Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)

Critical reception

Generally, I don't explain why I assess an article the way I assessed it, but as you left an explanation on why it would be a B/Mid article, I'm not assessing it as Mid because its pageviews are pretty low for a mid-class article ("Many readers will be familiar with these albums") despite its acclaim. Maybe it is mid-class for the Punk WP, but I'm not a member of that project to determine it. Now going back to the reception section, many of these sources should be removed per WP:CITEKILL ({{excessive citations}}), and the {{album rating}} ratings should be drastically decreased to 10 reviews, which is the recommended limit. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Tbhotch! Thanks for the recommendation on trimming down the clutter of citations in the Critical reception and recognition section and reducing the amount of Professional ratings. I've gone ahead and done that, and it really does help with the readability of the article! Do you think that the article now qualifies for higher than a B rating in quality?

With regards to the Mid-level rating of importance, you're also right; I should have specified that it is within the scope of punk rock and hardcore punk music. I will leave a request for assessment on the appropriate project page. However, the reason for the low page count is due to the fact that up until last month, this article was a redirect to the band's page. I don't even think my article (and un-redirect) has been officially reviewed yet (I didn't get a notification). So that's why it hasn't had that many page views! --Bricks&Wood talk 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In order to obtain a higher grade, you will need to go through their respective processes. A GA is obtained at WP:GAN, an A is a process that cannot be applied to this article because both WikiProjects don't support its grade, but it is a process that is similar to the GA process, but the article is evaluated by two editors instead. And the highest process is the FA, which is obtained at the WP:FAC venue. If this is the first time you nominate an article for any of these processes, I would highly recommend you to start with GAN, but before, you should check other GAs at Category:GA-Class Album articles, so you can get an idea on what is expected to read. Other good pages are Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where you can see if a source is approved, questionable, or completely deprecated. It's likelier to be questioned about the reliability of the sources at FAC than at GAN, but it can still happen, so you should be aware of why you are choosing a source (including the writer and the publisher). For example, AllMusic is not in itself an unreliable source, but due to some incidents and internal conflicts (WP:ALLMUSIC), its trustiness has decreased over time. I have read at FAC "what makes AllMusic a reliable source?" a few times. If you are asked, you are expected to explain what makes it a reliable source, and you should support it with evidence on the reliability of the writer. "Although AllMusic has had some issues in the past, the writer of the review is Kurt Morris, a music critic that has written for other reliable media like X, Y, Z", or something like that. I didn't perform a thorough review because the article is structurally a B, so I can't tell if it's already GA-shaped. I could still read minor issues like "#16" (MOS:HASH), "AllMusic" (on running text, AllMusic is not italicized, italics apply only to magazines, newspapers and books [in this context]), or that Moyal is listed 12 times at the track listing under the lyrics column (a simpler "Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes. All lyrics written by Moyal" is enough). So I would also recommend you to check the WP:MOS (and WP:MOSALBUM), to aid you with the style. Once you've checked and correct the issues, you could nominate it. Even if it fails, it can help you further, and you can renominate the article as many times as possible. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Tbhotch, thanks a lot for this incredibly detailed explanation! It would be my first time nominating a GA so this is very helpful to me! Of note, I tried to reduce all of the citations to 2 at the most per sentence, to improve readability. In some cases, the information was fragmented across several websites, and more than 2 citations were originall required. I scarified that for the sake of readability but now I'm worried that it might cause a problem when the article is analyzed for accuracy. For example, some of the tour dates in promotion of the album. In that particular case, the complete dates of a specific tour had to be pieced together from 4 different archived websites. This was because the Wayback Machine did not take snapshots at the right intervals, and most bands tend to update their touring schedule regularly by removing all dates older than the day of. Or if changes to the schedule were made during the course of the tour, then a snapshot taken prior to the tour was outdated/inaccurate. Just from memory, there were maybe about 10 sentences where I cut back 4-5 citations down to 2. Will this be an issue? Should I restore those citations?--Bricks&Wood talk 16:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In those cases (the tour dates), it is valid to have multiple sources because the information is scattered (but when you combine information from multiple sources, be aware of WP:SYNTH and WP:SYNTHNOT; in your concern, it doesn't apply). When we talk about overciting, we refer to the addition of several sources to back up a noncontroversial statement. Here, for example, the overcited statements were comparisons by music critics to punk/rock bands. This is not controversial, anyone can expect that music critics compare the sound of a punk rock album to be similar to works of other punk/rock bands. A controversial comparison would be to say that the album was compared to pop/R&B/electronica/funk/etc. musicians and it would require an explanation about why the album received such comparisons. In any case, you can just merge the sources into a single source to avoid the visible overcitation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• The FUR for File:As Friends Rust - Morningleaver - This Is Me Hating You.jpg doesn't seem strong enough to me. What does the reader gain from seeing this image that they can't gain through words alone?
• punknews.org -- per WP:A/S, we should only use staff reviews. I see the "staff picks" tag on one citation but I don't know if that means it's a staff review; I've posted a query. Update: there's already a response and it looks like that one is OK. I also see other uses of punknews.org that are not staff reviews and should be removed.
• Youtube is not a reliable source unless it's an official channel of a reliable source.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • adequacy.net -- per this page this is not a professional organization.
  • antimusic.com
  • eastcoastromper.com -- seems to be a zine
  • wasteofmind.de
  • abridgedpause.com
  • helldriver-magazine.de
  • 4P-fanzine.de
  • freespeech.org
  • nuskull.hu -- seems to have substantial history but I can't see anything about editorial control
  • wmtdzine.nl -- is a zine
  • Reflections -- reasonable looking magazine but per the masthead it seems semiprofessional at best
  • ox-fanzine.de -- another zine
  • Punk Planet -- per our article on it it's a zine
  • stillholdingon.net
  • noecho.net
  • idioteq.com -- describes itself as a DIY online magazine
  • throughtheseeyes.net
  • veganhardcore.de
  • allschools.de -- appears to be a site run by three friends
  • indulged.com
  • Moloko Plus 20
  • pastepunk.com
  • roterfaden.org
  • undevoured.com
  • hcmagazine.com
  • dfbpunk.com

