Jump to content

Talk:Fire (Kittie album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. dxneo (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 13:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dxneo (talk · contribs) 11:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be tackling this nom in the next few days. Usually I get reviews done in a day, but I'm currently experiencing mobile data issues. Hope to get this done as quick as possible Thank you. dxneo (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chchcheckit (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article has gone through PR with little to no interest in reviewal, although it's a good piece of writing. dxneo (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

[edit]
  • Fire is the seventh studio album by Canadian heavy metal band Kittie, released on June 21, 2024, through Sumerian Records. → Fire is the seventh studio album by Canadian band Kittie, released on June 21, 2024, by Sumerian Records. dxneo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    done Chchcheckit (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon release, Consequence, Exclaim!, Metal Hammer and Revolver listed the song as one of the best of the week. | The song reached number 20 on the Billboard Mainstream Rock Airplay chart. | Upon release, Fire reached number 13 on the UK Rock & Metal Albums chart, and number 20 on Billboard's Top Album Sales chart. I feel like these are listicles and should be explained more further under Commercial performance section or subsection. dxneo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last part of the second paragraph of Release and promo talks mostly about performances. You should dive deep into that with a subsection Live performances. dxneo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • proving the band had "lost none of their relevance and energy." → the quotation marks comes before the period. Don't ask me why, it's a Wikipedia thing. dxneo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 2024, Consequence listed Fire as one of the 20 best hard rock & metal albums of the year so far, and ranked "Eyes Wide Open" as the 47th best song of the year so far. In July 2024, Metal Hammer ranked the album as the third best of Kittie's discography. → Again, these are listicles, a section or subsection Commercial performance or Chart performance would be great. dxneo (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks
  • 1, 7, 8 + 9 + 12 + 53 (link), 23 + 40 (reddit), 57
  • Firstly, refs 8, 9, 12 & 53 are linked wrong, use the site name (Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles). If you use example.com then you'd have to do it on each and every source, although URLs are highly discouraged. dxneo (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you help me explain and verify the reliability of:
    • London Groove Machine
    • Digital Tour Bus
    • Reddit ?? Facepalm Facepalm
    • lambgoat.com

dxneo (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site refers to itself as "BraveWords" on most things so i've previously been inclined to refer to it as such. but i may be wrong soooo i'll change it
  • Reddit is an from an AMA thread (which you can see). use of reddit for any other reason would be bad because user generated content and whatnot but I believe I have a valid case under WP:ABOUTSELF
Chchcheckit (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correction: i probably don't in the way it is prsently used. ok it's going Chchcheckit (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because the question doesn't actualy state "fire" it says "titular theme" or something. so ghhhhhhhhhhh Chchcheckit (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DTB was more for an aside comment but I don't think the aside comment is needed so it'll go
Chchcheckit (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGM appears to be self-published (website refers to itself here as "we" but most if not all articles appear to be written by one "John", also noting this). I guess the text supporting the claims in article is as quoted (from Morgan Lander) below:
    • "The status of Kittie is kind of complicated. The last full tour that we did was summer of 2012. However, we did do one show last year in Toronto. Right now we’re sort of … I don’t want to say we’re on hiatus, because we technically are still talking about things, working on things, thinking about potential shows, ideas for the future. I guess, to put it plainly, it came to a point where doing the band full-time became too much financially, especially touring in the States. There just isn’t enough demand or money for us to support ourselves fully with the band."
Chchcheckit (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lambgoat replaced with metal injection as they serve the same purpose and the latter is on wikiproject album sources Chchcheckit (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vio

[edit]

@Dxneo Okay I think I've addressed everything. I'm hesitant to add large headings like "commercial performance" and "accolades" when the content that would go below each section would end up being minimal. Personally: I am definitely against adding an "accolades" lists for this reason but can tweak some things around in release and promotion.

If I have missed something on your list, please point it out in an un-condescending manner please. (i.e., no "Haha you are not easy to work with, are you?" 's thanks. WP:GOODFAITH) Chchcheckit (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read the text, both live performances and promotion are kinda mixed together; i.e. the "Vultures" video was filmed at Sick New World in April 2024. I don't want to type that out twice because it's redundant. Hence. Chchcheckit (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo Chchcheckit (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chchcheckit, Personnel comes before Track listing. The booklet source covers both sections and yes, |all_writer= is very necessary that's why it is there. Again, no citations on track listing unless stated otherwise. dxneo (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo OK: Under WP:TRACKLISTING: "Only provide a source for a track listing if there are exceptional circumstances, such as a dispute about the writers of a certain track." Alright, sorted, anything else? Chchcheckit (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stay tuned. I'll ping you. dxneo (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Personnel before Track listing. Lists always goes last. dxneo (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're getting at; do you mean the track listing section should go below the personnel section? That doesn't make any sense to me, since that would be against the norm of most album articles. I feel confused.
  • Lists always goes last. Stated where? And does it matter in the context of an album article?
// Chchcheckit (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay mate, what I mean is that the booklet reference covers both Personnel and Track listing. Therefore, It makes sense to put the section with ref first then Track listing after. You may refer to any FA or GA here, whether it's a song or an album, you'll see what I'm talking about. Hope you understand. And yes, list always often go last as prose is more important and prose also covers what's on the lists. Sorry for not explaining earlier I was sleepy. dxneo (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the articles you refer to on WP Taylor Swift the track listing is placed above the personnel. I am still confused by what you mean, and the point of this is becoming increasingly obfuscated. Plus, there doesn't seem to be a point in even changing this. Can we please move on? (if we can't get past this i'll call third opinion or something because i am tired of getting into standstills with you) Chchcheckit (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do as you please. Those were my requests. Stay tuned for more, that's if you'll comply, if not, call 2nd op. dxneo (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a third opinion, but...

[edit]

I removed this discussion from the third opinion noticeboard because this article is being nominated as a good article; and according to the nomination criteria, several editors should be involved in the discussion. The discussion should thus be continued here. (Incidentally, I am familiar with the band Kittie but I have no real opinion on the situation.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erpert, if you go through the discussion, you'd see that I was only making requests and raising issues that I feel like they should be addressed to raise the article's quality, and what was the response? He literally said "No". I cannot review this in timely manner because of mobile data issues but I try to keep up and reduce the GA backlog as much as i can. I pick music articles to review at random and honestly, if I saw that he was the nominator, based on our previous encounters, I wouldn't have initiated the review. Sometimes it's like I have to beg him to get stuff done. With all due respect, I'm fed up with his nonsense. Can anyone take over from here please.
For the reviewer who's taking over, keep a close eye on…
  • Copyright vio
  • Original search
  • Sources,
    • Check the reliability of unlinked sources
    • Check if the Cite highlighter script recognize them
    • If the script doesn't, check if they were cited, mentioned or referenced by any reliable media publication
    • Social media is not a source unless stated otherwise

Thank you. dxneo (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politely and bluntly; you are the only GA reviewer I have ever had issues working with. The main issue, I think, is that our editing/reviewing styles very much differ. I am not against changing things or critique; the Until the End (Kittie album) article, which I spent over a year working on, went through two GA reviews which saw massive changes to the article in the process, which I accepted despite feeling kinda mortified initially (as in, realising it wasn't as good as i thought it was). I felt that you focussed more on my choices for manual of style and word choice than the actual content of writing, which I found frustrating. I looked through the manual of style guides (for both normal and for wp albums) and still could not understand where you were coming from. In my head, I struggle to see from your point of view how the current MOS harms the article's readability or otherwise because to me it feels like you keep saying "it should be like this because it should be like this." without explaining any potential negatives or positives to a given action/state. this doesn't answer the questions in my head. That is how I see things, and my ADHD/ASD head could be wrong, and I accept the possibility.
I have been quiet regarding this before out good faith and because it's lame to argue about this. but It is what it is; thank you for trying anyway. Let us never work on an article again, forever. (Also, it's a "she". I am not bothered dw) // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok dxneo (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be faster/better to just fail the review. I can wait. When someone picks this up again, I'll refer them to the old review for why it failed. Chchcheckit (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fire_(Kittie_album)/GA1&oldid=1246950629"