Wikipedia:Peer review/Santana discography/archive2

Santana discography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I added this for peer review again, because the peer review took to long (15 days) and nobody answered. The text above is from the first archive--

T 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

My dear Pumpkin, I take considerable offense. I hope you understand the reasons:

Firstly, I'm not aware there's an expiration date on a peer review, so 15 days doesn't seem too bad to me.

Secondly, your claim that "nobody answered" is inaccurate and, well, rude. You had a response from Brianboulton on the 10th, but then he had some personal problems and was delayed. You then advertised your request a little, and after seeing your note of the 13that WT:WikiProject Discographies, I responded in just over four hours. I took pains with it, and replied in some detail. I may not be perfect, but I don't like being considered "nobody". Further, Brianboulton made time to look at the article, too, and replied three hours later. A guy with so much experience in FL and FA promotions is hardly "nobody".
After we made comments, you replied, interleaving your responses, which included some questions, in our remarks (and leaving the attributions muddled and ruining the list numbering).
You then closed (sort of) the discussion two days later, before we (or at least I) could reply to your open questions.
Now, having closed that review and discussion, you come here again, create an entirely new page, and paste our comments from that one here without our permission. I only realized you had done it because you added a post to my Talk page telling me not to "let Santana alone". If you didn't like the last review, why did you paste it in its entirety here? If somebody posts review comments here, will you paste them in other new review request pages you start up?

In conclusion, I feel that I have spent more than enough time on this already, as it's unclear what you want from me or anyone else. I am going to delete my earlier words from this page, which may leave you talking to the clouds, but I don't feel that that's unfair. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I've added this article to peer review, because I want to know, if this article may be a FL. But I'm not sure in few things:

~~Is the infobox k? Should I change the colors? Make a suggestion!~~
~~The "citation needed" in the "Sales" division really disturbs me (and other maybe too). Is it possible to remove it and to be a FL?~~
I have too less information about some albums. for example I can't find the label, or release date. I googled all of them, but I couldn't find anything. Is it k to replace to missing informations to three question marks?
~~Should I add singles, even if they didn't chart?~~
~~I don't like the guest appearance part. Can you suggest something?~~
~~I delayed the videography part to Santana videography. Was it a good idea or not?~~
~~Are B-Sides notable?~~
In the "Sales" and "Certification" sections I have no idea if I should array the country recordings certifications to an alphabetical order, or is it necessery to order it to a chronological order? Or maybe importance, i.e. US than UK and the other in alphabetical order? Please make an advise.

thx --

T 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Request: I am prepared to review the article, but could you remove the coloured effect from the above list, so that I can read it more easily? It's a great strain at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I will be with you soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Done--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Done--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

can you tell me some good sources, on WP:RS i didnt find for music charts or certifications.--
T 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

i dont know, its from the template--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

well, what charts should i remove?--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
i think all charts are usefull, if only 10 is a must be, how about US (billboard 200 or 100??), UK, AUS, NED, GER, SWI, BEL fla., BEL wal., hot latin pop air, hot adult contemporary? --
T 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

i like the sales column, but i have to do that :(--
T 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

yes i dont like this, too. can i rename it to "Cameos"?--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

deleting?--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

yes, thx--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

k--
T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
i just found 2 non-album singles. should i separate them anyway?--
T 09:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

what should i do with the unofficial albums? maybe deleting them?--
T 10:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

[Text from JohnFromPinckney removed as copied without permission —JohnFromPinckney 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Brianboulton comments: First, I apologise for the delay in getting to this, having promised a review. I have had very limited online time this week, with several things to keep abreast of. I am grateful to JohnFromPinckney for his detailed review. I don't want to repeat his points, so I'll just say a few things:-

In my view the tables are overcomplicated. I've looked at various discographies at FL; none of them that I have seen have a sales figures column, which in your case has brought a host of citation tags, and a very unwieldly appearance for some of your tables. Use existing FLs as a model.

what about

T 08:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There are numerous disambiguation links; use the toolbox in the top righthand corner to identify and correct.
I am unconvinced by the image licensing. There is no proper source information; was this photograph taken by the uploader, and if so, how do we know this? There is no current WP editor called Magikman6386.

i can replace the image, i.e.

T 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): I've no idea why you thought it a good idea to close the review, open a new one, post the old comments to the new one and then insult the editors who previously took time to help you. I can't be bothered to delete my comments, but my interest in this review has finished. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]