I'm going to stop there; I got to about FN 95. I'm afraid I'm going to fail this immediately -- many of these are clearly unreliable; probably most, but even if half are salvageable the article would need significant work. You can ask about reliable sources for music at WT:ALBUMS and you'll get knowledgeable help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between WP:Notable sources and WP:Reliable sources. A website does not have to be notable to be considered reliable. Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source, unless it has been brought up as questionable on Wikipedia. There is no reason to automatically assume they are unreliable sources simply because you never heard of them. Several of the ones you pointed out were well-respected webzines and magazines (with a large followings) at the time that this album was released. Also, before quickly failing a GA, it is customary to provide the nominating user with a reasonable explanation of why you are doing so. Merely stating "article would need significant work" is not constructive feedback.--Bricks&Wood talk 04:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the different between reliability and notability. I failed the article not because I didn't recognize those sources, but because I was sure many of them were not reliable -- in my view the nomination was "a long way from meeting" criteria 2b, to quote the "Immediate failures" section of WP:GACR. The form of words I used, "what makes these reliable?" did not mean I wasn't sure about some of them. "Any non-self-hosted website is an accepted reliable source" is not true, and I suggest you start a conversation about these sources at WT:ALBUMS if you think so. To make this article meet the reliable source requirement for GA is going to require work to cut those sources out, along with the material they cite; that is constructive feedback. You are also welcome to post at WT:GAN if you still think this was an inappropriate fail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. VickKiang (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

- Refs are cited in the lede, which isn't needed.

