Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mack 10 discography/archive2

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 Crisco 1492 07:25, 28 March 2014 [1].

Mack 10 discography[edit]

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because there is no reason why this article should not have been passed as FL. All the comments by TheRamblingMan were addressed and no one else took the time to comment on this discography. I will be pleased to address any concerns with this article. Thanks, CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question I'm not familiar at all with Mack 10, but is "I Want it All" really a cover of the Queen song as you've linked in the Guest appearances section? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's an original song; I Want It All (Warren G song). It'd sound quite odd converting Queen's music to rap, in my opinion xD. CrowzRSA 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So link it correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well organized. Presents a great deal of information in a meticulously referenced and simultaneously accessible format for the reader. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!!! CrowzRSA 05:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: I don't think that a "see also" is an appropiate article hatnote, that section is for disambiguations. You should move that link to a "See also" section, and/or link it in the lead if appropiate. You should mention in the opening sentences that Mark 10 is a rapper, it is evident that he is a musician, but the detail of his music genre should be mentioned directly, not in a passing by "...being produced by fellow rapper...". "After signing to Priority Records in 1995, Mack 10 released his self-titled debut album that June": I think it may be better to say "in June". I think that "being produced" is the wrong tense, as you don't mean to talk about an ongoing activity in the past, but something that was already finished when the other things of the sentence were taking place. Use just "produced". In "Rhyme & Reason", you shouldn't include the word "soundtrack" as part of the link. "certified Gold in the US by RIAA for its sales" is a bit redundant: when you say or discuss about an album being certified gold, you are talking about its sales, so just end the sentence in "RIAA". "His fourth studio album, The Paper Route (2000), failed to earn the rapper any RIAA certifications; however, the album debuted at number nineteen on the Billboard 200" seems to be in the wrong order. I think it would be more natural to say the Billboard bit first, and then the lack of RIAA certifications. As "Bang or Ball" is the first album in a new label, you should mention the year. And make sure that the list is consistent with the main article on Mack 10: that article mentions a 2013 album "2000-1-0" and a 1997 collaboration "In tha Beginning...There Was Rap", which are not mentioned here. If they are missing here, add them, if they are incorrect there, remove them. Cambalachero (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything, any other issues? CrowzRSA 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see any further problems Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have any comments/supports/objections? CrowzRSA 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~The two-sentence first paragraph gives the lead quite a fragmented, unfinished feel, IMO.~~

Fixed

"The album, produced by fellow rapper Ice Cube, saw considerable commercial success, selling 500,000 copies in the US by 1997" - unsourced

Fixed

I think a lot of the commentary on album sales in the lead is original research, as there are no sales figures to back this up (only chart positions, which are relative). Also note that RIAA certification are based on shipments, not sales.

Are you referring to the fact that it says his album sales decline after his compilation? If so, it is now referenced.

Can you point out the quote that supports this? I can't find anything in that article which does. Also, this reference formatting output is butchered. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mack 10's fortunes began to fade with The Paper Route (2000), his first album to fall short of either platinum or gold sales status, and his first to not spawn a significant hit. and ...considerable commercial success before his popularity faded toward the end of the decade.. Also While Ghetto, Gutter & Gangster, released independently by Bungalo, sold poorly

~~With the introduction of the Billboard Top R&B Albums and Songs charts, I think it is important to stipulate that the "US R&B" charts you refer to here are R&B and hip-hop; perhaps 'US R&B/HH'?~~

Fixed

Songs chart is still "US R&B". Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, fixed now.

~~There is a considerable overuse of italics in the references. See MOS:ITALICS. MTV sticks out as a definite no-no for italics. Also I see Amazon.com and Amazon.com - be consistent.~~ Adabow (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to the "publisher" and "work" fields in "cite web" automatically italicizing work for some reason... Is this reason enough to leave it be? CrowzRSA 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - just use the publisher field if you need to. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Amazon.com, MTV, and iTunes.

Also, looking at the US R&B/Hip-Hop chart positions, the peaks for "Only in California", "Money's Just a Touch Away", "From tha Streetz", "Tight to Def", "Connected For Life", "Lights Out" and "So Sharp" are not verified by the refs. Please check that everything is referenced—not only just the article need visible inline citations, all data must be verifiable by said references. Adabow (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is fixed, I accidentally cited the wrong chart and it messed everything up in the table

Not fixed, there are still songs unverified by the refs. Also, the #98 for "Hate In Yo Eyes" should be for the R&B/HH not the Hot 100. Please double-check every single chart peak and make sure that they are correct and supported by the refs given. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now, checked all, and also added Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart since Billboard had a record of it ([2]).

Thanks for the comments Adabow, I will respond to them soon. CrowzRSA 02:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments: (I won't oppose over these, but do consider): I think it's more designed for song articles, but per WP:USCHARTS I would discourage using R&B/Hip Hop Airplay and Rap Songs, as they are factors and distillations of the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. Also, the current sectioning makes it seem as though guest appearances and music videos are not part of the discography (if they aren't, why are they in the article?). Perhaps level 2 sections could be 'Albums', 'Singles', 'Guest appearances' and 'Music videos'. Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Hot Rap Songs chart, but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay because WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states: If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following.... Since "Only in California" charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, I left the chart in. As for the sectioning, that is an excellent idea and has been done. Thank you! CrowzRSA 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. Adabow (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adabow! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any other users have comments? It's been a while since I first nominated it and I'd really like to see this pass. CrowzRSA 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: This nomination has been promoted. There may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.