Jump to content

Talk:New Model Army (band)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ethical Code?

The intro states that they are known for their 'ethical code' but never directly states what it is appart from through obscure references Mjbowell 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Image

Added image I shot of Justin Sullivan, and an infobox. -- Xinit 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Could some-one find an image of the new album that is not copyrighted? Due to it having been released, thought it should be added. Could someone also edit the bottom box, tried looking into it but it looked complicated. _DR.

 Done--JD554 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Carnival

The linking of the Carnival wikipedia article from the name of the NMA album here seems pointless...J-Deeks 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, it should be linked to Carnival (New Model Army), like in the discography. I've fixed it. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 20:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article lacks objecivity. New Model Army was criticized in the 1980s for signing with a major label. See the interview with Flux of Pink Indians in Maximumrocknroll no. 64, September 1988, at www.operationphoenixrecords.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.121.135 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (Moved here from article by David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)).

The Overview section tells me that I "should" view them this way or that and reads like a convoluted apologia rather than a Wikipedia article. This section should be re-written. --SianMycock 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This reads to me like a fansite, with little or no objectivity. The 'Biography' section is nothing of the sort - there is no account of how the band came to be, nor any chronology in respect of personnel, releases, popularity, critical reaction etc. I believe the entire page needs an objectivity overhaul. Furry Canary 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The article would actually be more acceptable if it declared NMA God's gift to music rather than presenting condescending long-winded arguments to the same point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.59.56 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --JD554 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved here from article

Main contributors

Why is Nelson not listed as one of the main contributors?

Trivia

Followers

This group has followers called the Rusk Hobbits 81.102.15.200 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Joolz

I thought Justin and Joolz were an item? http://www.emusic.com/artist/New-Model-Army-MP3-Download/11573572.html lists them as "lifelong romantic partners" and http://www17seconds.blogspot.com/2008/04/joolz-denby-poet-artist-legend.html calls Joolz Justin's long-term partner" but http://threeimaginarygirls.com/liveshowreview/2008feb/justinsullivannewmodelarmyacousticshow names Joolz as Justin's wife. (OK this last one is hardly a marriage certificate)

I also found a reference to Joolz as an early manager of the band at http://www.twbooks.co.uk/crimescene/Joolzinterview.html which I never knew about78.146.124.77 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fans and fashion

Is it worth mentioning the fans? NMA's followers are arguably more devoted than most bands'. And what about the fans' popularisation of clog-wearing and celtic armband tattoos?Ellwd (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Visa issues

I just noticed the part about the band having their U.S. visas denied a couple of years ago. This is not the first such occurrence: in 1987 (possibly late '86), U.S. immigration laws (or policies?) changed such that it became more difficult for foreign musical groups to enter and tour the U.S. There was some kind of threshold of notability (to use a Wikipedia concept). My recollection is that New Model Army were initially denied visas, so at a concert in the U.K. they berated their audience. This raised the group's visibility in the press to the point that when they re-applied for the visas, they were approved. I can't remember where I read about this at the time, and I'm not sure I could find the source 23 years later. FWIW they had notable U.S. visibility at this time, as "51st State" was in regular rotation on MTV's (then-new) 120 Minutes program. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited references to the U.S. visa situation are now included in the main article.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vagabonds

No mention is made of their minor hit "Vagabonds and Children" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.49.85 (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New Model Army (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll add comments below as I go through. It might take me a couple of days to get through the article.

  • The given source says the band were formed in the autumn of 1980, not in October. October was the date of their first gig. It also doesn't say that Justin Sullivan's nickname or stage name (not sure which is intended) was "Slade The Leveller", nor does it mention Thomas Fairfax.
  • Changed to autumn, cited Slade the Leveller and Fairfax
  • What makes twbooks.co.uk a reliable source? It appears to be someone's self-published hobby site.
  • Removed
  • There's no source for the statement that Joolz Denby is their art designer.
  • Sourced, and moved, it's not important enough for the lede
  • "The band eschews the typical commercialism and trappings of the music business, for example playing charity concerts or benefits without any promotion": the given source is Joolz Denby writing on the NMA website. This isn't a very good source for statements that assess the band; websites created by a band about themselves fall into the self-published category and can only be used for uncontroversial factual statements about the subject of the site.
  • Removed
  • I understand the intent of having an overview section, but that's what the lead is for. Once you've addressed the comments on this section, I think you'd be better off moving some of this material up into the lead.
  • Done
  • I think "patronage" is too strong a word for John Peel's involvement. I know how influential Peel was in those days, and certainly if he played their singles and made approving comments that would have helped them, but all the source says is that he played the singles frequently on his show. I don't think you can go beyond that.
  • Done
  • The given source doesn't say they played on The Tube, only that Gray described them.
  • Found another source using the word "introduced"
  • There's no source for the comments about the song "Vengeance"; the following source only discusses Heaton.
  • I've used the primary source of the NMA website for this; it's not important enough to worry about though and could be changed just to mention the songs that were played.
  • The first part of "The major label years" section is unsourced.
  • I've added some cites. Going to carry on with the rest of the article now... might take another day or two.
    OK; I see you're working in a sandbox so I won't verify the changes you've made just yet. No hurry; just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look at the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to stop there and let you address some of these. If you hadn't waited so long for a review, I'd consider failing this immediately; there's a lot of work to do just in few paragraphs I've looked at so far. If you'd like to work on it I'll keep going but I think you'd be better off letting me fail it and working to clean up these issues before renominating it. I'd be happy to give you comments on the rest of the article on the talk page if you want me to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything above looks good now. I'll go through again and add notes below.

  • There's no need for citations in the lead except after a direct quote. Everything in the lead should also be in the body, and since it should be cited in the body it's unnecessary to repeat the cite in the lead. Personally, if I use a quote in the lead, I also use it in the body, but others don't do that -- sometimes a quote is a nice summarization for the lead, though often that means it can serve the same purpose towards the end of the article body, too.
  • Can you provide citations for the information in the timeline? One way to do this is to have an introductory sentence or a caption, saying something like "Timeline showing when each major contributor was in the band, and which instruments they played", and adding the footnote to the end of that.
    • Done. I've used the official biography here because it's more accurate than other bios (i.e. it'll say "July 19xx" rather than "after the release of album X" but I've included the other sources as well.)
  • In 'Sullivan and Heaton's "musical paths had diverged" ' why is "musical paths had diverged" in quotes? It doesn't appear to be a quote from either source given.
    • Now ... I added that, where did I get it from? I can only think that might've been a quote from the "Dog and Wolf" film but I've replaced it with Sullivan's quote from the web interview which is probably better anyway. (Edit: it was from the film. Not to worry.)

-- I've now done a complete pass, and the above points are the only issues that I spotted. I still need to check image copyrights and do a few more spotchecks on sources, but otherwise this meets the GA criteria. I'll try to get to the image and source checks this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks good; images are fine; source spotcheck turned up no issues, so I'm passing this. Congratulations on your first GA! If I can help with any questions on any future articles, please just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mike! Thanks for all your help. I shall start on my next one now :) Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ [2]
  2. ^ [3]
  3. ^ [4]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Model_Army_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=815366621"