Talk:American Football (1999 album)

American Football (1999 album) is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} at 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Post-hardcore High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

extra column in track listing

is the extra column in track listing really necessary? if it's important and backed up by several reliable sources, then keep around the info but maybe move it to somewhere else? Nucg5040 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it stayed for so long. Skyshifter ^talk 15:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Football (1999 album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 49p (talk · contribs) 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do this as it shouldn't take long. Most of this seems to be fine at a glance.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I changed some stuff here and there. All issues were really minor, mostly just rewording and fixing punctuation.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checked all references. All look fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Removed some minor sentences that were a bit off topic and did not help, other than that it was fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No clear edit warring or anything changing significantly other than recent changes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One non-free image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All seem relevant, The two free images could use a little bit of more description (per WP:CAP#3 to describe the relevancy), but is sufficient enough.
	7. Overall assessment.

@LunaEclipse:, this article seems to be pretty good and already well into detail. There's really just only a couple (really one big) issues with it to push it in GA.

Issues

The article currently jumps between timelines, making it difficult to follow a linear narrative. For instance, it begins by discussing the original 1999 release, then shifts to a 2004 acoustic version and reissue. It then references a 2019 quote about the album's popularity. Later, the section on the artwork recounts events from 1999 while also mentioning its later significance. Finally, the reception of the album, including its initial reviews, is introduced. Granted, I did move some of these sections so it would flow a bit better, but these issues still persists. To enhance clarity, I recommend reorganizing the content to follow a more chronological structure where feasible. A potential solution would be to consolidate all post-release legacy elements into a dedicated "Legacy" section. Alternatively, a combined section titled "Reception and Legacy" could work, encompassing both the initial reviews from 1999 and later developments, such as reissues and its growing influence over time. I recommend you look on other articles on how they tackle "later" fame like Shmap'n Shmazz, Spiderland, or Pinkerton (album).
- We also need more information on how it gained cult status. There is only one sentence stating specifically on how it got it (the quote in Release). If the way of cult status was truly only by word of mouth, it should be at least expanded more in-depth.
- Also LP1 is arguably very very influential. There should be a couple of sentences about the influence on the genre.

Image captions could be more detailed (see 6b)
Explain the new 2024 remaster and covers that just came out. Doesn't really need to be in detail but it should be maybe at the end of the reissue section

Comments

Jazz-fusion seems to be a far stretch in my opinion, the review just say "emo-jazz hybrid". So while it *could* be jazz-fusion per that AllMusic review, I feel like it's stating more of an influence if anything (we also already state there is jazz influence, due to Lamos being Jazz).
No midwest emo tag? Pretty sure there has to be a source for that.
Completely optionally, but I believe there is enough reviews from original and reissues that you could theotrically split up two section about it's original reception and its later reception. Articles like Autobahn (album), Spiderland, or Pinkerton (album) do this. This is honestly just a comment in case there are plans for expansion after this GAN, this could be a first action. No need to actually do this.
There is no audio file, this is not needed but could be useful if you need to expand on the idea of capturing the "feels" of the album.

If you fix the issue whenever, I would be willing to put this as a Pass. Everything else seems to be fine