Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amy Grant discography/archive1

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Amy Grant discography[edit]

Featured list candidates/Amy Grant discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to nominate this for a while, but I'm quite proud of this article. For those unfamiliar with the artist, Amy Grant is the best-selling Christian artist of all time and was, for a time, also one of the most popular mainstream singers of the early 90s. She was one of the pioneering artists in contemporary Christian music and the genre's first breakout artist. Her ability to succeed in both mainstream and Christian music has, to this day, not been repeated. I think this is a really quality list. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Photo caption is not a complete sentence, so should not have a full stop
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally suggest putting the holiday and live albums before the compilations so that all albums of new material are together (unless there is a MOS that says otherwise)
I am not aware a MOS on this. The reason it's grouped the way it is is that, after Studio Albums, it's all alphabetical. Open to changing it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's not a big deal, so don't worry about it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the Videos section, would "Video albums" be a better heading? When I saw the heading, I thought it was going to list music videos, but it doesn't
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the "as featured artist" table, why is the album column so massively wide?
No clue but I fixed it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In ref 18, "cassettes" is spelt incorrectly
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Amazon really isn't a RS
I cited to them to avoid citing to the item itself, but removed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The linear notes tend to not have the exact release date.
Exact release date is only for retroactive charting (ie. a song charts years or decades after it was released). I can clarify that in the notes if need be. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the same single peaked at the same position, they should be in their own cell
The cells are merged because the charts were merged for that period of time. Since the charts were one and the same, so is the table section. After the charts were separated, the chart also separates. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The general refs should probably be moved to a bibliography
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If use use more than one page it should be "pp"
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://worldradiohistory.com/ is a COPYVIO
I've never seen that complaint in literal years of using it as a source. There are similar archives of Billboard in Google Books, for example. I can remove the exact links if need be. Is there an exact policy on this? Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to believe that the scans were used with permission of the copyright holder. It isn't a case of fair use since the text of back issues of Billboard is currently being sold by the company (factor 4). Linking to know copyright violations is prohibited by policy --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 22:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, preservation for nonprofit educational purposes (as the site does) is considered fair use, at least as far as I understand it. This is noted in WP:COPYVIOEL: "it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". Toa Nidhiki05 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the factors
Factor 1: Against. Non-commercial use, but the scholarship and research claims are sketchy. Access it not restricted to only researchers and there no indication of ongoing scholarship.

Factor 2: Tends to not matter, but against. I don't see this as being the Zapruder film. These are not facts that were copied, they are full issues of an in print magazine.

Factor 3: Against. All of each issues is copied at high quality

Factor 4: Against. Destroys the entire market for licensing articles and selling back issues

This fails spectacularly in my view. You are going to need to show that a copyright scholar thinks that putting full scans of a still in publication magazine that is currently selling access to its previously released content to push past my ~~oppose~~ here. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fancy way of ignoring the very direct "taking a newspaper which was originally created for immediate public consumption at a profit and transforming it into a digital historical artifact at no cost to the researcher usually falls under fair use" line. Again, I'm open to removing the direct link (which directly harms the ability of readers to read the cited source), but I have never seen this criticism before so I find it a bit odd. Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite not getting a response, I have removed them. In actu Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should be addressed now. Toa Nidhiki05 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In actu - all issues you've mentioned have been addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

