Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Angel Haze discography/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 PresN 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Angel Haze discography

[edit]

Angel Haze discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Haze is an american rapper, they've released one studio album, two extended plays, six mixtapes, eleven singles (including five as a featured artist) and eight music videos. I am nominating this for featured list, I've been working on it extensively for the past few days and think it sufficiently meets criteria, hope to hear others thoughts. Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't looked thoroughly and may add more comments later, but on first glance:
    • All mentions of "extended play" should be changed to EP, the more common term. The releases infobox even uses "EP".
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "they" pronouns should be explained in a footnote for readers who have not read Haze's biography.
Done: Explained and sourced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
–Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@HĐ: Please could you elaborate a bit on how this meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. As PresN has outlined here [[2]], short "looks great" reviews can give impression that the list wasn't actually "reviewed" even if it was especially if later reviews find substantial things to fix. I don't want it to seem as if I'm trying to hinder these noms but I'm actually ensuring the nom has better chance as reviews don't need to be discarded later on. Cowlibob (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user HĐ did tweak the page before leaving comments, just to eliminate any thought of "gave approval without even looking at the page" Azealia911 talk 03:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a gifted support but have to take into account how these early "votes" have been considered in the past. Cowlibob (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the !vote, and that's ok, we were all new at one stage, happy editing. Azealia911 talk 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HyunAChachki: Since you started your account just yesterday and have made 8 mainspace edits. It's probably too early to start giving supports to featured list candidates but feel free to continue contributing on expanding articles. Please look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for what is required for a FL. Cowlibob (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going on wikibreak for a couple of weeks for exams. Comments I can leave with you are:
  • the lead is only 900 characters which wouldn't be enough for DYK nomination. Is it possible to expand that? You could use things like chart positions, notable collaborations.
Done: Expanded and sourced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be surprised if others suggested merging the discography back into the main article as the main one only has 3.5K of prose. I think Lorde who has a similar length discography had atleast 5.5K prose before it was split.
Done: Calling this a done seeing as it's not a fixable problem concerning the discog article, I'll buff up the main article as much as I can though. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't use metacritic in this case for critical acclaim as it is based of 6 reviews.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table error in guest appearances where the table is open.
Done: Fixed year error. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of links to commercial sites such as iTunes, they are generally used if there are no other sources for the song/album.
Done: Replaced majority, only remaining is a very low-key artist I can't find an alt link for, and one for the New York EP, which partners with one that mentions the release of the EP in October 2012 without specifying date. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also try to find alternative sources for the info which is based of Facebook, wordpress and other such sites even if they are operated by the artist.
Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main image needs alttext per WP:ALT
Done: Provided. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be my initial comments. I can't reply to it due to above wikibreak. Hope they are helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with you exams, and hopefully if the nom is still open when you get back, you can give your support. All the best, Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Calvin999
Comments from Calvin999
  • Is pandering to her requirements of being referred to in singular pronouns "they" and "their" appropriate for Wikipedia? As a read, I find it confusing.
!: Per MOS:IDENTITY, yes.
  • In July 2012, Haze released their[note 1] EP Reservation online for free, which was met with critical acclaim, with Consequence of Sound calling the project "diverse in its influences" and "polished". → Too many clauses, just full of commas.
Done: Fixed.
  • In late 2013, Haze leaked their debut album Dirty Gold after a disagreement with their record label, who wanted to release it sometime in spring 2014. → As you say 'late 2013', I think it would be more inline to say 'early 2014' instead of Spring.
Done: Fixed.
  • Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics, it was a commercial failure, failing to appear on the Billboard 200, and appearing on the nether end of the UK Albums Chart, peaking at number 197, with reports claiming that the album may have sold as little as 850 copies in its debut week of release. → This is a really long-winded sentence with too many clauses.
Done: Cut down.
  • on the Billboard 200, → Billboard should be in italics.
Done: Removed from sentence in question.
  • Lead says that it peaked at 197 in the UK, but the album chart table below and the album article say 196?
Done: Fixed.
  • Is Spotify Sessions supposed to link to Spotify?
Done: It was inentional if that's what you were questioning, I'll only link "Spotify" as opposed to the full title in order to avoid confusion.

