Talk:Sanctus Real/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   What's here is good enough for GA, but there are some constructions I don't like:

   • "Sanctus Real is expected to release a fifth studio album in 2010." Expected by whom? How about "SR plans to release..."?
   • "...during the 1996 holiday season." US-specific. Try "in late 1996" instead.
   • "Their full-length studio album Message for the Masses was released..." This sentence opens the paragraph, so let's replace "Their" with "Sanctus Real's".
   • "...the band began plans to record tracks at a major studio." How about just "..the band planned..."?
   • "From 1996 to 2001, Sanctus Real had been touring areas of the United States..." Change "had been touring" to "toured".
   • "...the band made the decision to sign with Sparrow Records." How about just "decided"?
   • This is really minor, but they recorded "Beautiful Day" for the compilation album, not on it.
   • "The group's members changed around that time:..." I'd recast the entire sentence.
   • "After previously being on the road with Relient K..." Two things: "After" makes "previously" redundant, and replace "being on the road" with "touring". Alternately: "A previous (touring?) member of Relient K, Gartley..."
   • "...Pete Prevost became the fifth member of Sanctus Real as an additional guitarist for the band." Drop "for the band".
   • "Starting in August 2007, Sanctus Real returned to the studio..." Drop "Starting".
   • "...it was finished by the end of the year, spanning a few months of time." Last phrase is redundant; we can figure that out because it's mentioned earlier in the sentence when the sessions began.
   • Way too many exact dates given, and it makes for a less pleasing read. I'd reduce them all to just the month (and year, if necessary). Exact dates can be given in the album articles, etc.

   • All of the specific dates have been pared down to months, and in one case simplified to an "early 2008" kind of term. JamieS93 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • "The track "I'm Not Alright" became one of their most popular songs..." Lacks a citation. Not stated in the body of the article, either.
   • In which chart(s) did these singles reach the number 1 position? And from which compiler? Billboard? Radio & Records? Mediabase?

   • Okay, I'm fair sure that all of those are from R&R; it might take me a bit of time, but I'll verify and specify them within the article. JamieS93 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   • Done. I purposefully left the first reference to "number 1" (in the lead) unspecified; it's not necessary since the lead is meant to give to an uncluttered summary, and a reader can figure out the specific chart formats in the body if they wish. All of the #1s are from R&R: either the Christian rock chart, or Christian CHR. JamieS93 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   • All the Top40-Charts.com citations are really press releases from Sparrow. There's a template you should be using for these: Template:Cite press release

   • Done. I've never used that template, so hopefully it's right. JamieS93 15:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The list of singles probably isn't necessary. You've discussed all the important ones in the body, and the less important ones can be covered in the album articles. If I need to find one, I can consult the template at the bottom of the page.

   • Hmm, I know what you're saying but can't exactly agree on this point. I usually prefer to include a list of singles in artist articles. Every article seems different, though, i.e., my other article here has one while some other band/musician GAs don't. Since SR doesn't have a discography article, I'm thinking that both "singles" and "compilation appearances" are worthy of inclusion here. I suppose it could be removed, but I think the single lists are useful as long as they aren't too long. Some people might not even know to look at the bottom of the article for a nav template. JamieS93 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   • I feel that I need to chime in here. I agree with Jamie. As a reader, I expect to see a list of singles from any artist, or a separate discography/singles article. The singles are usually what make them notable, so not having a list of charting/release singles would make an article incomplete (and fail GA). Sometimes I use Wikipedia to see what this artist has done, including the singles that don't chart as high. Royalbroil 12:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

   • By Wikipedia standards, what makes something notable is significant independent coverage – i.e. if some heretofore unknown band mails some radio stations a "single", it doesn't automatically make the band or the single notable. I have no evidence that any of these non-charting Sanctus Real singles received coverage or even garnered airplay. The "Discography" section is long enough at this point that the best solution probably is breaking it off into its own article. —Zeagler (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

   • So fixed, compilations section removed from main article. What makes a band noteworthy is their albums and singles, and not just the #1 hits. Several of those singles on the list reached around the top 10 on R&R's Christian charts, and that's noteworthy to the public. Articles are meant for readers, and what they're interested in is the radio singles, possibly awards, and the like. Although I still don't see a compelling reason to remove the list (with readers in mind), I guess I'm okay with it now that the list is covered at the discography page (feel free to do it yourself). JamieS93 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

   • I have not listened to any songs by Sanctus Real. How does a list of their singles further my understanding of the band? All it says to me is that the band threw a bunch of their songs at the proverbial wall (as many bands do), and if I go back to the prose I can find the ones that stuck (i.e. the #1s). You say there are others that charted – if you have citations, the prose sections would be a great place to mention them. Now, on the other hand, if I want an understanding of Sanctus Real's discography, that would certainly include a table of the songs they sent to radio and where, if anywhere, they charted. And now we have an article for that. —Zeagler (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • All mentions of "hit" and "success" should be removed. Let the chart positions or sales numbers or whatever speak for themselves.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   • The 1997 Demo Tape art is flagged for being of too great resolution. I can fix this if you can't. You should also chop off the spine and flap (for lack of better terms) and just leave the actual cover to be in better compliance with the fair use guidelines.

   • Apparently somebody added the image to the article because it was orphaned after the individual album page was deleted. IMO, the image is not necessary within this article (it's a weak fair-use argument when the album is hardly discussed), and I'd prefer to just remove it from the article and delete the file per WP:CSD#F5. JamieS93 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Zeagler (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, Zeagler; this article took some effort to compile all of the information, so I knew there were surely some consistency/prose problems within it. For some reason, I like copyediting other articles, but I cannot properly proofread my own articles without overlooking stuff. ;) I have not as much opportunity to edit Wikipedia lately, so it may take me some time to address the above issues. Best, JamieS93 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to be strict about the seven-day time limit, so don't worry about it. —Zeagler (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The singles list is the only remaining issue. And for future reference, please leave the striking to the reviewer. —Zeagler (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sure. Just trying to mark things off visually. JamieS93 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I sat on this for a week...passing now. —Zeagler (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)