No copyright concerns for File:Amy Grant October 2008.jpg
"The discography of Amy Grant, an American singer, consists of" is overly wordy and doesn't read very well. I recommend something more concise like "The American singer Amy Grant has released".
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday albums are totally studio albums (or sometimes EP when only consisting of a few tracks)! It's unfair and misleading to exclude them from overall album counts based on genre (which is what certain fans and journalists seem to do).
If it's a common practice among journalists and not regarded by artists to be studio albums, what's the issue? But more generally, this is done to allow the inclusion of the US Holiday Albums chart, which is fairly relevant in terms of how the album did. The separation also avoids cluttering the main albums category with a chart only a handful of albums use. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is how people sometimes (but not always) give works a middle finger by downplaying their chronology count in articles based on lyrics and/or genre. It might also sometimes be done based on personal taste (which is an even less reasonable basis). Thankfully not all sources do such a thing with holiday releases (e.g. Mariah Carey and Gwen Stefani both have Christmas records—respectively Merry Christmas and You Make It Feel Like Christmas—that are rightfully counted as their fourth albums). It's definitely not something I exclusively have seen with Grant here. As for the holiday chart listings, I don't think it would be too bad to have that component chart with the others, even when US Top Christian Albums have already been implemented in each set of tables. Your choice on whether to maintain this holiday chart. Just for the record, it wouldn't exceed the recommendation of 10 columns maximum (I currently see nine for the general albums table). I noticed that only one of the albums (Heart in Motion) entered the primary charts for Norway, Sweden, and the UK, which doesn't seem to have prevented their inclusion, so I don't think it would particularly stick out like a sore thumb to implement holiday there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it degrades it to have a separate column, especially when a chunk of the lede is devoted to it. Otherwise it makes more sense, imo, to mention her Christmas albums chronologically there? SNUGGUMS Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice they're highlighted in the lead, and that is welcome. It's just that having a separated "Holiday albums" table makes it sound like they're not studio works. However, that joint one with Art Garfunkel (The Animals' Christmas) could perhaps go into a collaborative albums heading, and maybe 20th Century Masters – The Christmas Collection: The Best of Amy Grant can be classified as a re-issue/rerelease. My bigger concern is beating around the bush with solo releases (e.g. A Christmas Album is not only her first holiday release but also her fifth overall solo album). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but I also don't think we can merge the two areas and emphasize them separately in the lede if that makes sense? Basically it's part of the framing - are these just normal, ordinary albums that follow an unbroken chain of her studio releases, or are they a separate but equally noteworthy (in fact, relatively far more notable) type of album? Is there a way we can emphasize that they are studio albums without merging the columns - maybe say "21 studio albums (including 6 Christmas albums)", and then emphasize the location of the releases chronologically in the last paragraph? Open to ideas here because I absolutely get what you're saying, we just need to figure out what to emphasize. SNUGGUMS Toa Nidhiki05 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. You could additionally rename the tables to something like "Non-holiday studio albums" and "Holiday studio albums". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added one for the Christmas studio albums. Lede is already changed - let me know what you think. SNUGGUMS Toa Nidhiki05 13:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in its first year of release - an impressive total"..... change the hyphen into a comma or dash, and while I get what you're trying to say about the sales, the use of "impressive" comes off as congratulating the amount reached. You could simply say "high total" instead.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link Billboard 200, and upon first mention of each chart in the lead, I'd specify the nation each are from. Even though I personally know which ones mentioned are from the US, we shouldn't just assume all readers are familiar with country they represent.
Link added; general rule of thumb on these articles seems to be not to add US on these sorts of discographies because Billboard is well-known as the US chart publisher so it's kind of redundant to to do that. Toa Nidhiki05 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception for Lead Me On is better for the album's own page.
It might be, but I think the context here is fairly important. Not many albums are outright considered the greatest in their genre, which contrasts with the relatively poor sales. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "hit" from "international hit" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
Point I was trying to get across here was it was her first big international single. I can reword. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the lead is mostly US-centric (and I'm guessing part of this comes from how nothing before Unguarded entered any non-American charts). Try to include some other places her albums charted in, along with more peaks for songs (like how "Lucky One" and "House of Love" reached the top 10 in Canada)
I've added additional album certifications as well as singles for Australia, the UK, and the rest of Europe. Also charts for Christmas albums in Canada. Toa Nidhiki05 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's appropriate to merge cells for charts that share a common peak? I don't recall that being a common practice for discography tables.
It's not a common peak; the charts in question were merged for that period of time, so the results are merged to reflect that. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"1970s-80s" → "1970s–1980s" per WP:DASH and MOS:DATE. On a similar note, change the hyphen from "2000s-present" into a dash.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bibliography" is discouraged as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written by a subject
Changed to "general references". Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Captalize the M for AllMusic
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made one minor fix here, and now can gladly support the nomination! Image review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