On the references front:

  • Ref 1: Consequence of Sound should not be in italics.
  • Ref 3: Missing authors name
  • Ref 6: Is the second instance of Billboard in the references, so it should not be linked
  • Ref 8: PitchFork Media should not be in italics.
  • Ref 11: Same as Billboard above, this is the second instances of Consequence of Sound and it should also not be in italics.
  • Ref 12: Same here again for Billboard
  • Ref 13: Can't work out why you've said it's for UK R&B peak positions when there's only one reference. The title should not be in italics.
  • Ref 14: Same here. It's just once reference. Official Charts should not be linked, and neither should the title. I think you've added some stray apostrophes for these two references.
  • Ref 15: Republics Records should not be in italics.
  • Ref 16: Rate Your Music should not be italics
  • Ref 17: Rate Your Music should not be italics nor linked.
  • Ref 19: DatPiff should not be linked.
  • Ref 20: Sterogum should not be linked.
  • Ref: 22: Official Charts should be neither italicised nor linked.
  • Ref 23: Same here, both of them.
  • Ref 24: Consequence of Sound should not be italics nor linked.
  • Ref 25: Same again for Pitchfork
  • Ref 26: Same for Digital Spy (non-italics)
  • Ref 31: Consequence of Sound again
  • Ref 33: Rap-Up should not be linked.
  • Ref 34: Beatport should not be italicised
  • Ref 35: Rolling Stone should not be linked
  • Ref 36: Idolator should not be italicised
  • Ref 39: Second instance of NOISEY so shouldn't be linked
  • Ref 43: DS should not be linked
  • Ref 44: Same for Stereogum again
  • Ref 47: Same for Idolator
  • Ref 48: Same for Pitchfork Media, (not called just Pitchfork by the way)
  • Ref 49: Same for Idolator again
  • Ref 50: Missing work parameter

Oppose I don't know how the two editors above have voted Support when the references are such a mess and there are still mistakes in the lead despite four editor's being involved thus far.  — Calvin999 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for looking through the article in such depth, have now addressed all of your concerns, thanks again for the in-depth analysis! Azealia911 talk 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Azaealia911's message on my talk page, all of my concerns have been addressed (I just made some additional fixes to some refs as well), so I now Support.  — Calvin999 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose again, too many quick supports...

  • Please fix all the WP:DASH violations per the MOS, mostly in the reference titles which seem to use spaced hyphens rather than spaced en-dashes mostly.
Done: Corrected, think I got 'em all.
  • Infobox has 1 EP while lead and main article show 2.
Done: Corrected.
  • Are you claiming a single source that says "only someone who gives at least several fucks could offer up something this personal, this diverse in its influences, and this polished" means that an EP is "critically acclaimed"?
Done: Sourced.
  • Image caption is an incomplete sentence so it needs no full stop.
Done: Corrected.
  • "Haze released... Haze released..." repetitive and dull prose.
Done: Cut down use of the word "release" from 11 times in lead to 5.
  • "release it sometime in early 2014.[4] Due to the leak, the label rush-released the album, and it was officially released" count the "release"s, again dull and repetitive prose.
Done: Same as above.
  • "sold as little as 850 copies" as few as...
Done: Corrected.
  • "Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics" where is this referenced?
Done: Sourced.
  • "which is set to be released in 2015." well we're half way through 2015, when is this going to happen?
No idea, I'm not affiliated with Angel Haze's music team, simply a fan. But as you pointed out, we still have six months left of this year in which the project may be released, and as we know, albums can be released with no prior announcement, even from the biggest artists. The article cited stating the projects are due for a 2015 release are them most up-to-date I can find, and as long as we're in 2015, I see nothing wrong with the wording.
  • "were released from Haze's upcoming projects, both released" released released.... zzz.
Done: Fixed.
  • Please include the country of release for each of the specific release dates.
Done: Done.

That's it for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected all errors pointed out. Azealia911 talk 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Needs brushing up.....

  • "The discography of American rapper and singer Angel Haze consists of" is overly wordy; just keep it simple and use "American rapper Angel Haze has released"
Done: Changed.
  • Critical reception for releases belong in their own articles, not here
Done: Removed.
Done: Removed from refs in question.
  • Josepvinaixa.com (aka "Ultimate Music") and "Gigwise" aren't really good sources to use
Done: Changed.
  • "Digital Spy" shouldn't be italicized
Done: Changed.
  • "NOISEY" should read Vice
Done: Changed.
  • "Rate Your Music" is unreliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
Previous sources were officially verified social networks of Haze to indicate release date. Another editor thought these to be unreliable. However, RYM is the only other source I seem to be able to find, what do you suggest doing? The mixtapes exist as proved by the social network posts, but seem to be unusable on here, which leaves me pretty stuck.
Done: I've just gone and removed the two tapes in question. They seem incredibly lowkey and I can't actually find a place to download them, let alone reliable sources to back them up.
Done: Changed.
  • Are "DatPiff" or "The Line of Best Fit" reliable?
The Datpiff link was uploaded by a user named IAmMixtapes, who's uploaded various other official mixtapes, including those of Birdman 1, Pusha T 2, and Jae Millz 3. Same with the other datpiff reference, with the tape in question being uploaded by Flybeats09, who's uploaded official tapes by Young Jeezy 1 and Jim Jones 2. I also don't see any issue with the line of best fit.

