Jump to content

Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this one as soon as I'm done with Hermética. My apologies for waiting this long for a reviewer.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating another list (incomplete, moreover), is not so useful when we have already the complete list. I have also removed AllMusic and Discogs links which stand better at Thirty Seconds to Mars discography.
Per WP:WPMAG, awards should be presented in bulleted list; Referring to the list being incomplete, the discography list is also incomplete. However, the point is to present their most important work, as well their most important accolades. If the reader want complete list, there always that "Main article" template.
It's written nowhere that we should present awards in bulleted list. Their most important accolades are presented with that short paragraph which is very similar to the one of other good articles (see Coldplay, for example).
Intro
  • no need for original stylization of the band's name since it's not a big deviation from the currently written name
Of course, it is, but "30 Seconds to Mars" was the official stylization and there are many reliable sources that still use it. Should I leave it?
The only difference is "Thirty" from "30". I'll leave the decision to you.
I think we should leave it since there are other users that want it to stay [1].
  • "but only to limited success"→does this means it was not commercially successful? Can you make it more precise?
Done.
  • you need to mention that EMI is a record label, otherwise the first-time reader might be confused
See below.
  • split the sentence. The information regarding their fourth studio album should be written in another sentence.
Fixed the sentence. There was an incorrect information; EMI was sold to Universal Music, so the band moved to the latter. There's no need to have two separate sentences.
Looks good.
  • lose "As of May 2013"
It's important to mention it, especially when the figure does not include every album's sales.
You mean in those numbers isn't calculated the last album. The thing is we can always update the number if there some journal that will report new sales. Besides, in today's market, sales don't rise significantly during a single year.
Yes, that's what I mean. For this reason we should leave it.
  • delink tours and festivals since it's directly connected to the theme
Could you be more specific? Why should I delink them?
Per WP:OVERLINK→everyday words understood by most readers in context. I'm not an English speaker, but I do know what a tour and festival is.
Sorry, I thought they were not linked. I've just fixed it.--Earthh (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its fusion of many music genres"→for fusing many music genres
Done.
Musical style
  • replace tone with style
Done.
  • the comma should be after the quote mark
It should be before quote mark, see MOS:QUOTE
Correct.
  • I don't think "sampling from" is grammatically correct. It can be sampling only or "including samples from"
It means that the album fused those genres. "including samples from" has a different meaning.
In that case, it should be re-worded (sampling is something completely different). Why don't you say it combined musical characteristics from X and Y?
Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an ambitious collection of experimental rock"→This is an opinion from the Rolling Stone reviewer, which means it can't be presented as a fact. If you don't want to mention the author, drop "an ambitious collection of" and write that the album was rooted in the experimental rock genre or something in that spirit.
It says that the album was considered, so it's clear that it is an opinion.
Sounds good.
  • generally speaking, this is a very well written sections. Easy to understand even for reader who's not familiar with the band
Thanks :) Earthh (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went through the "Activism" sections and haven't found anything that needs special attention. More notes to follow.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from some minor issues with the prose the article passes the other criteria. I'll make these corrections myself since it would take me longer to bring them here than do them myself. You can go through the "History" section too and fix any mistakes you find.--Вик Ретлхед (talk)
I did not find any mistakes, thanks for your contributions :) Earthh (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional notes
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars retreated to the isolation of Wyoming's country in 2001"→re-shape this, doesn't read quite well
Shall we use "countryside"? I find nothing wrong with this, it's so simple.
That will work.
Fixed.
  • "sought out"→contacted or appointed
Done.
  • "selling 121,000 copies in the United States alone."→Is this the number for overall sales and why is "alone" needed?
Removed "alone".
  • "a critic felt that"→name the critic
Done.
  • what is "slow-burning success"?
It means that the album attained success years after its release.
"attained commercial success years after its release" is way better than "slow-burning success" (not sure if that's a phrase)
It's a term used in the music industry (such as "sleeper hit" for films). It's normally used in other music articles (for example, see this good article), we should leave it.
I haven't heard it. But if exist, then let it be.
  • omit "as of March 2011" (the album was released while ago, so it doesn't need a date)
I'm not removing it since it's important to mention that reference point.
Will it sell another 5 millions this year? We don't put dates about sales for older albums. There's no reason to write Metallica sold 30 million copies as of 2011, because it was released in 1991 and it didn't sell additional 10 million copies in the meantime.
It's not written that an album sold 10 million copies, it's written that the band has sold 10 million albums as of May 2013. There's no reason to omit that reference date.
  • "televised appearance"→appearance on television
There's nothing wrong with "televised appearance".
OK
  • "Released in 2003, "Edge of the Earth" became the second single from the album."→The second single from the album, "Edge of the Earth", was released in 2003.
I find better the current version, otherwise we'll have a phrase ending with 2003 and the following one beginning with 2003.
OK
  • "due to issues primarily related to touring and Tomo Miličević successfully auditioned for the part of guitarist"→primarily is not needed and split the sentence saying in which you say Tomo Miličević took his place.
Done.
  • "to begin work on their second album A Beautiful Lie, with Josh Abraham producing."→"to begin working"; split the sentence, saying Josh Abraham was the producer; "with Josh Abraham producing" is awkward at least
Fixed. Two separate sentences are not necessary.
  • "The band travelled to four different continents to accommodate Jared Leto's acting career."→"traveled" is the correct spelling, "different" is sufficient; "to accommodate Jared Leto's acting career" (what is this trying to say?)
Fixed.
  • "A Beautiful Lie differed notably from the band's debut album, both musically and lyrically"→"A Beautiful Lie was notably different from the band's debut album, from both musical and lyrical aspect"
Fixed.
  • It was led by "Attack"→It's lead single, "Attack"...
Fixed.
  • " in 2007 and 2008 respectively"→comma after 2008
Added.
  • "was released as the fourth single in selected territories"→reword this mentioning the countries it was released in
There's no way to mention every single country in which the single was released, it's impossible and useless.
Can you at least mention something in the manner like "European countries" or "North America", so the reader can have a basic idea what are the "selected territories"?
We know that the single was released in most of the European countries and the US, but it was not released in the United Kingdom and other countries. I think "Selected territories" it's enough for a basic idea.
Then write that it was released in the US and some/majority of the European countries, because "selected territories" can be any country in the world.
It will be not complete in that way. The single was not released only in the US and Europe, but also in South America and other countries, I suppose. It's impossible to list every single country in which it was released, it will be incomplete. Sorry, but I don't see any kind of problem with "selected territories".
Readers might think of some African countries as well under "selected territories". That contradicts the first GA criteria→The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently.
Look, the meaning of the sentence is clear and not confusing; when you read that the single was released in selected territories you have the idea that it was not available in every country around the world. What is not clear is a list of countries since (1) this list will never be complete (where do you find a source that says the single was released in those countries??) and (2) it will appear useless and confusing to the reader, and this strongly contradicts the GA criteria. How would you express this sentence? Do you want a list of countries? With "selected territories" we give the basic idea and it's the best way to express that. I seriously don't understand what's the problem with that. At Thirty Seconds to Mars discography, which is a featured list, we have a similar sentence with the same meaning and during the FLC, it didn't provoke any kind of problem. From the Good article criteria: the page addresses the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Can you at least change that "selected territories" into "a number of countries"?
Can you explain to me what's the difference between "selected territories" and "a number of countries"? I will change it if it will improve the article.
You're not obligated to change it if you think it won't improve the quality of the article. I'm just making suggestions, it's up to you to decide whether you'll make the corrections or not.
  • "Its music video was shot"→"filmed" instead of "shot"
Fixed.
  • "At the 2008 MTV Europe Music Awards in November"→drop "in November"
Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars began work on their third studio album"→began to work or began working (think the second one is more grammatically correct)
Fixed.
  • "the band worked"→"hired" to avoid overusing "worked"
I've changed it in the previous sentence.
  • "Thirty Seconds to Mars found themselves at war with their label"→if they had some disputes with the label, that doesn't mean they were engaged in war
Fixed.
  • the following sentence (The band had attempted...) is way too long and should be split
Fixed.
  • contracted→under contract
Not done to avoid overusing "contract".
  • "resolved our differences with EMI"→lose the quote marks saying their instead of ours
Done.
  • countries instead of territories
Done.
  • "with previous collaborator Steve Lillywhite"→collaborator may refer to producer, engineer, singer, etc, but from the context of the sentence, I assume that Lillywhite was a producer as well. To avoid being confusing, you can write that the album was produced by Jared Leto and Steve Lillywhite, who produced their previous record.
Not done. The previous paragraph claims that he served as a producer on the third album. Then this sentence says "The album was produced by Jared Leto with previous collaborator Steve Lillywhite" so it's clear that he is a producer.
  • "In September 2012, Artifact, a documentary about the band's legal battle against the record label EMI and the making of This Is War, premiered at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival and won the People's Choice Documentary Award."→you can drop "In September 2012", or compose something like "at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival held in September that year", but I prefer omitting the date.
Omitted the second "2012".
  • "available to download"→available for downloading
Done.
  • At the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards held on August 25→comma after Awards
Done.
  • the time-length of the audio samples of "The Kill" isn't according to WP:SAMPLE→10% of the length of the original song. The remaining samples have adequate rationale and appropriate timing. The images are under free-use, which means there are no copyright restrictions.
This is pretty much it. I'll list the issues which remained unresolved and I consider they should be addressed, and ask for a second opinion. After that, I'll come with the verdict whether the article will pass or fail.
Unresolved issues
  • bulleted list for "Awards"
  • dates for album sales released while ago
  • the cite is not a full sentence, the comma goes outside the quote marks→MOS:QUOTEMARKS
  • "was an ambitious collection of experimental rock"→only one critic said this, and it is presented like it is the general opinion
  • is the phrase "slow-burning success" appropriate for usage in that context?
  • again, date for sales of an album released quite awhile (12 years if I'm not wrong)
  • "televised appearance" or "appearance on television"?
  • the issue with "selected territories"
  • the note with Steve Lillywhite described as collaborator

Hi, I've been asked to give a second opinion, which is as follows:

Done.
  • Dates for album sales - specific dates are required to pass a GA per the "words to watch" part of criteria 1b. See WP:REALTIME
Good.
  • MOS:QUOTEMARKS - doesn't really matter, GA criteria 1b only specifies five parts of the MOS you must adhere to, so if you can't agree, just drop it
Ok.
  • "was an ambitious collection" - should be attributed to a specific author. Again, words to watch
Done.
  • "slow burning success" - doesn't mean anything, I'd go with "The album had sold two million copies worldwide by March 2011"
It is actually a term which is normally used, try to search for it on google. I'll remove it if it's not appropriate.
  • "televised appearance" vs "appearance on television" - I'd go with the latter
Added "appearance on television".
  • "selected territories" is too vague - need to specify exactly which countries it was released in. See WP:WHATPLACE
The single was not released in just two countries. Should I list fifty countries?
  • "collaborator" - I prefer this as it stops the word "producer" being used repetitively
Good.

A couple of other things I noticed:

  • You need to watch claims in the lead - everything there must be mentioned in the body. For example, the claim for selling 10 million albums is not mentioned in the body.
In which paragraph should I write that the band sold overall 10 million albums? It should stay in the lead.
  • The reason for Matt Wachter's departure from the band is unsourced - "spending time with my family" can be a cover-up for "I hate the band but don't want to fall out with them"
Added a source.--Earthh (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what to do, it doesn't look too far off passing if the issues here are the only ones outstanding. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: keep "slow burning success", adapt the length of the sample "The Kill" per WP:SAMPLE, keep the total sales in the lead since there isn't a suitable place in the article's body, figure out something to replace that "selected territories" (North America/majority of the European countries, or an idea of your own) and we can finally close this review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Earthh (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't keep information in the lead that isn't in the body per WP:MOSLEAD - it won't meet the GA criteria otherwise. If you can't find a suitable place in the article's body, the information should be removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at other good articles about groups or singers. Removing an important information such as sales figure will certainly not improve the page.--Earthh (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've decided to close the nomination as successful. One small issue shouldn't ruin the hard work here. Congratulations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the Manual of Style and contrary to what I said, WP:MOSLEAD doesn't explicitly say every single piece in the lead should go in the body, merely a general summary (overall sales) should be expanded in the body (individual sales). So it does pass the GA criteria. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all :) Earthh (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars/GA1&oldid=1082474569"