Number 1 albums.
  • Removed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:55, 24 October 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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Christmas_number_one_albums_(UK)/archive1&oldid=1089080458"