Comments from Azealia 911
- General comments
- All violations of
MOS:DASH need to be fixed.
- All instances of {{N/A}} need to be filled in with an explanation as to what they mean, EG {{N/A|Non-album single}} for Young Blood, and the same for whatever the two directors have N/A's for.
- Lead comments
- "2 was met with critical acclaim" Needs source.
- "DeMarco was in several bands in high school until he graduated in 2008." Needs source.
- "Heat Wave was followed by two EPs, Eating Like a Kid and Bossa Yeye, and one studio album, Ying Yang, all in 2010." Needs source.
- "In 2011, DeMarco went back to recording as a solo artist and was signed by Captured Tracks." Needs source.
- "They released his EP Rock and Roll Night Club in early 2012" Needs source.
- "peaked at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart." Needs source.
- Body comments
- The lead mentions how the album 2 charted at number 26 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart, but it's not displayed in the charts table.
- I'd remove all mentions of "(as Makeout Videotape)" and replace them with a symbol, explained in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
- In regards to the album tables, I really detest the current layout entirely in the body, sorry to say. I'm not sure if it's policy to follow a certain stylistic layout, and if it isn't then feel free to keep it as is, but I'd really suggest changing the format to something similar to that of the majority of other featured discographies, like
Lady Gaga discography or
Lily Allen discography (With one column for Album details, listing release date, label and format). I don't see the point in having three separate columns for album details when they can all be shoved into one small box.)
- Just seen after writing this that another user suggested changing it, it looked perfect
before.
Harrias, why did you suggest such a radical, messy layout change that virtually no other discog article uses? Let alone a featured-grade one?
Like I said, if there's no definitive policy that states all discographies should have concurrent layouts, then I guess it's up to you, or delegates as you suggest. But I see no pros to the new format change, especially if information is released giving means for a "Sales" column to be added in the studio albums table, squishing everything even smaller still. The sortable options also make no sense to me, dates are already sorted in regular tables from earliest to latest release, I see no reason why people would want to sort labels, especially in this case as there's two of the same label and one N/A, I can maybe just see reason for title sort option, but even so, there's three albums, it's not like we're dealing with tons of information. But hey, even though there may not be a policy, I think some
common sense needs to be applied to our thinking, and having a concurrent layout theme from discog to dicgoc, in order as to not confuse readers, seems more than logical.
Azealia911
talk
15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I suggested the change because I felt it would be an improvement, and in my opinion, it is. While I grant that the appearance may be slightly compromised, the ability to sort adds increased functionality. Yes, this is a relatively short list, and therefore the benefits might be relatively small. The question of why to do this on a "featured-grade one" seems odd: the point of the "Featured" process is to refine articles, lists and images, and to improve them. Otherwise this page would be nothing more than a list of people saying "Support" or "Oppose". Maybe requesting such a change was radical, maybe it was beyond the purview of a single FLC and should be a wider discog MOS discussion. But at the end of the day, I made a suggestion that I thought would improve the list.
Harrias
talk
16:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I've changed the formatting of the discography back now.
Littlecarmen (
talk)
16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- (
Edit conflict) I respectfully disagree per my comments above. I feel the confusion and unnecessary messiness (for lack of a better word) that it adds, outweighs the slight benefit it brings to the page. I'd probably agree with you had the discography been long and hard to navigate otherwise, but I don't feel it's necessary in tables of 3-5 albums per listing.
Littlecarmen I'll leave it up to you or delegates to decide which, and
Harrias, I'll be more than happy to partake in a discussion on the MOS of discographies with you.
Azealia911
talk
16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Even though they have independent articles, all three albums need refs to back up their release dates.
- I'd remove all sortable options from the tables, they're rarely used in discography articles.
- I see no issue in using rowspans for singles, maybe music videos as they cross into filmography teritory, but certainly seems ok to use them for singles.
May have some more comments later, that was a brief scan of the article, so some things may not need fixing, feel free to tell me something's already done/sourced/correct.
Azealia911
talk
20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for you comments!
Littlecarmen (
talk)
12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- No, thankyou for addressing the majority so quickly, I appreciate it!
Azealia911
talk
15:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- No problem at all!
Littlecarmen (
talk)
16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- One tiny final comment, there's various refs for "digital download" in album details boxes. It's pretty much a given that projects released in the 2010's are released for digital distribution. If anything, I'd source the far less common cassette release, but that's purely optional.
- All formats are sourced! The formats are usually mentioned in the references used for the release dates and I only added a separate sources for formats that aren't mentioned in the source for the release date.
Littlecarmen (
talk)
16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
|