""released her self-titled debut album, which sold over 50,000 copies in its first year of release" release is repetitive.
Altered. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"her best-selling album and the best-selling Christian album of all time" I think the former is obvious from the latter...
Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Grant performing in 2008..." no need for period.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"cassette, CD," vs "CD, cassette" any reason for the order change?
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the early releases, there are "digital downloads" which clearly wasn't the case upon release nor contribute to those chart positions. Suggest there's something here whicch says that digital downloads were available much later...
I can remove them if need be but the consistent standard I've used on this article is all formats the album has ever been released on. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""—" denotes releases that did not chart" definitely released in those territories but didn't chart?
Releases refers to the song or album here, not the country. I can clarify if need be. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there number-one charting singles which are non-notable, i.e. not red-linked or have articles?
In theory I guess you could do that, but it would be most of them. Sucks to say it but there's maybe a half-dozen users on here editing Christian music articles on a regular basis and these will likely never get articles that meet standards. Most of the sources about them are either in print media or wholly magazines like CCM Magazine (the major industry magazine) that have no easy way to access. I could make stubs for most of these but that's what they'd like be - stubs. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is "Say It With a Kiss" referenced?
It was released as a digital single. I can add a specific source if need be but that would just be a link to a press release or an online music store. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that doesn't sound like a problem when both types of links are fine for non-contentious details (e.g. label, release date, duration, formats). On the other hand, I wouldn't use any user-submitted reviews found on retailers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: The standard for non-charting releases does seem to be that they need a citation (next to the title) to something that shows that they were a single, and that the row is not just some well-meaning-but-wrong insert. --Pres N 02:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN gotcha. Citation added. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Angels We Have Heard on High " On -> on
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"pp. 376-377" en-dash.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Amy Grant - Heart in Motion"" en-dash
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" "Amy Grant - House of Love"" same, check all others, like ref 38, 39, 44 etc etc
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Powell 2003, p. 373." this should reused.
"pp. 103-106" en-dash.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man sorry for the delay - I have a few responses here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man any updates on this? would love to know if I need to fix anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 18:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna ask one more time - any updates, The Rambling Man. All issues have been addressed and we have three other supports. This nom has been up nearly two months so it will probably be closed soon. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm satisfied my issues have been resolved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Would it be beneficial to link single in the lead's first sentence, especially since all of the different albums also have links?
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to link "mainstream" to the mainstream media article? It is probably already clear without the link, but it may be helpful for readers who may be unfamiliar with the concept.
Done. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a clarification question about this part, shipped with a gold certification, a first for a Christian album. A previous sentence said that Age to Age was the first Christian album recorded by a solo artist to receive gold and platinum certifications, but the above part is about Lead Me On being the first Christian album with a gold certification. I am guessing the difference is with the word choice "shipped", but could you explain this for me? I am sure it is already quite clear, but I was a little uncertain about this.
Certainly! "Shipping" with a certification just means that, at the time of release, enough albums were sent to retailers to immediately earn a certification on day one. Keep in mind that, for physical releases, the RIAA goes off of albums shipped to retailers. So what this means is that Lead Me On was the first Christian album that, upon its release, shipped enough copies to retailers to be certified gold immediately. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this for me. That makes sense to me, and it is clear in the prose. I just wanted to double-check this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an excellent job with this list. I am the most impressed by the lead as you were able to encapsulate Grant's long and successful career into a very good overview. I only have three comments (and two of which are super nitpick-y and the other is more of a clarification question). That should not be surprising since this FLC has already been reviewed by very experienced editors. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All these concerns should be addressed, Aoba47. Toa Nidhiki05 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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