Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10

Resolved comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Just looking at references at the moment, really:

Legitimate question. The Loud liner notes reference gives only a publication year. By definition, wouldn't the publication date for the liner notes be the album's release date?
- No, because the parameter for it is simply "year=" — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Cite AV media notes (aka cite album-notes) permits the use of a date parameter in place of year. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now done as date - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got some inconsistent date formatting, Look at 36/37/102/103/117 (and maybe others, I didn't fully audit once I saw there were issues with this).
- Corrected all, I think. — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not done. Or, possibly, done in a way that misunderstood my objection. Some of your references use yyyy-mm-dd dates (2012-06-24, for example) and some use Month, dd, yyyy dates (November 16, 2012). There's no MOS requirement to choose one date format over another, but you need to pick one and stick to it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now sorted. All the refs should be in the yyyy-mm-dd format (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this article's long history, retrieval dates for some online references go back over two years. There's no policy about this, but it's my personal preference that online sources be "refreshed" to at least the current year as part of FAC preparation. In part, that's to ensure that there are no dead links or "zombie" links (that don't return 404, but no longer have the original content). Unless it's just not loading for me, for example, ref 40 links to a bare skeleton of a page with no visible content. I did not check all online sources in this manner.
- I've been trying at FAC for this article for 2 years, and as you can see, this is my 10 nomination during that period. Anything that was dead would have been picked up on in the past two years. (You had to click on 'Rihanna Singles btw) — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the reader has to perform further actions to reach the cited data, that needs to be indicated. Here, I'm not sure that's necessary. It appears to be possible to link directly to the singles performance page here. Am I overlooking a reason why the reference shouldn't target that page? But, in any case, you'd be surprised how quickly pages can go dead. Reference 152 is not loading anything for me at all, for example, and reference 156 does not load a pdf for me nor anything else that appears to contain relevant information. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The German reference was a problem with the template: I've inserted a {{cite web}} template instead: all works for that one. Will follow up on the others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - All now complete. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While most of reference 48 is language-independent page listings, the page itself is in Czech and should probably be so noted. Also, I'm not sure whether the current formatting for the search-use note is the right way to do it, but I'm equally unsure what the right way is.
- Noted the language. — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~You have some inconsistencies in periodical publisher formatting. Compare reference 83 and 88 (based on other entries, I think 83 is the one in error here).~~
- Hmm, why would it do that? When I click on edit, the formatting is perfectly fine. Not really sure how to fix it? — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorted. One was in cite web, one in cite news: both now in cite news for consistency. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reference 84 doesn't follow the manual of style guidelines for citing simple court cases (see WP:MOSLEGAL; specifically, it should reference court and date, and the litigants should be italicized).~~

Now done - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 139 is in German, 140 in Hungarian, 143 in Spanish (and contains a typo, a doubled C in the title). I stopped looking at these foreign references at this point; they all need to be checked and their language indicated where appropriate.
- Done all. — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the ones I specifically listed, perhaps, but you've still got foreign-language sources that do not indicate their language. Peek at 154 and 155 for starters, although I'm sure there are others. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now done - and the remaining couple of others too (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~In reference 158, I'm again uncertain if this is the proper way to indicate search/access information, but it's a totally different format than in 48.~~
- I've tweaked as best I can, but the issue lies in the two different templates used to show two different types of information. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still slightly different (use of quotation marks, mostly), but I'm not quite that much of a reference style hardliner. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Squeamish Ossifrage for all your time and effort here: it is much appreciated and your comments have certainly been very helpful. I think we've now covered everything, but please feel free to point out any further areas where something has been missed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]