Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wedlock (band)/1

Wedlock (band)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Listed as Good article. All concerns raised have either been explained or addressed. The article has potential for expansion, but currently meets the WP:GACR. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While being respectful of the previous assessment, there are a few minor points of disagreement that I feel are grounds for reassessing this submission.

In this article, while reference number 17 doesn't seem to go their Billboard Chart History Reviews and Biography, this seems to be because that entire site is being re-vamped. There would be several artists that had live links to this as a reference, but currently the site is out of sorts. Dead links don't look good in an article, but is that grounds for it to fail the GA test?

The editor said the article mentioned the GBLT charts "a lot". When reading the article I only really saw one mention for that regarding their Exogamy album. The GBLT chart is a real chart.Believe it's been in existence since 1996?

While there may be too many for the editor to list, what were some of the grammatical errors making the article "hard to follow?" It seemed to adhere to the topic just fine and it made sense. Was the over all tone not encyclopedic enough?

The sound file was called "Cuts Both Ways," not "Cute Both Ways," and it mentioned their lead vocalist, but not as another artist.Agreed it should be labeled "Wedlock" as a way to depict what the journalist was saying in the review, but I think it was just poorly labeled.

The images definitely need those permissions, but I'm puzzled as to why the other editor was "puzzled" by their 2009 photo.From what I can tell, it's just another picture of the band? Over all improvements are needed, but not because of the band's notability. If the goal of W is to have good quality articles, is it naive to say let's take on a more positive encouraging tone while still maintaining high encyclopedic standards? - AnotherGenericUser (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons and I'm sure my decision will stick. I revised my review on the GBLT charts and neutrality. Some grammatical errors such as ("Wedlock brings a contemporary edge to a beloved decades-old musical stencil "), ("a nervous, discordant drip of blips & tones, and a whirl of kaleidoscopic synths" ), those are a few grammatical errors that confuse me and make it hard to follow. I didn't fail it on the basis of notability or because of reference number 17 (which you haven't fixed correctly) I'm aware that they have revamped their site but I have done other reviews with people having issues with Billboard but they were still able to fix them. I really wish you would have notified me of this community re-assesment and I'm slightly tired of getting criticized for my reviews. I take the time to do reviews and suggest improvements and all I get is crap, I don't ever get any thank-you's for some of the work I do. I'll admit I'm not perfect, but I'm trying JayJay^{What did I do?}

