Jump to content

Talk:Bleeding Through

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBleeding Through has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 10, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 24, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Genre

[edit]
  • I updated some info regarding guest members and former members on albums, and defined other small details. -Chris Cole, not signed in.

-- Vijay Singh, as in the golfer?? Is this serious or a joke?

I added an info box that contained a picture. I also got rid of the "History" heading and merged it with the single sentence blurb at the top.

  • Bleeding Through have NOTHING to do with melodic death. Neither so much with metalcore..As I Lay Dying, All That Remains, Parkway Drive and (recent) I Killed The Prom Queen are metalcore. Bleeding Through is simply modern hardcore, like Most Precious Blood and Hatebreed. Though they may differ they are what today's hardcore sounds like, METALcore is something else. Bleeding Through are as metal as Terror and Throwdown=absolutely not. So I deleted melodeath and added hardcore to their styles. They may sound like grindcore sometimes indeed, it should stay.. - xshadowzx, not signed in

Terror and Throwdown are metalcore bands also. As are bleeding through. As are Hatebreed. And Bleeding Through's riffs are closer to the metalcore bands you listed than to Hatebreed anyway.

Why cant you just accept that Terror, Throwdown and Hatebreed are what today's hardcore sounds like?? And that HARDCORE is an existing musical genre, not hardcore PUNK, not METALcore, HARDCORE. If you ask Jamey Jasta what style is Hatebreed he's gonna say hardcore. He may say it has some metal influence, and what if it has..it stays HARDCORE. It's Like with Ian McKaye and Embrace..when he got to know that he's band is considered "emocore" he said its the stupidest fucked up thing he's ever heard. Metalcore does exist, but those are gay fashion bands like The Devil Wears Prada. Other bands are hardcore like Terror and Hatebreed, or metal like As I Lay Dying and Unearth. They may have a sound that resembles each others style but that doesnt make em "metalcore". You are jerks.

Hardcore?

[edit]

I agree that metalcore is appropriate, but I also believe they are a hardcore punk band. Before anybody says these two genres are mutually exclusive, they're not necessarily. Metalcore has hardcore punk in it, as does hardcore. The difference, however, is that Bleeding Through are a LOT more hardcore than they are metal. As the "metalcore" band they are, they are (for example) 70% hardcore and 30% metal. Some of their songs are hardcore with very little influence from heavy metal, which would be more hardcore than metalcore, whereas other songs of theirs fall more under the metalcore category. So, if nobody wishes to dispute this, I will also add them as a hardcore punk band. James25402 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Youre telling me that Bleeding Through and Green Day are in the same category? You think Bleeding Through is hardcore punk, and Im assuming you think Green Day is also punk. So both Bleeding Through and Green Day are punk???

No. That is incorrect. Anybody in their right mind knows that. If you want to add hardcore punk as a genre, than Ill take it off, unless you have resources.71.227.92.106 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer71.227.92.106 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why you guys are arguing over this. Bleeding Through is like one of the most obvious examples of metalcore. They're definitely metalcore, just check the definition of the genre and then listen to any of their songs, or something. They have solos, for God's sake, they have melodic singing, and sure they also have breakdowns. But what kind of HC punk band has solos and melodic vocals, c'mon guys... Gocsa 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And those 70-30% things are not really true, it is more like fifty-fifty, especially with their newer stuff, e.g. the latest album has even more metal in it. And it doesn't matter if a band occassionally has different songs than its main genre. They had almost pure HC songs but their main stuff, and the singles they release, so their mainstream image is absolutely metalcore. Thanks for reading. Gocsa 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I never said that Bleeding Through is hardcore punk.Mezmerizer

I know, I know, James25402 said it, and there is another argument above about the whole genre thing, someone saying they're simply "hardcore" and that it is an existing genre. But of course, no, hardcore is just short for hardcore punk, and also for the hardcore techno (and maybe for other hardcore stuff, like hardcore rap etc. or hardcore porn...) but let's stay within heavy metal. The argument can be closed because they're a 100% metalcore, at least for the moment. Maybe it'll change with the next album who knows:D Gocsa 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. :D Mezmerizer 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - Failed

[edit]

See Good Article Criteria for further details.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

As of July 10, 2007, Bleeding Through does not meet all Good Article Criterion, failing in various places. To begin this assessment, the article needs, at least, one reference for each paragraph. In MANY situations, there aren't references for even three paragraphs in a row. The article is poorly written and littered with numerous neutrality and WP:OR issues. Some examples:

  • "...they embarked upon US nationwide touring in fall pitched in with AFI and Hot Water Music." The sentence makes absolutely no sense, and also needs a reference.
  • "These dates would propel the band into the American conscience albeit for all the wrong reasons." Horribly worded, and needs a reference.
  • "Traveling from Utah to a show in Colorado the group's vehicle hit black ice on the highway, spinning out of control." Not a complete sentence.
  • "A mobile TV unit, there to report on another crash, caught the entire incident on film as their equipment trailer rolled and exploded, showering their instruments and gear across the road. Fortunately the band escaped with only minor injuries (Johnson had a minor cut on his head), but due to this accident they had to drop off the "Pure Hatred" tour with Chimaira, Soilwork and As I Lay Dying.[13] The KSL-TV footage of the accident taking place can be viewed in Real Media format here. The dramatic televised footage was broadcast everywhere from CNN Headline News, Good Morning America, NBC News and even The Weather Channel." Needs many, many, many references. Furthermore, NO in-line embedded links are permitted.
  • "The following year kicked off with the band's "Mutilation Tour", which culminated in a triumphant soldout performance near their Orange County home that was captured on a live DVD, and from there saw them land a coveted spot on Ozzfest 2004, sharing the second stage alongside headline act Slipknot and fellow supports Unearth, Lamb of God, Every Time I Die, Hatebreed, Lacuna Coil and Atreyu." POV, needs references, and a run-on sentence. Soldout should be sold-out per WP:MOS.

Overall, the article is in fairly bad shape. A peer review is a good place to start. The above examples and outlines were taken from two paragraphs (in the same section, one after the other). Had I combed the article completely for any problems, the list would be far bigger. It needs a great deal of work before nominating it for another GAC. If you feel that this review has been conducted in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. NSR77 TC 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - Failed (2)

[edit]

Unfortunately, I must fail this article once again. While it is now OK with references, some NPOV problems still plague the article, showing great bias in favor of the band's actions. Also, the lead does not accurately summarize the article, as outline by WP:LEAD. NSR77 TC 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead needs work, but what are the NPOV problems? Why is it biased when I added both negative and positive reviews of albums, and I wrote that the latest album received lukewarm reviews etc. I deleted the opinions about any of their concerts, tours, or actions. Please give me some help. Gocsa 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA On Hold

[edit]

This article has been put on hold due to a lack of coverage. This article could also use the following sections:

  • Criticisms
  • Music Production and development
  • Performance on Charts

Thanks and have a nice day and feel free to contact me when these concerns are addressed. If you feel that this GA review is in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

[edit]

This article has passed the GA noms. For WP:FAC I would suggest adding a criticisms section, any more important information about the articles subject, and an A-class peer review by this articles relevant wikiproject. Tarret 16:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Death Metal? WTF?!

[edit]

Look, I understand that there are sources, but no, this is not a Melodic Death Metal. They are, however, Melodic Metalcore. Can we find any sources for that? 69.251.198.48 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Metalcore?......No Melodic Metalcore will sound like underoath,and bullet for my valintine,.bleeding through sounds nothing like those bands there more heavy than them (Haloblade345 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Two dead links and two redirects found using this tool. Ref #7 does not support the statement; other live references are OK.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, I am happy to confirm this article's GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree they are Metalcore (melodic or otherwise). But they are clearly not melodic death metal or symphonic black metal. I wouldnt mind questioning the sources... For example I see that bladdermouth is being used for symphonic black metal... that surely isnt considered reliable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.157.27 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Bleeding Through. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bleeding Through. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bleeding Through. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleeding Through. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
  • The article lots of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs.
  • There are "better source needed" tags for the Instagram citations that should be resolved.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely GAR. In addition to the concerns above, I'm concerned that the musical style and recent years of the band do not have enough breadth. The nominator is long retired and several of the GAs he had listed are already delisted. mftp dan oops 21:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: Would you be willing to bring this to WP:GAR? You can probably explain the article's concerns better than me. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can get around to it later this week probably. mftp dan oops 17:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll initiate this review tomorrow morning. mftp dan oops 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Bleeding Through

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan oops 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan oops 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan oops 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bleeding_Through&oldid=1258254729"