Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know/Kekal discography

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

Kekal discography

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk)

  • Reviewed:

Created by 3family6 (talk). Self nom at 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Done.--¿3family6 contribs 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. First, the HM Magazine item only mentions that Azhar Levi left, but nothing about the other members (appears to have been Leo and Jeff at that time). Second, all the subsequent sources about new material are just statements by the musicians through their own website and through social media. There's no reliable independent secondary source there. cmadler (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. cmadler (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interest: The release of albums after breakup is not unusual. I think what is most unusual here is that they are releasing albums of newly recorded music even after breakup.

cmadler (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specified in hook.--¿3family6 contribs 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. cmadler (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article

So is the sourcing good?--¿3family6 contribs 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've stripped out the self-published and dubious reliability sources. This makes it clear to me that the sourcing in the prose is a little light, but sufficient for DYK. However, entire sections of the discography itself are now uncited; reliable independent sources need to be added for this material. cmadler (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add third party sources, but why did you remove all the first person sources? Under WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources can be used as reliable sources about themselves, which in this case is what they are being used for. I understand the need for third party sources, and those I will add, but what is the problem with using the band's own websites and interviews for details about their own history and discography?--¿3family6 contribs 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the requirements is that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." My opinion is that in this case it was excessive, since whole sections of the discography were sourced solely to them. Another requirement is that "it does not involve claims about third parties", but stating that a particular label released an album is a claim about a third party. cmadler (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the Wikipedia article on Third-party sources, and from my experience working on music articles, a record label would be a second or even first party source. Also, I'm working on getting more third party sources in the article, when that is done should I move the references back in?--¿3family6 contribs 15:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is now adequate. cmadler (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added the link to a Facebook post in which the band has released permission to use images. This particular image was uploaded before this post, and the link was never added. It should be good now.--¿3family6 contribs 16:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that release is sufficient. I've requested comment at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Suitable release? (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you've done anything wrong, I'm just trying to make sure the article is "clean" before it goes through to the Main Page.) Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Commons discussion, I've requested clarification in that Facebook thread. So as not to delay this DYK appearance any further, I've removed the image from the article. It can be re-added once the licensing/release issue is resolved. cmadler (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion:

I noticed that there are DYK articles for Indonesian Independence day. Would this be a good candidate?--¿3family6 contribs 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the issues raised above can be addressed. cmadler (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with normal discography standards, so if other concerns are resolved I won't hold up a DYK appearance for this, but listing all the cover songs they've recorded doesn't really seem significant. Unless there's a specific reason this should be included, I'd suggest removing that section, especially since all but one are either on an album listed elsewhere in the article or are "unreleased". The one remaining is "Mind Distant", and perhaps the Living Sacrifice tribute album should be added to the list of collaborations. Again, that's just my $0.02, and assuming my other concerns are addressed, I won't reject it for DYK for just that. cmadler (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about the cover songs, so I'll rework that section.--¿3family6 contribs 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was asked by 3family6 via my user talk page to comment here on self-published sources and how they would relate to the musician/band publishing about a respective album being released by a label. In my personal experience, although I did it at first, I have backed away from sighting official websites of bands and have removed their citations from articles. However, I guess the WP:SELFPUBLISH principle states that such websites, along with other first-party accounts, are not entirely forbidden from being sources on Wikipedia. With that said, I have cited posting from bands and/or affiliated parties before. Examples include Myspace blogs (that's the only thing I have sourced on Myspace, though, in recent history), Tumblr posts, and even, less confidently and less preferrably, Twitter tweets. I have also sourced blogs with posters whose identity is either not in question or is inherently affiliated with the musical project, if not a member thereof. Therefore, I guess that official websites can be sourced for details concerning albums' record labels, but that is not the first place I'd look; I would want to make sure that other sources are exhausted or unusable before I would want to think about citing a source on an official website. The case with Kekal having no official members is an interesting and unique case, as I can't think of any other bands that have done what Kekal has done. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. The article now has a good deal of independent sourcing, but for some of the details I'll have to use some self-published material. But now the article will not rely majorly off that material.--¿3family6 contribs 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know/Kekal_discography&oldid=1138530361"