- Lots of refs are sourced from the primary ref As Friends Rust, but that’s probably acceptable. Still, lots of refs are non-RS, not all affects 2b, but they are very poor:

• adequacy.net – no editorial controls at all (which is needed to be RS), see also this page. It explicitly states that they are all volunteers and are not professional.
• antimusic.com- clearly unreliable, there isn’t even an about us page (which even most non-RS websites have), not to say the lack of editorial control.
• eastcoastromper.com – a dated, non-RS fanzine without any editorial policies at all.
• punknews.org- Excepting for a contact us and about us page providing a list of editors with nothing else (no editorial control, policies, FAQs…, this isn’t an RS.
• wasteofmind.de- no editorial control, just a short about us page indicating the work is just mainly done by a few writers, along with freelancers that isn’t mentioned, they even say that Waste of Mind started as a fanzine and will remain a fanzine.
• abridgedpause.com- not defunct and still live now, marked as a “blog”, which is already indicative of a SPS, so non-RS. Per about us page, it’s just operated by one person, so clearly non-reliable.
• helldriver-magazine.de- the definition of a SPS, dated-looking website without any about us pages, editorial policies, nor FAQs.
• 4P-fanzine.de- another non-RS, no editorial policies or about us pages.
• freespeech.org
• nuskull.hu – apparently a magazine, and not that bad compared to the other refs mentioned above, current site has advertising guidelines but no editorial policies.
• wmtdzine.nl – non-RS zine, no editorial policies at all, now apparently defunct
• Reflections – another questionable, non-professional zine
• Youtube.com- non-official channels are SPS per WP:RSP
• evenstarbooking.com- non-RS without editorial policies
• Allmusic- only situational per WP:RSP
• Punk Planet – questionable zine
• stillholdingon.net- has a questionable about page and FAQ, but no editorial policies, per here, a fanzine written by just one person.
• idioteq.com -- DIY online fanzine
• throughtheseeyes.net- no editorial policies or about us page, now defunct
• veganhardcore.de- non-RS, without any editorial policies- has an advertising page but no policies
• allschools.de – non-RS, no about us or editorial policies page again
• indulged.com- non-RS, without any about us or editorial policies
• punknation.com- no editorial policies or about us
• Moloko Plus 20- questionable fanzine
• pastepunk.com- no links to any editorial policies or about us in the archived version, certainly SPS. Current site has an about us page, nothing else…
• roterfaden.org- dated site again with no editorial policies or FAQs.
• undevoured.com- non-RS without policies or about us, now defunct.
• hcmagazine.com
• dfbpunk.com- again, no editorial policies, except for terms and conditions and privacy policy, but no editorial policies nor about us.
• CORE Ground Hardcore Fanzine- another fanzine
• indieuprising.com- defunct, no editorial policies
• smallpunk.com- no policies, defunct site
• sellfish.inserteffekt.com- no policies nor about us page
• mainstage.de- has policy page and contact, but no about us nor editorial policies
• helldriver-magazine.de/- questionable magazine, current site still lacks any policies nor about us.
• motorhorst.de- again non-RS
• truepunk.com- clearly non-RS, current site has an iffy about us page that sometimes couldn’t be accessed.

@Bricks&Wood: This is just a very quick ref check, but it seems clear that more than half of the article, especially the bulk of the reception section, which needs RS per 2b as it is published opinion, is sourced from these clearly non-RS. The article's detail is also unnecessarily long due to the tons of unreliable refs (in particular the reception section), which IMO fails 3b (to meet GA, IMHO the article need to be significantly trimmed to meet 2b and 3b). Because of the dependence on non-RS, the reception section is overly positive (great deal of positive critical acclaim upon the album's release but poorly backed up, as almost all of these sources are generally reliable self-published sources (indeed, the critical acclaim was just cited based on one (!) unreliable source; same with with lots of heart and sincerity, just backed up by one non-RS). So I'm quick failing, please read in more detail WP:RS and WP:SPS before resubmitting again for GA, these concerns need to be addressed.

P.S. In the previous GA, it was contended that any website not entirely self-published (such as on WordPress) and not challenged could be considered an RS. This is false, as most editors IMO need a site to have about us and editorial policies to be ocnsidered an RS. WP:RSN is a great place for help, but these refs are obviously unreliable that I don't think editors there would have different opinions. VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·