I know you are trying and I'm sorry for not approaching you privately first. Maybe I just perceived your tone in the review as condescending. I am not perfect either, and this may be another example of why I'm not. The journalistic quotes could have been clearer, you're right;I hadn't considered that when I read the full article.Yes, 17 needs to be corrected.If you know of an effective way of dealing with this please advise.It seems for now the Billboard site is messing up many artist profiles and the link is just not a good source right now. Your time is valuable. I am sure the people who write and submit articles for your review feel their time and effort is valuable as well. In the spirit of W community and making articles better let me offer you a public handshake and thank you for the review in the first place. AnotherGenericUser (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference 17 I could find anything on the Billboard charts and I even tried seeing if I could find anything on the Wayback machine. Nothing, although I did find it on Google but still gave me a dead link. Right not I have removed it. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'm thinking if you found it on Google that shows it was there, but if removing the link is the best thing for the article, then that's the way it has to be for now until the site gets sorted out. But taking note, as of January 2013 that site contained several reviews, editorially vetted profile/biography, and chart history. But you're right, what isn't there NOW, isn't there. Thanks for taking the time to search it out.AnotherGenericUser (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've tagged all dead links from this article and from related articles. I think dead links shouldn't necessarily preclude the article from being promoted to 'Good Article' while the article meets other criteria. Thanks, Nickaang (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this article meets GA criteria? JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay,Jay, can you tell me if I did the fair use rationale thing right for Wedlock sound file "Cuts Both Ways"? I gave a reason, but wasn't sure of any further steps involved. It's mainly because it was their first single getting any critical acclaim and thinking the sample would be proper for people to hear. Is there another template or declaration that's needed?Please let me know Thanks SlowFatKid (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I reworked the quotations to make them more NPOV and readable. Monstermarch (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JayJay has asked me to look at this. I have had a look at the article and think the prose still needs some work. Some of the sentences are overly long. I also think a problem is that it assumes knowledge. The formation jumps straight into the albums without introducing the band members. The lead contains some information, but it should really be in the body. The pictures seem fine (the song has been deleted though), but the media section doesn't fit. It should probably avoid using ambiguous times as if something changes the article becomes false. There seem to be a few editors working on this so it should be able to meet the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Aircorn, I had asked JayJay about the sound file, but he didn't respond. The song's been deleted because JayJay marked it that way. I can make an adjust to that media section, but the song sample should probably be there because that was significant for the band and that journalist did a review of it. Thanks for saying something, I know folks are busy. SlowFatKid (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about the file actually, all I know is it had to be below or at 64kpbs (which I can fix), if you want it undeleted see WP:UNDELETE, if you want a media section it should be above the see also section and should be longer than one sentence. I also wasn't the one who marked it for deletion, someone else did. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the song undeleted I don't see an issue with having it in the article. Many band articles have a Musical Style or similar section. If there is enough information out there to add that the media file would fit in there well. AIRcorn (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, Jay. That was my error then. I wasn't trying to throw shade I just thought the article wasn't up to the right standards and you were just being a good editor in spotting the mistake. Anyway, like I was saying, I THINK I got it right, but if I did something wrong, I'm prepared to be corrected on it. Thanks for your post. SlowFatKid (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi again to Aircorn or whom it concerns, I think I did the fair use thing right and uploaded that "Cuts Both Ways" file again and put it in the article. As for the prose, I don't know much about that; as I read through the article it makes sense to me, but maybe that's because I have seen it more than once while changing the media section. SlowFatKid (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should read to the end before commenting. I don't personally have an issue with the song there, although I am not an expert on audio files so do not know much about copyrights concerning them (I thnk there are quality and size limits). One of the issues (which is really easy to fix) is that the lead contains information that is not in the article. What you should do is write the article with no lead and then make the lead up by summarizing what is in the article. When I review articles I usually read the lead last. When I do that here I am missing a lot of information. Think of it like two separate articles; the body is the detailed one containing all the information, while the lead just contains a quick overview of the important points. Both should stand on their own. AIRcorn (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I know you didn't mean to say you had an issue w/ that song.I may try to work on the article, I am just not very good at prose.Thank you very much.SlowFatKid (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you can and then drop a note here or at my talk page and if I have time I will give it a copyedit for you. AIRcorn (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Air corn, I took a shot at changing the article a little, would love to see if it reads any better for you. Please let me know what sentences may be too long as well? Thanks.SlowFatKid (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty good. Needs a citataion for Aleg Oggs description. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the citation has been added, but do we need the same one in both places? Should one be removed? You end up w/ [1] and then [18] being repeated.I see this bio at http://www.last.fm/music/Wedlock, but is this an acceptable source for Wikipedia? If so, maybe it can be used? Please advise.Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/6fe9f838-112e-44f1-af83-97464f08285b as well.SlowFatKid (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only need it in the body, but you can add it to the lead if you wish. If you want to use the same citation more than once you can use <ref name = "add name here"> followed by the citation in for one and then <ref name = "add name here"/> for the rest. It will be presented as [1] and [1] in the text and 1^{^ab} in the references section. However reference 18 is not acceptable. It basically is a copy of Wikipedia so is in effect a circular one (see WP:Mirrors). The other one seems fine so I would just use that one. I will do it for you so you can see an example. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this reassessment goes I think it currently meets the critria and should probably be listed. My only remaining concern is the image in the infobox. It says it is the authors own work, but it doesn't really look like a typical user generated picture. It is also found at last.fm whic is a little suspect. Still it could be as the license says so in the absense of other objections I would be tempted to let it pass. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example.Yes, I had a feeling that BBC Music would not be adequate as a source because it is the same info already supplied here. As far as the image, the only thing that may be a clue is how long it's been posted versus the other images.Correct me if I am wrong, but if something is listed as "own work," that means if posted here at Wikipedia it must be original-not taken from another source. I checked the link to last fm you provided, and the upload date is AFTER the one here so if that image was Wikipedia approved as of April 2011, it's probably a good faith upload in my opinion. Are there any further steps that I should be taking on the article? Are you in charge of the nomination or does JayJay need to be doing it? Thank you again.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with that explanation. I will ask JayJay if he has any further concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag the inforbox picture because it was added by another user along time ago. As the article goes it looks pretty good, although I really don't like the music style section, consider adding it in the lead. I also looked at the infobox picture and it is used in some drafts, you could maybe take some stuff from the drafts and put in the article, I would ask just in case, but they shouldn't have any problems. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you like the music style section? It is found in many other band articles. The lead is supposed to summarise the information in the body of the article, not provide new information. AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was I not supposed to remove this? Did I do the wrong thing? Should I change it back?SlowFatKid (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been reverted. Was that the right thing to be done?SlowFatKid (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To JayJay, What items did you have in mind to take from the previous drafts? Can you advise? Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well is there anyways you cane expand the section, removing it is your choice. I feel it's short and rather not needed. For the drafts I was thinking more of discography sections. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand what section exactly? The discography? I'm not understanding what you mean? From what I've seen most bands have a brief outline of the discography, then another main article section? Or what needs to be expanded? Can you do a copy edit as an example of what you're thiking?SlowFatKid (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SFK. You have done nothing wrong. It is just a slight disagreement on how things should be presented between myself and JayJay. It happens quite a lot here and most of the time it is sorted without too much trouble. It is not a big deal in this case anyway. If you can expand it that would be great though.

@JJ. Do you think it meets the criteria now? AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a closer look and noticed a few more isues sorry. There are three references to imdb, a site that ise very seldom considered reliable for citations (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb). I think the information cited falls outside the GA criteria 2b, but it would be good to have another source there if possible. The bands own website would be better as the information can be comfortably supported by a Primary source. It most likely does not even need a source. The links would be fine as an external link though. Oh, and do you have a cite for which reached No. 9 on the top mp3 downloads at Amazon.com. Sorry about dragging this out. AIRcorn (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb sources tell what the songs were about.I went to the links, and each short film described what the topic was. In the case of "Reverend Charisma" it's about Jim Jones, and in the case of "Black Sundress," it is based upon Paul Allgood's novel. I could use their site as a primary source, but I thought Wikipedia wanted third party sources, and from looking at their site I don't know if their biography covers what "Black Sundress" is about. I still am not sure what Jay Jay wants as far as expansion in the article, can you advise? BTW, it's fine as far as trying to get things up to GA standards,as that is the spirit of Wikipedia- so long as our corrections are for the good of the project.SlowFatKid (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the source for "Black Sundress" chart placement has been added. Please keep in mind that Rovi is editorially vetted.SlowFatKid (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Aircorn, the IMDb sources have been removed; I think you are right, and I listed what I thought were better ones. Found an online article on Reverend Charisma, for example. Again I am not sure about what would need expanding, so if you have an idea, can you do a copy edit to illustrate what you have in mind? For all my inexperience compared to the other editors, I think the article should be listed if there's no other issues. We have been reassessing this for some time now.SlowFatKid (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]