Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bet you didn't think you'd get someone to review this so fast! I'll have a review of this in the coming days. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Damn right I didn't. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I fixed all the dead refs except one. It's cited in a format I'm not familiar with repairing. There is an archive for it but I don't know what I should put there - should I just replace the link altogether? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Been over a week now. I'm okay with waiting longer if necessary, I'd just like a timeframe of when you plan on looking at this. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ack, sorry. Completely slipped my mind. I'll get to it by the end of the day (my locality, so probably ~2:00UTC). Thanks for pinging me! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There was a minor spat two days ago but it seems to have resolved without much disruption

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   While not an image, the sound clip is problematic, see below

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "(the band finished with an a capella rendition "Where Is Your Boy" with the audience)" this feels rather trivial and unnecessary. It should be removed or expanded upon.

2. " only appearing to hand them in his lyrics" this should be rephrased to be more clear and less awkward

   Done Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

3. "Due to its increased success from the group's MTV Video Music Award" I think this is the first time this is mentioned? This shouldn't simply be mentioned in passing; it feels weird.

   Added a sentence to the end of the From Under the Cork Tree section - am I good? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   Done. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

4. "This charting was spurred by the lead single "This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race", which reached No. 2 in both the US and UK as well as the top five in many other countries." WP:WEASEL word. I'd be fine with it if it had a clear citation though.

   Is it okay to replace "many" with "several"? From what I can tell, it was a number one in New Zealand, and top-five in Canada, Australia, and Ireland. I could just talk about how it was a no. 1 in NZ, but I think the former would be better. ~(DME)

   "Several" would probably be better, though I'm more concerned about the citation for it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

   Wait, so you want me to source its positions collectively? I'm not sure there is such a source. I could mention the countries it hit the top five so I don't flood the end with cite templates (I hate putting more than three citations for one claim). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   I would suggest looking at WP:CITEBUNDLE then. Basically you can put all the citations in one <ref> tag so only one shows up. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks a million! I'll make sure to remember this for when I have to deal with so many! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   Okay, so I have one problem. The WP page you gave me does not clearly explain to me how to add this kind of thing - a little help please? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   Yup. So if you have a bunch of references, you can put all of them inside one <ref> tag. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   I think I'm done with this. How's it look? Any reformatting you'd like me to do? I've truly never encountered this type of citation before so I don't know better. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

5. ""If I'm not coming back to this band writing music […] then I don't want to," he remarked, and Stump disarmed him: "He said I needed to be writing more."" Who said the second quote? It's very unclear the meaning here.

   Trohman was the one who said this - it'd be the only one that made sense. Does this do it? I know I'm not the greatest prosewriter myself, but I think this is  Done. ~(DME)

   Better. I made this change which I think helps it flow better, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

6. " back catalog into the flames at the original location of 1979's Disco Demolition Night." What's a back catalog? Why is Disco Demolition Night important?

   back catalog (n.) all the works previously produced by a recording artist or record company. ~Google. I think Disco Demolition Night is an interesting part, but not vital. If you'd insist on it, I'll remove that part. ~(DME)

   I'd say just expand on it. Those not familiar with DDN wouldn't really get its significance. Even an aside like "location of Disco Demolition Night, an event where blah blah blah happened" would be good. Basically give it some context. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

   Much clearer Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

7. "The band also shows a number of influences, with the opening track borrowing a chord sequence from The Who song "Baba O'Riley"." the name of the song should be mentioned. Not everyone knows the opening track to Folie

   Done. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

8. The citations need to be formatted consistently. Some have inconsistent dates (number 115 has "2008-01-08" while the others are with words) and one has a template error. Those are the only two I saw but maybe give them a once over yourself.

