Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple/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 Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013 [1].

List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple[edit]

List of songs recorded by Fiona Apple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aaron
Resolved comments by Aaron
Comments
  • I don't see the point of having red links in an article, so I would unlink them and leave them as normal.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiona Apple doesn't need to be linked in the Artist(s) column.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need [Bonus], it's still from the album.

 — AARON • TALK 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review the list. I have to disagree on your last point, though. I think it is important to note that the track does not appear on the standard issue of the album. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: See asterisks in the "Original release" column noting bonus tracks, along with the accompanying note below the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this? It makes no sense to me. Standard, deluxe, bonus, they all come from the same album, written for the same album, recorded for the same album. I don't see any need to differentiate.  — AARON • TALK 19:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say. I happen to think it is important to distinguish standard issue tracks from bonus tracks, as do others who have participated in this discussion. I think we have come up with a good compromise, which is to notate bonus tracks with a simple asterisk. Do these three asterisks prevent you from supporting the promotion of this list? (That is a serious question, by the way, not sarcasm.) Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's important? I'm not being argumentative I just want to know lol. I could only see three asterisks and at first I didn't even notice them, not very noticeable. I don't see why it's next to the album, if it is the song which is the bonus. Maybe stylise it like on List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis if you really want to keep some form of notation for it. (See the songs Colorblind Acoustic, Glassheart Acoustic).  — AARON • TALK 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants information about a particular song, they should not be lead to believe the song appears on the standard version of an album. Bonus or alternate-issue tracks can be difficult to find sometimes. If we distinguish bonus tracks on album articles, I see no reason why we should not do the same in this list. Also, the whole point of the asterisk is that it notes the alternate release without disrupting the table. Appropriate information is conveyed in a respectable manner. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the asterisk is very noticeable.  — AARON • TALK 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you advocating that bonus tracks should not be distinguished at all, or that they need to be more distinguished visually? Sorry, I am confused. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't distinguish the bonus tracks, as they are still on the same album after all. But, if you wish to keep them as separately noted, make it more obvious, as a little star is not noticeable, I didn't even see them at first.  — AARON • TALK 21:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who would prefer that bonus tracks not be distinguished at all, I think requesting that they be distinguished to a greater extent is somewhat contradictory. Again, I think an asterisk is a great solution here. When someone reads the table, they see the album on which the song exists, and if there happens to be an asterisk next to the title they realize the song appears on a non-standard issue. I do not think it is necessary to incorporate additional colored cells, which would just make the table more confusing. If possible, I'd love to hear from another reviewer on this issue... or, what specifically would I need to do to earn your support? Colored cells, other ideas? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that you not distinguish, but I can tell that you do want to distinguish and do not want to do as I've suggested, therefore I am suggesting what you can do to make it more noticeable. I never said about additional coloured cells. Just something which is more apparent than a * 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you were providing the Leona Lewis example to advocate cell coloring. My misunderstanding. Please see the table again and see if you are satisfied with the small text below the album title. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is better.  — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted.  — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Mildly concerned that a lot of the lead (mainly the second para) would be covered almost identically in Fiona Apple discography (if that article was up to scratch). This should be more about songs recorded, rather than album success/awards.
Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During her career Apple also has recorded five..." do you think "During her career" is really necessary?
Done. Removed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking "jazz standard" as it may be unclear to some non-music-like-people.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Largo?
Nope. The film (which I am not sure deserve its own article, I'll leave that for someone else to decide) is a series of performances from the club of the same name. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the initial sort order of the table is alphabetical by title, it's not right, as when I sort by title, it changes the default sort order. It's because you force things like "The First Taste" to sort by F and not T. That's fine, but order them initially accordingly. Also, obey the same rules for the albums...
Done. I believe all sorting concerns have been addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Galifianakis" caption is a complete sentence so should take a full stop.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 needs an en-dash.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Myspace really considered reliable?
These two links are the only two I can find to verify the existence of this song. I understand your concern, but I think Myspace is better than no reference at all, and this is the official page of the artist. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks pretty good to me, I just have a few points:.
  • "winner of the Grammy Award" --> "which won the Grammy Award" reads a little better to me.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems somewhat odd to have two uses of "in 1998" so close to each other.
Done. Changed the first use of 1998 to 40th Grammy Awards (and linked). --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of songs" would probably be better as just "Songs".
The title of this list is consistent with similar lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not linking Fiona Apple in the Artist column, then there's probably no need to link to her in the Writers column either.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, in all. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review the list. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's 826LA?
The organization credited for the song. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that this organisation? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks so much. Done. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galifianakis' --> Galifianakis's
In accordance with a manual of style? When is "s's" ever appropriate? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was always taught to add an s for possessives of singular nouns, but, according to the MOS, both are acceptable, so you can disregard my remark.
Ok, thanks. I learned something new today. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come On and Get It --> "Come On and Get It
Done. Good eye. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "John Lennon and Paul McCartney" part of the image caption is probably not necessary, as "Lennon—McCartney" is already stated.
I disagree. I think it is necessary to articulate the subjects within the picture, especially for people who may not be familiar with Lennon-McCartney. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It still seems a bit unnecessary to me to name them twice. Would "credited to Lennon and McCartney (pictured in 1964)" be a suitable compromise? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went with your suggestion, but included last names. I think this is the best possible compromise since the credits are accurate and the subjects are identified. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm happy with that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do the N/A cells represent? How do they differ from the "Single release only" cells?
Cells with "N/A" indicate no official release, album or single. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think that, in the interests of consistency, it would be best to use the same convention throughout the list. If you want to stress that "Come On and Get It" and "I Want You" were released as singles, you could replace "Single release only" with the respective titles of the singles, then use the N/A template for the songs that weren't released at all (although a key explaining what the N/A cells indicate would be useful). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is consistent with List of songs recorded by Rihanna. Is there a third reviewer who could chime in regarding this concern? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the Rihanna list was the very first "Songs recorded by..." list to be reach FL status. Although it's still FL quality now, there are a couple of points I'd raise if it were nominated today, now that seven others have gone through the process. Personally, I feel that it would make more intuitive sense to a reader, and would bring it in line with FLs such as List of songs recorded by Faith No More and List of songs recorded by Guillemots, but I'd welcome a third opinion on the matter. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced "Album" column with "Original release" column. Replaced two "Single release only" cells with the titles of the singles. Two cells have "N/A" as a filler, but I think this is obvious the song was not released officially. Good suggestion, thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, although those cells now need to sort under C and I. Also, have you thought about perhaps incorporating the note under the table into the key instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added sort commands. Thanks for the reminder! I had thought about incorporate the note into the key, but there is a difference. Singles are marked with colored cells, so the purpose of the key is made apparent very quickly. However, asterisks are more difficult to find when looking at an entire table, so I associated the note with only one particular column. I also thought this would resolve Aaron's preference that alternative versions of albums not be made a big deal. I think the current table is good... singles (which are important) are noted with colored cells and symbols, plus a key, while bonus tracks are noted with an asterisk and an explanation below for curious minds. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.
I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Status:
  • "for four studio albums" → "for her four studio albums", as she has also recorded songs for other people's albums.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest just displaying bonus tracks as done on this list? It looks much nicer.
See asterisks in the "Original release" column noting bonus tracks, along with the accompanying note below the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiona Apple discography should not be listed as a "see also", per WP:SEEALSO: " As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks good; great job! I love seeing all these song articles being improved! (I've been working on one myself since October of 2011... I really need to get that done, LOL.)

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Great work!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

  • What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?
This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (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/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Fiona_Apple/archive1&oldid=1079394485"