Talk:Black Country Communion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• First album, our own article claims it to be called Black Country Communion. Not directly related to this GA, but worth resolving. Ah, but the album is then referred to as Black Country Communion later as well... needs resolving, as does the band template.

  The inconsistencies have now been resolved in the article and in the template.

• Might be worth clarifying explicitly somewhere which bands this supergroup's members were drawn from.

  I have added this to the first sub-section under history, as I think it's more appropriate here than it might be in the lead.

• "later in the year" seems a popular phrase here, twice in the lead, perhaps a rephrase for more engaging prose.

  I have changed the second usage of this in the lead, but please let me know if there are other occurrences you think should be changed.

• WP:DATERANGE all over the place suggests you don't need to repeat the century in a range if the century is still the same, e.g. "2009–2013" -> "2009–13".

  I have changed this for the history sub-sections, but not for the infobox as we are using the end date template. If this is not an issue, I will happily change.

• "The foundation of Black Country Communion can be traced back to 2006..." a little bit tabloid, not reading encyclopaedically to me.

  I have simply removed this piece of text, as the sentence works fine without it.

• Do we not have an article for Planet Rock?

  Yep, it has been linked there at its first occurrence (1st sub-section of history, 3rd paragraph, about halfway down).

• "The album's title, release date, track listing, and artwork were revealed in March" did you name it in the prose?!

  Do you mean the album title should be placed where it is mentioned? If so, it is now added. If not, please explain.

• Could link some of those charts.

  You must be looking at the second sub-section of history, as the charts are linked in the first sub-section already. Do they need to be linked again?

• You suddenly use BCC as an abbreviation for the band name, although not consistently.

  I have now defined the abbreviation in the lead, and also used it in an earlier sub-section. Is this sufficient?

• "Kevin Shirley offered..." (etc) no need to suddenly start using first names again.

  Agreed, removed.

• Now then, the big issue. I see no good reason for the discography to be forked out into a separate page. This band article isn't large, and three albums isn't exactly a Madonna back catalogue, so suggest the discography is merged back into this article.

  I see what you're saying, but surely this should have no impact on whether the main article becomes GA? I'm happy for the discography article to be nominated for merge into the main article, and if it is voted that way I will see to it that the article is redirected accordingly and the info consolidated on individual album articles, but for now should the nomination for GA continue regardless?

  Well, it might not have a direct impact, but the point is that if the discog is soon to be merged into the main article (and I think we both agree it probably ought to be), then it will be a moderate change to the existing article. It would be worthwhile reviewing the discog info in the context of GAN rather than promoting this to GA now, only to find it changed significantly later... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 60 is blank.

  Looks like someone had messed with the ref code, weird... fixed now.

• Ref 29, it's Official Charts Company.

  Ah, fixed.

A few issues, one more significant than all the others, so I'll put the article on hold for a week while we try to resolve them. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have addressed your points in turn, with replies for each above. Hopefully this is up to standard now, but please let me know if there are any other concerns you'd like me to look at. Andre666 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess when the discog gets re-added to the main article, I'll put this back up for GA review, but in the meantime, no reason to stop it being promoted to GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)