Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Uncle Tupelo discography

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support (including nomination statement), 1 oppose. Promote. ~ Sebi _[talk] 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Self nomination. Completely comprehensive list that resembles other semi-obscure band lists (The Make Up, Lightning Bolt). Comments will be addressed quickly, so feel free to lay them on me. Teemu08 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Great work on the list! -- Underneath-it-All 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks pretty good, and I'm happy to see some article's I've worked on being copied! However, there are a few things I noticed:

• The image should go, since it is Fair-Use. I had a similar issue with the Make-Up discography, and the same issue was raised with the Breeder's discog nomination. I was advised that Fair-Use images shouldn't be in discog articles at all. Take a look at the question I raised at WP:FUC (here).
• I'm really hesitant about saying that No Depression become synonymous with a genre. I admit to knowing almost nothing about the subject, but that seems like POV (even though it's referenced).
• Speaking of which, what the heck is a "byword"? I'd recommend changing that.
• The sentence(s) "The band released its first three albums though independent label Rockville Records. However, Rockville refused..." are worded awkwardly (mainly the "However").
• "Farrar formed Son Volt and the other members formed Wilco" I'd recommend changing "other members" to "Tweedy and Heidron".
• Speaking of which, there were more than 3 members, right? The article only mentions the original 3.
• Is it really necessary to wikilink "German"?

Other than that stuff the list looks pretty good. I'd be happy to give my support if you can take care of the above. Drewcifer 04:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply I've addressed these comments as best as I can. I understand the POV concerns, but these aren't exactly indie blogs calling the genre "No Depression"—its All Music Guide and the New York Times. I reworded the intro a bit to include more of the band membership, hopefully it will make better sense now to those unfamiliar with the band. Teemu08 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Most of the changes look good. However, I'm still concerned with the synonymous with alt-country thing. Upon closer inspection of the sources, they really don't back that claim up. The NYT article doesn't even mention No Depression, while the Real Music one doesn't say anything close to what you are claiming. Also, upon second look, I've noticed that the lead as a whole doesn't summarize the list at all. As a (self-serving) example, take a look at the Make-Up/LB discogs: there's a paragraph in each that says "___ band has x albums, y singles, and z eps." or something like that. All in all, my personal recommendation to fix the intro would be to remove the second paragraph altogether (since I honestly don't think it's sourcable/verifiable) and replace it with more of a dry summary. Though I'll leave it up to you to figure out the best approach. Also the same holds true for the bullet point in the No Depression row in the actual discography. Drewcifer 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I removed the second paragraph entirely and switched out a source on the No Depression thing. Teemu08 22:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Great job! Drewcifer 19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose If other articles are any indications, there should be articles for the regular singles.
  • Did they made any chart or sales certification? (was just checking)
  • I'm not convinced the first two notes for No Depression are necessary, especially as one is mentioned in the lead.
  • We normally list the B-sides separately Still iffy about it, though.
  • Is the "Long hour" single the same thing as the one mentioned under "miscellaneous"? (not actually clarified)
  • The "re-released" comments under "miscellaneous" are unclear: do they apply to the album or only the song?
• Circeus 06:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I've clarified that the albums were re-released, not the songs. I also removed the citation from the No Depression box. The only piece of material by Uncle Tupelo to chart is the 89-93 compilation. I could put something in the comment box about it, but I don't see a reason to have a column for chart peaks if there's only one. Also, B-sides are typically listed with A-sides if none of the A-sides charted (see the two examples in the nomination paragraph). Teemu08 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know the criteria for lists, so I withhold a bolded opinion, but a couple of things I noticed and would fix myself if I had the time: The re-releases should mention the new labels and maybe catalog numbers (Anodyne was re-released by Rhino, not Legacy); I've never seen a different cover art for Still Feel Gone for the UK, and amazon.co.uk shows only the standard cover; not sure if the repackaged SFG/March LP can be considered a "compilation" (a footnote might be more appropriate); otoh the What's That Noise disc was a compilation, probably going under "Miscellaneous" (which should be renamed "Contributions"), as it also featured songs by Cordelia's Dad, the Fellow Travellers and Swell iirc. Also, comments on in print/out of print would be useful. ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Thought I had already voted on this. Great job! --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)