   Okay, I think they're all good, but if you look at checklinks there's one that's still dead. That's because it's in a format I'm unfamiliar with - do you know how to fix those? I tried and failed miserably. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

9. The article contains an audio clip of Sugar, We're Goin Down but does not have a fair use claim. I'm suspicious that it can be used here as fair use because I don't think it can satisfy WP:NFCC#8, but if you can come up with one I'll check it. If need be I can ask for a second opinion on it. Most immediately (for this and the Sugar, We're Goin Down article as well) is 10.c. which requires a specific rationale for each page. Currently, it only has one non-specific rationale. For more, look at WP:NFCC

   Ick. I was not the one who uploaded this. I suppose this'd be nice to have, but can you give me a good example on a fair rationale in a GA? I have little experience with this kind of thing. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

   Hmm, I can't think of any at the moment for music. I'll look into it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

   So I've looked through a few GAs with audio recordings and honestly I'm not satisfied with a lot of the fair use rationales presented for those ones either. But since there seems to be a commonality to the rationales, maybe there is a consensus I just don't know about. I'll ask for a second opinion on this. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

   Marking this as done, see second opinion below. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Before recording the follow-up to its debut, the band released the acoustic EP/DVD My Heart Will Always Be the B-Side to My Tongue." Not a problem for GA, but you'll want to expand upon this when taking it to FA.
• You probably will need to do some more expansion on Make America Psycho Again. Though not a huge release, considering it's just remixes, there should be some discussion of its reception and placement.

Results

On Hold for 7 days. Firstly, I'm a big FOB fan so this was by far the most fun I've had doing a GA review. This is very well written and I was afraid for a while that I wouldn't have anything to suggest! So kudos to all the editors who have worked on this page. Secondly, while the praise is well earned, it's not done yet. While there aren't a lot of edits to be made, a few, like the NFCC rationale and source formatting, can be rather time consuming. When I say 7 days, I mean it. Feel free to take your time with the edits, and if you need more time, just ask. There is no deadline. Thirdly, if you have any questions or think one of my suggestions are unfair, let me know and I'd be happy to discuss and maybe even change my mind. I'm watching the page, but a ping is always appreciated if you need me. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: This article is incredibly close to passing. The last two things are to bundle those citations, and resolve the fair use of the audio clip. With regards to the latter, if it's the last remaining problem at the end of tomorrow, I'll extend the hold period and try to get another editor to comment. If, after another week no one responds, we'll need to talk about moving forward from there. You really should be proud of all the work you and other editors have put into this article. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion request

A second opinion is being requested on the fair use rationale for File:Sugar, We're Goin Down.ogg. The editors are unsure if the use of the work on this page can satisfy WP:NFCC (particularly #8) and if it can, how to formulate such a fair use rationale. Please leave comments below, or boldly try and correct the problem if you feel so inclined. 18:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Uf. I just noticed its sound quality - it's too good for fair use. I don't know how to adjust that, and would gladly fix that if I knew how. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor:, @Wugapodes: firstly, the nominator is right (the quality is way too good), it should be reduced. There are several programs that can do so, I won't mind doing it if that's ok with both (nominator and reviewer). Secondly, I do't believe it can meet Wikipedia:NFCC #8, however if you change it "Musical style and influences" section it would meet #8 since it would increase the article understatement of per say topic. Having said that, I won't mind reduce the quality of the song, but first decide if you want to use it in the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I can use it that way, but I'd have to change its caption to include what specifically it incorporates from their style. I'm willing to do that, and I think I will. I'd totally appreciate the help in changing the quality on that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like we've found a solution. I can extend the hold period a few more days to give you time to make the changes as well. And thank you MarioSoulTruthFan for the second opinion on this, it is very much appreciated! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, anytime. I have uploaded a new version, shall I reduce the quality even further? I had to reduce the length according to wiki policy, as well. Please listen File:Sugar, We're Goin Down.ogg MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Good job catching the length policy. I would prefer if it was more in the ballpark of between 60-70 kb, just in case I want to go for FA. This looks alright for GA, but I'd imagine FAC would be picky about a 79. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't reduce it further probably because the track has "Loudness", I know it's possible to do, I just don't know how. I'm sorry. However, it will do it for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, understood. I will figure out how to fix this another time. Thank you for your assistance, Mario. @Wugapodes: All your concerns have been addressed to the point of GA status, at least. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.