Talk:Breaking Benjamin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry this has languished so long. I will get to this quite soon, as it is currently third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! User:Jacedc (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• I think that it should be "the first lineup" not "the first version"

I'm assuming you mean for me to replace "the original version"? If so,  Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• comma between "consistent" and "with"

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• How is "formulaic" a tendency--is this a critical designation?

It is, though not critical as in condemnatory, rather, critical as in analytical. Multiple authors have observed a tendency towards a formula within Burnley's songwriting and musical style. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• probably should be "a band named" Plan 9

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why was the earlier band not considered the first lineup of the band we know today?

Quote: "but played "softer music" such as Weezer and The Beatles and was "nothing like" subsequent lineups. (Book 2015)". See also: Talk:Breaking_Benjamin#Formation, inclusion of Breaking Benjamin 1.0 members. This received support as it made more sense than including them, it's supported by a first party source/quote, and nicely declutters the article. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your chronology in the first paragraph of the Formation section is a bit off--you start with the Plan 9 era and then go back to it after mentioning a bunch of other stuff.

 Done I removed "Although Breaking Benjamin was originally formed as a band named Plan 9 in 1999, "

• "Jonathan "Bug" Price was credited on bass, replacing Davoli" Why? Was he changed out? If so, indicate this.

Well yes, he was changed out, per "replacing". I can't really go into further detail beyond the fact that he was credited on projects afterwards because of a lack of reliable sources. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• You still seem to be flipping around with the names "Plan 9" "Lifer" and "Breaking Benjamin", leaving me even more confused regarding the chronology.

I see. Well Strangers With Candy, a.k.a. Lifer, was a separate band formed by the remaining members of the very first Breaking Benjamin, entirely separate from Plan 9, which was the first name taken up by what is now known today as Breaking Benjamin. That said, after further thought, mentioning SWC/Lifer is somewhat inconsequential, so I removed it. Hopefully it's better now. The paragraph's chronology is now as follows: 1998 Breaking Benjamin → Plan 9 → current Breaking Benjamin User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Saturate garnered positive reception, Jason Taylor…" after the comma, put "with"

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Link to Tool.

 Not done per WP:LINKSTYLE: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Tool is linked later on in the article. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence about the composition of songs for We Are Not Alone should probably go before the release.

 Done I refactored this paragraph entirely. The chronology should be a bit more logical now. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "terminated him, citing chemistry issues." Please make this clearer and less informal.

It's hard to clarify when there's a lack of clarity in the sources. Should I put quotes around "chemistry issues"? User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed However, Burnley later called Hummel and terminated him, citing chemistry issues. to However, Burnley later called Hummel and terminated him, citing chemistry issues. That's about as clear as we can get. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a file that could go in the Phobia section?

I once had an audio file though with it the article was tagged for having an excessive amount of fair use files. I will try to find a free use image, though. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I primarily mean a file of the band performing or something. It's okay if nothing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah I looked around quite extensively when I first wrote the article and looked around some recently, and I couldn't find a freely-licensed photo. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Once again, let's talk about the organization of this section and what order they should go in.

Okay. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• What were some of the main praise and criticism of Phobia? Put it in the same sentence as "moderate critical reception"

Several quotations from some of the main album reviews follow "moderate critical reception". I don't know what you mean here, could you please elaborate? User:Jacedc (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for an example, even if it's not true, I mean something like "it received moderate critical reception, with praise going to Burnley's vocals and the album's lyrical content but criticism focusing on repetitive musical content". Obviously, I have no idea if that's accurate, but where possible, add sentences like this. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, like a summarization of the praises/criticisms... Will do. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just echoing the organization sentiment for all the albums.

Okay, I'll see what I can do about this. I was thinking about this last night and wrote up an alternative version to the WANA section, I'll work on the rest of them too. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative version implemented, might wanna re-read the first paragraph here. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Same for Phobia's section. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I like it a lot. It flows better. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• It should be "mixed reviews, with"

Where? User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really like the new ordering of the sections.

Thanks, me too! User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Should probably be "therefore" not "thereby"

Good catch. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• "AllMusic's James Monger stating the album "feels a lot like their first three." Is this a positive review? Negative? Neutral? No matter what, add a bit more.

 Done Added that it was a positive review. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The last statement before the "Hiatus" section is that Burnley dispelled rumors that the band had broken up--is there a missing piece of information here?

 Done Elaborated. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would include a bit more about the "Blown Away" stuff. From the fair use rationale, it states "Provide audio of a highly-contentious remix of a song which caused the firing and suing of two long-time members of the band Breaking Benjamin." This sounds interesting--can you elaborate on that in the article?

The entire lawsuit was about "Blow Me Away" as well as the compilation album, though that was unclear in the article so I elaborated a bit on that. Hopefully it's clearer now. Also I moved the bit about the court case being settled and Szeliga leaving the band in the Hiatus and Shallow Bay section, where it needs to be to act as a conclusion to that section. Hopefully it reads clearer and more thorough now. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Put a period after "commonly noted for its consistency."

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the "musical style" part, replace one of the "describing" or "described" with a different verb to avoid repetition.

 Done Replaced the second "describes" with "characterizes". User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Breaking Benjamin's live sound has corresponded with lineup arrangements." What does this mean?

As you read later in the section, the quality of their performance changed according to their lineup arrangement. This sentence is basically a segue into this section, though technically could be seen as repetitive, so I'll remove it if need be. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The timeline makes the width of the page expand for some reason--is there any way to change that?

Really? I did change the timeline quite a bit but I kept the width property the same. I knocked it down 200px though, hopefully it's better now. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you're going to use the reference format you're doing, make sure refs 42 and 43 use it as well.

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• For original pages that are not dead, why exactly are you including Wayback Machine links?

When I first started rewriting the article, I noticed a lot of important links were defunct so I kind of made a habit early on in providing archive links wherever possible. I included |dead-url=no for the non-dead ones so it should be fine. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you think a "see also" section would be helpful?

Sure, I don't see why not. What links were you thinking of? User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, looking at other GA band articles, there's not anything that would be appropriate here, and some FAs like Radiohead don't even have a "See also" section. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Okay, I'm done! I'm really having trouble finding a lot really "wrong" with this article. It's very impressive, especially considering that a lot of peoples' first GANs don't go too well! Nice job and I will be happy to pass once everything is cleared up. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much, Johanna! :) I should be able to fix the things mentioned above here shortly. Your time is very much appreciated! User:Jacedc (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: All done! :) I left some comments above responding to your inquiries, but other than that, I addressed all of the in-article issues. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Replied partially inline. For everything I did not reply inline too, it is okay. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: Okay, I summarized the criticisms for Phobia, and replied inkind above. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Wonderful job! Pass. If it's not too much trouble, could you review one of my GANs in the television section? :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: