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 The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009 [1].

---

Nominator(s): DiscreteIllusion (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/Lang Lang discography/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar in style and make to Kronos Quartet discography. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Should "discography of classical pianist Lang Lang" be bolded?
  • "discography of the Kronos Quartet" was not bolded. Therefore, I did not bold "discography of classical pianist Lang Lang". DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You can take out the second sentence; it's evident from the first sentence what genre he performs.
  • Done. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the "Notes" column, some entries have periods while others don't. Make this consistent.
  • Periods removed because sentences were not complete. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Includes traditional Chinese music and work by Central Philharmonic Society..." I would link traditional Chinese music instead of traditional music. Additionally, it should read "...work by the Central Philharmonic Society..."
  • Done. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on a search, other articles have "Io ci sarò" in place of "Io Ci Saro".
  • Replaced. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current reference 3 (Videointerview mit Lang Lang) has a date of publication inconsistently formatted. Others have it as YYYY-MM-DD, but ref 3 has it as MM-DD-YY.
  • Fixed. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once these issues are fixed, I'll have no problem supporting. Mm40 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Well done. Mm40 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review. DiscreteIllusion (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Very nice work. I only have a few minor comments: Avoid putting citations in the middle of a sentence. Done. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Some formats say MP3, though I would recommend something like DD, since not all downloads come in MP3, and so by just saying MP3 you're ignoring other downloads in other formats. I have not seen the songs distributed as anything other than as MP3s. However, it has been changed, as it appears that most recent Discography FLs do use the term DD. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Don't bold the years. This is a function of the sortability. See my comment below on this. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I changed the formatting so that the bold does not appear anymore. I didn't see the point in using column header code. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. Had no idea that was what did it. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lang is Chinese, so dates should be in international format (2 January 2008) rather than American format (January 2, 2008. But these are predominantly the release dates in the US, not China. I can change this as necessary, but I'm incredibly confused by the dating format policy. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's really pretty simple: give the earliest release date, and give it in the format that represents the artist's place of origin, in this case Chinese (which would be the international format). If the Chinese versions of the albums came out first, then you should change the dates to those. Drewcifer (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Retaining the existing format says If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting either format, but am only stating the facts. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Interesting, didn't know about that. That said, I think the point of that guideline is to protect articles that have evolved a certain way over a long period of time. This list is less than a month old, so I don't think that would really apply. Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] You're mistaken. Lang Lang may be Chinese, but his releases certainly are not. I'm not even sure if his music is released in China and/or if the release dates are different. In any case, since he's predominantly an American performer, I still think the release dates should follow the American date format. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ok, as long as there's a rationale behind it. And as long as the formatting is in some way related to the artist himself, rather than the author's preference. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Having sortable columns is unnecessary and largely unhelpful since it's already chronological, and the only option is alphabetical by album titles. Lang hasn't really released that much stuff, so an alphabetical sort option seems silly to me. The other list had them alphabetical. I don't see how it's silly; frankly, I don't understand why it isn't used. The added functionality isn't negatively affecting the list in any way. Additionally, I think other discography pages, particularly those who list the places that releases received on charts, should be sortable as well. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] An External links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only items I could potentially add to an External Link section (that I can think of) would consist of links I've used as sources and links to Amazon to purchase the songs. What exactly do you suggest? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most discogs have a link to Discogs.com and the artist's homepage. That is usually enough, though if you can think of something else go for it! Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Done. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Year columns are usually centered. Drewcifer (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] This cannot be done with a sortable table; additionally, all other discog lists that I've seen have the column so thin that they appear centered. I can do this if requested. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Generally speaking, the only good predecessor to this list is Kronos Quartet discography. All other discographies that are FLs are of a different format, since they list chart placements. It is for this reason that I'm more inclined to follow the format of Kronos Quartet discography instead of the more recent discography FLs. It was promoted on May 5, 2009, which is not that long ago. I would be surprised if the formatting has changed that severely in such a short period of time and would question why these changes occurred. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little bit of a departure from most discographies, but given the subject matter, I'm okay with that. Everything else is clearly up to FL standards, so I'm happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "This CD was not released to North America" Needs a period at the end. Above, I was told to keep the period usage similar throughout. While I realize this sentence is a complete one, as opposed to the other notes (i.e. "Performed with Christoph Eschenbach and the Orchestre de Paris"), I don't see a way to solve both the necessity for a period and the parallelism. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Follow the same logic of image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] That isn't nearly so simple as it appears; besides, a caption is not the same kind of thing. As Dabomb knows, cause we argued over this, my preference is to give phrases and sentences in tables a period, because it removes an inconsistency. If none of them have periods, we are offended--certainly complete sentences require periods. If only complete sentences have periods, then some table contents have periods and others don't, and that is esthetically displeasing (surely not to me alone). Besides, there is no grammatical reason why fragments shouldn't have periods--in prose they do: "124 was spiteful. Full of a baby's venom. The women in the house knew it and so did the children." Picked randomly off the shelf, these are the opening lines of Toni Morrison's Beloved.) Drmies (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Make sure that all the notes are referenced. For example, I could not find anything to support the claim that The Magic of Lang Lang contains "both live and studio recordings". Also, "including" (in the same note) implies that the compilation contains tracks besides live and studio recordings. Is this true? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Changed "including" to "containing". Nothing exactly can cite the "both live and studio recordings" except for the CD itself. All the pieces on it are taken from other CDs... How would I cite this? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=19938 reliable?
  • It's a magazine, or so it claims. Is it any different from the Stern source? How may I prove reliability? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further information. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look at that site, and it looks pretty good. Since it's a commercial site editorial information is not so easy to come by, though, but the fact that you have to pay for it is kind of an endorsement. I'm going to try and look a little closer, but I'd accept it as a reliable source, yes. Is it different from Stern? I don't understand the question. I guess "of course" is the answer. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, look at this. These hits suggest to me that the magazine is treated as authoritative. I'll write their article when I have a moment. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think stern.de is a magazine. If so, you should format it as an italicized work rather than a website (Stern, no stern.de). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. It's in German. I've italicized it though. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand: yes, it's the title of a magazine--one of the best-known magazines in Germany. I've added the proper wikilink. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list as it stands now meets, I would say, most of the formal criteria for an FL. However, I am not so thrilled with many of the references--I simply don't take that much stock in Amazon.com as a reliable source for listings etc. That's a matter of preference, I realize that, but I believe that an FL should be the best it could be and right now it isn't: it could offer more in the way of references. For instance, to verify that Christoph Eschenbach participates on Beethoven: Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 4 you can certainly use the Amazon listing for a dry fact--but you could also browse around and find (more?) reliable and much more informative sources: [2], [3], [4], and [5], all found using a Google News search (such as this one, but I played around with the search terms a little bit to find some of them).

In my opinion, the best kind of list that Wikipedia can produce should have a little bit more in terms of references than just the bare bones of an Amazon or Rhapsody listing. I realize this is a lot of work: doing that that for Kronos took me a month or two, but I believe it is worth the effort. If I am too demanding, by all means pay no attention--but standards for an FL should be high, and since this discography is relatively short, it shouldn't take months.

Did I already say, "Great work, Discrete?" If I haven't, pardon me: great work, Discrete. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies wrt amazon; I won't raise a stink over it, but prefer that higher-quality sources are used. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies. I've begun to replace references, but I'm almost positive that the article titles for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Dallas Morning News are incorrect. Would you happen to know where I could find the proper names for these articles? Google News is being decidedly unhelpful. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The Philadelphia Inquirer article, that is correct (though there was a subtitle). I have not yet found the Dallas article (did I add that??) though I'm working on it--for some papers, older archives are not complete in LexisNexis and other databases. I'll see what I can find later tonight, after bath time (not mine, mind you). Drmies (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Reviews" article by Peter Dobrin? I cannot find that in the Inquirer, and I've looked everywhere. Where did you find that to begin with? A search in the Inquirer (through ProQuest) for "lang lang" and dobrin finds five articles, but they're all concert reviews. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from a Google News Search. I'll go work on other references when I get a chance. And no, I added the Dallas article. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 05:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is so weird. I looked again at ProQuest, and they have 88 articles from that issue--none with that title, and none written by Dobrin. I also searched the issue of 25 March (the Sunday before), and nothing. Finally, I searched for the phrase "Works of Haydn, Rachmaninoff" in the entire PI archive, again nothing. Then I looked at all articles written by Dobrin in 2001, again nothing. I'm puzzled.

I'm going to have to assume that ProQuest does not list all of the articles of the older papers, esp. not if they're brief reviews--that's the only thing I can come up with. It's not very satisfactory, but I don't really want to doubt that Accessmylibrary database either. If you want to make sure you could order the paper article through your library... Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do this when I get a chance to; otherwise, are there any further outstanding issues with this list? ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 04:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• There's seven albums in the Studio Album section but the lead and infobox state six. Is there a reason for this difference? --Jpeeling (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake; I found another album and added it, but forgot to increment the number. I've changed it to seven. ĐĩʂсʀєтєΙǁʊʂ!ΘΠ 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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