Not exactly FL material at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS sorry it took me so long to address your comments, changed the majority to your suggestions, will work on the others shortly. Azealia911 talk 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but is "BeatCog" reliable? I'm not very familiar with it. Additionally, Official Charts Company shouldn't be in italics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, Nothing instantly brings up a red flag to me, and nothing at the WP:RSN after a search. They seem to report on minor artists. The article simply relays information, and includes a tweet confirming the title from Haze's twitter. Changed OFC. Azealia911 talk 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
  • Add the full form EP on its first usage, with EP in parenthesis.
? Previous user Chasewc91 thought otherwise in his comments.
I'm asking it to use it as extended play only on its first instance 'cause I am not sure if all know what does that stand for.
  • "Due to the leak, the label rush-released" - pathetic. Surely it can tweaked (especially that "rush-released" thing) for a better flow.
Done: I'd appreciate it if you didn't point blank call my work pathetic though.
If you submit a list, you'll face criticism. Even the FLC itself means "constructive criticism" from reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling my work "pathetic" isn't constructive. Try not to confuse constructive critisism with simply being rude. Azealia911 talk 17:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God! I wasn't being rude. What I was trying to say is that I didn't like that sentence (not you), that's all. I haven't reviewed the list just to put someone down or in your words being "rude". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the lede is a bit confusing. I don't know if "CANDLXS" and "GXMES" are the names of the Haze's "upcoming projects" or the two "promotional singles".
Done: Tweaked.
  • No sales amount for the studio album?
No further info other than the poor first week sales, I could input that if you're ok with it reading "US: 856", but upon reading that myself I'd be convinced it was vandalism.

Would appreciate it, if you look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


FLC now has 5 supports and only 1 oppose (of which all comments have been addressed, and user has said they will re-asses if they have the chance. I'm assuming they're too busy to do so.) Last comments were made near-two weeks ago, can this just be closed already? Azealia911 talk 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - feedback as follows:

  • None of the tables have any headings.
Done: As far as I know, they're not required, they're pretty self explanatory headings, added anyway.
Some of the headings are nonsensical such as "List of non-single charting songs, with selected details and chart positions" - if it's a non-single how did it chart?
Songs don't have to be singles to chart. I do see on your user page that you've worked well on discographies of artists who primarily released music in the 20th century. Modern day Billboard charting can be achieved via high levels of streams on spotify or independent downloads of a song from an album, without it being a single. An example being the song "Feeling Myself". It wasn't released as a single from it's parent album, but charted on multiple charts, considerably well actually, from streams/downloads.
  • Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart.
? Bit confused by what you mean, can you give an example of a chart header in the page you think needs changing, and what you'd change it to?
In accordance with the style guide for discographies - Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Singles as a lead artist, whereby UK charts should be separated into two columns under a single heading of UK. In the other wikitables such as promotional singles the heading of the chart should be US, with US be wiki-linked to the appropriate chart. In saying that is the US Pop Digital chart the same thing as the Mainstream Top 40? (it doesn't appear that they are). In fact all the chart links need to be double-checked to ensure they link to the right charts.
I'm still lost, especially the comment about the lead single section. Don't suppose I could request you whip something up in my empty sandbox could you?
I'd suggest you check the Discography style guide, which clearly outlines how chart tables should be formatted. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt Ok, I now understand what you mean, but have to disagree, with you and maybe even the MOS. I note that the examples from on the MOS' page all link the the primary chart, which isn't the case in the article. Under both US headers in the examples, it links to the Billboard 200, the main albums chart for the US. Whereas on Haze's page, the US Heat title links to the Top Heatseekers chart, a kind of pre-school equivalent of the Billboard 200 if you like to use an analogy. As for the singles chart, wouldn't having three US headers all linking to different charts be incredibly confusing? US is generally just linked to the Billboard Hot 100. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other charting songs table should be amalgamated into the table for singles as featured artist
? The song wasn't a single though...
If the song was never released as a single then how did it chart at #32 on the US Dance Digital Chart?
Same answer as above question relating to table headers.
  • The statement "Haze revealed that they were working on a sophomore album, titled The Flowers Are Blooming Now, which is set to be released in 2015." has no reference citation.
Done: Sourced
Isn't the publisher actually Vice Media and the author is Isabelle Hellyer
Done: Changed.
  • Was The Winter of Wet Years released on February 23, 2015 - as some sources state.
Done: No, included note.
The term "never surfaced" needs to be replaced with something that isn't so colloquial.
Done: changed.
  • Is the title In the Winter of Wet Years or The Winter of Wet Years
Done: In the Winter of Wet Years, spotted mistake.
  • Ref 12 is identical to Ref 30 & 31.
Done: Ref named.
  • Need to replace "was officially serviced" with a more appropriate term.
Done: replaced.
  • The lead is still relatively 'light-weight'. At my count it is still under 1,500 characters - which as pointed out by Cowlibob wouldn't qualify for a DYK.
It's like 50 characters under. I don't know, maybe I could apply some minor puffery but I don't see it as a huge barricade.
The lead section, particularly for a 'Featured List', should summarize its content, provide any necessary background information, give encyclopedic context, link to other relevant articles, and make direct statements about the criteria by which the list was selected. For a start you should be looking about including information on sales and charting. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is now 1997 characters at my count. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain whether this article is really notable. At this stage Angel Haze has only released one album and two EPs, of which the only mainstream chart success has been a peak of #196 on the UK Charts. I'm think that the application might be a bit premature at this stage. Dan arndt (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a guideline that states articles may only become featured articles once the subject has tonnes and tonnes of successful content to write about. The article has near-50 references, includes all the standard discography sections, and is well written. Azealia911 talk 14:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, I am simply questioning whether the article should exist as a stand-alone list given the limited number of official releases by Angel Haze. The more I look at it the more I think that the article could be incorporated into the main article on Angel Haze. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess all's I can do is disagree, as an earlier editor pointed out, the main article its self has less bulk than this article, which can be used to argue either side. If you'd like, I could also bulk up the main article, as it's particularly outdated in content, but I rarely edit it. But I would still say that this article has more than enough to warrant a SAL. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on this. I count over 30 entries in this discography (including all sections). That looks to be enough to meet criterion 3b. Of course, it would be nice to have the main article be a bit meatier. It would make the disparity in article class much less troublesome. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, thanks for your input, I'll get to work on it in a bit. Would the article have to be bulked up in order for this to be promoted? Just wondering how urgent it is to attend to as I'm quite busy with work at the moment. Azealia911 talk 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 Oh ok then, in that case, I'll wait until this closes to start working on their bio article. As it currently stands, all comments have been addressed (apart from one comment from Dan arndt which I'm still not fully sure I grasp what they're requesting) and the other opposing user has been requested to reconsider their place on the lists status, and has stated they will if they have time. Other than that, nomination has five supporters and two users who are yet to indicate a !vote. Azealia911 talk 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt thanks for your comments. Azealia911 talk 07:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note: A discography list for an artist with only one actual album makes me give it a funny look, but the singles give it enough content to not be a content fork, so I'm in agreement with Chris. That said, you still have an oppose from The Rambling Man - can you ask him one last time to at least strike his oppose, even if he doesn't want to give a full review? I'd call the issue done after that. Also, just for your edification: vote counting is pointless- there's another nomination at FLC right now that I'm not going to promote until some discussion finishes that has 6 supports and one oppose. That's not "6 minus 1 equals 5", that's "consensus not reached". Similarly, if a nomination came up here and got 3 real supports in it's first day, I'd still leave it up for the full 10 days just to make sure it got enough attention paid to it. And I'd read it over myself. The little vote counting "participation guide" box you put on the nomination is pointless (and a little annoying), because the director and delegates actually evaluate the discussion before promoting, not just count the "!"votes. --PresN 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the participation guide, if anything it's more for me to see if I have comments to address left. I've asked The Rembling Man again to review his position on the page. Thanks for your comment Azealia911 talk 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 The Rambling Man's been editing since you and I requested his input, I don't think we'll get a response. Azealia911 talk 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492, PresN Soo...what happens now? The Rambling Man has now struck his oppose. Azealia911 talk 11:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the oppose struck, I'm going to close this as passed. --PresN 20:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for passing my first piece of featured content! Azealia911 talk 20:10, 17 July 2015 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Angel_Haze_discography/archive1&oldid=1136457516"