This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The genres don't appear to be discussed in the body. A couple refs described them, but I don't think they made it into the article itself.
add "the" before Spice Girls
add "series actress" before Melissa Joan Hart
No need for refs in the
WP:LEAD since it is a summary of what's in the article.
Is there a source for the 700,000 copies? It looks like you might have just added up the US and Canada certification thresholds. That might be fine to mention, but it doesn't mean "worldwide".
Background
Where does it state that the sequencing was slightly modified? The ref link isn't numbered, so it's not clear to me that they were saying it was the ordered track listing.
Don't pipe "A&R", write it out as "artists and repertoire".
Where in the ref does it say Coburn was "instrumental"?
Fix ref order of 6, 3 so that it's 3, 6
Fix ref order of 7, 5
Fix ref order 10, 5
Reword the last sentence. It's a bit hard to follow.
I'm not sure the Spice Girls photo adds much to the article, but it's licensed properly.
Critical reception
Fine
Commercial reception
The RIAA and Music Canada links list the certification dates, so you might as well note them in the article
References
General comment: wikilink website, publisher, etc. If they are magazines and newspapers, make sure you a using "magazine=" or "newspaper=" to show the names in italics.
General comment: add access dates to all refs that are missing them. This helps for eventual archiving by bots.
General comment: Fix the date format of the refs to align with article body (month day, year)
10. This ref needs more detail so that readers can figure out what it is. I think it's a book? ISBN, etc.
18. This is the wrong date for the Billboard 200 link [it's the link for October 10, 1998 issue (which is also ref 5)].
19. This ref doesn't work. Can you see if an archive link exists? You can try using the bot:
[1]
22. This ref doesn't work.
Other thoughts and discussion
This looks pretty good and doesn't look like it needs much work. I'd recommend using the liner notes to add a Personnel section, however. This would also allow to add refs for the producers in the infobox.
On hold until revisions are made or responses to the above are received. Good job!
Grk1011 (
talk)
20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello! Should be good to go now. In regards to the sequencing of the track list being modified, it's true that the MTV link isn't entirely clear on the numbering, but one of the advance copies of the CD more clearly shows an alternate track list, so I put that ref in. The formerly 19-numbered ref works for me, but I added archive links to all of the PDFs just in case.
Breaktheicees (
talk)
01:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment only It would be good if you could tidy up the main hook; you are linking to a disambiguation page, and another link is a redirect. Both are not permissible for the main page. Schwede6623:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Long enough, technically not new enough but for want of a few hours I'm not complaining. Both ALTs cited and short enough, though ALT0 is unlikely to be interesting to those unfamiliar with the names and ALT1 is only slightly better. No maintenance templates found, no neutrality issues found, no valid copyright concerns found. What makes ref #12 reliable?--Launchballer09:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BuySomeApples: I don't find the hooks that interesting, as they try to contain too much information and suffer for it; as DYK slots are currently under high demand, I won't be promoting them. Other promoters may disagree.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
02:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BuySomeApples: If you could come up with any more or tweak those ones, that'd be great. I'm not sure how I could shorten those while keeping them interesting at the same time. I appreciate the help!
Breaktheicees (
talk)
11:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That'd be how I'd punchify it, but I wouldn't really consider it an interestingness pass. It doesn't raise any questions, it's just relying on people to see "Britney Spears" and click (which they don't really do).
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The genres don't appear to be discussed in the body. A couple refs described them, but I don't think they made it into the article itself.
add "the" before Spice Girls
add "series actress" before Melissa Joan Hart
No need for refs in the
WP:LEAD since it is a summary of what's in the article.
Is there a source for the 700,000 copies? It looks like you might have just added up the US and Canada certification thresholds. That might be fine to mention, but it doesn't mean "worldwide".
Background
Where does it state that the sequencing was slightly modified? The ref link isn't numbered, so it's not clear to me that they were saying it was the ordered track listing.
Don't pipe "A&R", write it out as "artists and repertoire".
Where in the ref does it say Coburn was "instrumental"?
Fix ref order of 6, 3 so that it's 3, 6
Fix ref order of 7, 5
Fix ref order 10, 5
Reword the last sentence. It's a bit hard to follow.
I'm not sure the Spice Girls photo adds much to the article, but it's licensed properly.
Critical reception
Fine
Commercial reception
The RIAA and Music Canada links list the certification dates, so you might as well note them in the article
References
General comment: wikilink website, publisher, etc. If they are magazines and newspapers, make sure you a using "magazine=" or "newspaper=" to show the names in italics.
General comment: add access dates to all refs that are missing them. This helps for eventual archiving by bots.
General comment: Fix the date format of the refs to align with article body (month day, year)
10. This ref needs more detail so that readers can figure out what it is. I think it's a book? ISBN, etc.
18. This is the wrong date for the Billboard 200 link [it's the link for October 10, 1998 issue (which is also ref 5)].
19. This ref doesn't work. Can you see if an archive link exists? You can try using the bot:
[1]
22. This ref doesn't work.
Other thoughts and discussion
This looks pretty good and doesn't look like it needs much work. I'd recommend using the liner notes to add a Personnel section, however. This would also allow to add refs for the producers in the infobox.
On hold until revisions are made or responses to the above are received. Good job!
Grk1011 (
talk)
20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello! Should be good to go now. In regards to the sequencing of the track list being modified, it's true that the MTV link isn't entirely clear on the numbering, but one of the advance copies of the CD more clearly shows an alternate track list, so I put that ref in. The formerly 19-numbered ref works for me, but I added archive links to all of the PDFs just in case.
Breaktheicees (
talk)
01:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment only It would be good if you could tidy up the main hook; you are linking to a disambiguation page, and another link is a redirect. Both are not permissible for the main page. Schwede6623:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Long enough, technically not new enough but for want of a few hours I'm not complaining. Both ALTs cited and short enough, though ALT0 is unlikely to be interesting to those unfamiliar with the names and ALT1 is only slightly better. No maintenance templates found, no neutrality issues found, no valid copyright concerns found. What makes ref #12 reliable?--Launchballer09:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BuySomeApples: I don't find the hooks that interesting, as they try to contain too much information and suffer for it; as DYK slots are currently under high demand, I won't be promoting them. Other promoters may disagree.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
02:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BuySomeApples: If you could come up with any more or tweak those ones, that'd be great. I'm not sure how I could shorten those while keeping them interesting at the same time. I appreciate the help!
Breaktheicees (
talk)
11:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That'd be how I'd punchify it, but I wouldn't really consider it an interestingness pass. It doesn't raise any questions, it's just relying on people to see "Britney Spears" and click (which they don't really do).
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply