Talk:Tragic Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Well written
- The infobox serves to summarize parts of the article; therefore, I'd recommend moving the names of the studios – if you think they're important enough to mention – to the article body and just writing something like "Recorded: March 1993 – ______ at various studios in the Greater Los Angeles Area". DoneTezkag72 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Atlantic included in the infobox but not in the article? Not mentioned in the release history, either. DoneTezkag72 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The release history section doesn't add much and Wikipedia is not a directory. If you think the various formats deserve mention, include the info in the prose of the "Release and impact" section. DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I meant that the formats were the most relevant part of that section, and should be included in the prose if you think they're worthy of mention (personally, I don't). Nobody cares about labels and catalog numbers, and that's why the entire section should be cut. —Zeagler (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Done I removed the section altogether. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant Wikiproject disagrees. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The long quote from Tom Dumont would have more impact if it were cut down a bit. DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
- "The band started to work on its second album in 1993 but Interscope, having lost faith in the band" – citation for loss of faith? Done-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't find it on that page... —Zeagler (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changed ref. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still not seeing it...?

(outdent)Well we have: '"When we got back, though, the problems started." Stefani has resumed the story. "We were writing and writing, but Interscope was being really wishy-washy about letting us go in the studio. Things just kept getting dragged out... ."

"Months and months and months," emphasizes Young, shaking his head. "We were going insane."' from the source. I'll track down something else if that isn't obvious enough. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a new source: 'Things weren't always so rosy for No Doubt. Three difficult years have passed since the release of the group's self-titled debut on Interscope. Shortly after the album's delivery, the record label mysteriously pulled its support for the project, leaving the band to finance a tour on its own. Undaunted, the group spent the first part of '93 working on new music, turning out roughly 50 fresh songs. They found a producer to work with, approached the record company with all their ideas and were indefinitely put on hold.' -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all solid info (and it should be incorporated into the article at some point), but calling it a loss of faith is still a leap. Probably best to remove that clause and not attribute a motive until a reference is found that backs it up unequivocally. —Zeagler (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Fixed[reply]

- "No Doubt performed on the Warped Tour...and at several skateboarding festivals." – wouldn't hurt to add a couple citations to show the band performed at other skateboarding festivals. Done by Escape Artist Swyer. Tezkag72 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I wasn't too worried about the Warped Tour, but "several skateboarding festivals" is sufficiently vague that it deserves some citations. —Zeagler (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) DoneTezkag72 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the stage design info included in reference [51]?
  - I don't know what to do about that. I can't exactly just go and buy the thing. Web citations are better because anyone can check them. But I don't think the info should be removed, at least not yet, because whoever put that must have used that as a reference. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Believe it or not, my university's library has the issue in question. I'll check it when I get a chance. —Zeagler (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that reference includes all that information. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So I guess it's Done now. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice inconsistencies in the way references are cited. Would be a good idea to convert all to the {{cite web}}, etc., templates.
  - This is the only remaining issue. I can take care of this myself, but it will probably take a few days. Feel free to help out... —Zeagler (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't know a cite web template if it hit me in the face, but I'll brush up on it and lend a hand. Hopefully this can all be finished within the week limit (ends 23rd). -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage
- I think the mention of the band's releasing two singles from The Beacon Street Collection independently goes beyond the scope of the article, especially since the "independent" point is made in the surrounding sentences.
  - Hmmm... I'd prefer to keep the mention as an important part of ND's background: hey, they released singles! If it's vital they go, then sure, but it's just a brief mention of what happened with Beacon Street and its success.-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Including in the prose all the chart placements of the singles makes for a difficult read. Maybe it can be summarized a bit. —Zeagler (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias
- Lots of POV phrases with regard to sales numbers and chart positions – just stick to the numbers DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "performed moderately well", "commercially successful", "crossover success", "greatest hit", "commercial failure", "modest success", etc. DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - others remain —Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tell me where, so I can go there and try to fix 'em. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Search the page for "commercial failure", "moderately well", "commercially successful", "crossover success", "greatest hit", "modest success", "success", "poorly", and "commercial success".
        Done, although I'd like to keep a single mention of "commercial success" in the release and impact section. If an album that goes diamond in the US and Canada, platinum in the UK and 3 x platinum is Australia isn't a commercial success, I don't know what is. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All right, fix the two "commercial failure" instances and we'll call it good. Either replace with sales numbers or reword (and cite) to make it clear that Interscope considered it a failure.
5. Stable
- OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
- A picture of the stage set-up from the tour would be helpful – have you searched Flickr?

The most I can find is a ticket stub here. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you've addressed these issues or if you'd like to discuss further. Nice job so far. —Zeagler (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...are we ready to go? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]