Talk:Fôrça Bruta

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Força Bruta. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209123636/http://www.jorgebenjor.com.br:80/sec_discos.php? to http://jorgebenjor.com.br/sec_discos.php

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) 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive of Subdivider link

[1] Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Força Bruta

Shouldn't the article be called "Força Bruta" without the accent? --Joalpe (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The title on both the album sleeve and record label is with the accent (image) Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Back then, it was written that way in Brazilian Portuguese. 177.136.98.33 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion of FAC review

This is a continuation of a review that began at this article's first FAC nomination. Since that review was very nearly complete when the nomination was closed by coordinators, I'm finishing it here for the benefit of nominator Dan56 with a future FAC in mind.

• "identity politics and elements of postmodernism" (in the lead) — While there's something vaguely Jordan Petersonian about that formulation, I think it's an apt description of what follows. At last, I will let go of my quibbling with that part of the lead.
• The new sentence about "Mulher Brasileira" is very good.
• "non Lusophones" — hyphenated probably, right?
• The new wording summarizing the McKean review is perfect.
• Andrew Bird sentence — reading it and your response again, I think the sentence placement is fine in the paragraph it's in. I do have these wording tweaks to suggest:

• "his guest column" —> "a guest column" (more natural; it's not "his" column, just his guest entry within an established column/magazine section)
• "violinist Andrew Bird" —> "indie rock musician Andrew Bird" — Bird is a multi-instrumentalist and singer, not just a violinist; besides, his association with a musical genre is more informative in this context than any particular instrument he plays. He's a musician from another tradition praising Fôrça Bruta. "Indie folk" would probably also be fine, probably better even. "Violinist" without qualifiers suggests classical or orchestral music.
• "while observing" —> "and observed" — More natural when read out loud, and makes more sense if you pare down the sentence to its most elemental structure. Compare "Andrew Bird wrote [something] while observing [something else]" and "Andrew Bird wrote [something] and observed [something else]"; the latter, strictly speaking, is more accurate: he didn't write the column while doing a separate act of observing, he wrote one thing and also wrote another thing (the second as an observation).

• Regarding the dead Rolling Stone Brasil link, you said Internet Archive capture will one day expire permanently. It is best to have it this way. WebCite is back up again, by the way. Be that as it may, that's not what the |url= part of a citation template is there for. Even if it's a dead link, |url= should point to the original link. The only reason I can think of not to include an original link there is if the link is not only dead, but the original site has been hacked and the link now redirects to a shock site or a virus or something like that. If you want to double up on archival links in case of calamity that destroys the Internet Archive's servers—a feeling of paranoia that I relate to, btw, as an obsessive for backing up links—just use <!-- a hidden comment --> and embed the back-up URL there.
• Regarding the Library of Congress citation: I had said I was confused by what information it was being used to cite to, and I recommended citing mid-sentence. You said "That's a bit tacky, including a citation mid-sentence. I don't see how this instance is any more or less obvious than the other instances of combined citations." I'll just say that my experience as a reader was that it was not obvious to me until it had been explained, and I can imagine other readers having the same confusion. I'm also always concerned, in my own work on the site, that if I don't make clear exactly which source points to which piece of information, some editor in the far-flung future (when I'm long-dead or too old to care about tending to my watchlist) will split a sentence, delete part of a sentence, or move a sentence in some way that totally wrecks the citation sequencing. That said, you've got your citation method and I don't see this as a serious problem (indeed, it may not even be an objectionable problem at all, formally, under FAC criteria; you've got your citation style and you're consistent in its use, and at the end of the day that's what counts.)
• Amoeba over WOMEX is a good choice.
• I think you've removed any instances of "believed" that bugged me. You're actually right to say that the real problem was the "in the magazine/review, he believed..." wording, not "believed" in general (heck, I'm sure I've used it somewhere).
• Really good catch on proving it was the April 20, 2009 issue of Time. I hate snippet view, don't you? Just the worst.

Tragically, the few comments above that are actual revision suggestions are not serious enough that it would have kept me from supporting, so I would have supported at this point. Naturally, I would support the article in any future FAC. (I'll even put it in bold here, as is customary. Why not?)

I'm really sorry, man. I really put you through the ringer for this review and you persevered. It's gotta be the most brutal and comprehensive FAC review I've ever given, but I only went this far in-depth because I felt the fundamentals were so strong, that on a basic level (research, organization, writing) it wasn't too far from FA condition. The effort you've put into this article is impressive, and doubly commendable given the under-representation of non-Anglosphere music on Wikipedia. It sounds like the coordinators may not have felt one more support would have been enough for consensus, but to whatever extent my dilly-dallying may have harmed the article's chances, I do apologize. I owe you one—one of what, I'm not sure (another review sometime? that probably doesn't sound too tempting after what I just put you through), but one all the same. —BLZ · talk 07:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I had it in mind to nominate Rock Albums of the Seventies after this one would be done, and your input would still be appreciated; this article really benefited from your review.

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Okay, I've resolved your remaining comments in these edits: specified in the footnote which part of the sentence is verified by each citation, hyphenated "non Lusophone", described Bird as an "indie rock musician" with "a guest column" who "observed...", and replaced the WebCite link with the original. Dan56 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)