Talk:Common Courtesy (album)/GA1

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

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

Nominator:

talk · contribs
)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be giving this a spin! Very 2013-coded, I kinda love it. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tour announcement Tuesday, a review for Common Courtesy Wednesday? I'm being spoiled...
oops 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments should be done today, thanks for your patience! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article
review progress box
WP:CV
()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4.
free or tagged images
()
6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked
are unassessed

Well-written

I've started to realize that I really like background sections that have some sort of hook, especially with the quote, this one is no different. The rest flows nicely as well, no issues with structure.

  • General comment: "the band", "the album", and sometimes member names, are used quite often, to the point that it becomes repetitive. I'd use pronouns more often, and sprinkle in one or two "A Day To Remember" or "Common Courtesy"'s.
  • General comment: for the band, I would swap the it/its pronouns to they/them ones. I might just be used to it, but I prefer the connotation that the band is a collection of members more than a unit itself.
    • That's just an American English thing, though I do prefer British when talking about bands this way...
      oops 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Verifiable with no original research

Most sources are reliable in their use, Alternative Press is prominent, but they've done a lot of coverage of the album, so it makes sense. Earwig shows a solid score of 28% and ideas are paraphrased quite nicely. However:

  • Ah, I probably should've realized the connection between the two, but either way, I feel more comfortable with them now being cited to The Music. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angeles, Jana. "Album Review: A Day To Remember – Common Courtesy". Renowned for Sound. Archived from the original on April 1, 2023. Retrieved March 24, 2024.

Spot-check

Mostly randomly generated, I tried to find the magazine issues, but alas:

Broad in its coverage

Based on my search for sources and read-through, the article seems quite comprehensive. A variety of reviews, articles, and interviews are well used; no large time-period or aspect is missing.

Neutral

No issues during my read-through, all opinions and quotations are attributed.

Stable

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

All images improve the reader's understanding, the webseries one is similar to the cover, but it shows what it would've entailed and puts the era into perspective. The image of McKinnon is correctly labeled Creative Commons. However:

  • The three non-free images should have more detailed rationales. Many of the answers are short or just "n.a.".

Summary

A very pleasant read with only a few prose tweaks. I suppose it comes down to replacing a few of those sources (unless I'm missing something and they are reliable). Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And howdy MusicforthePeople, I just realized you were co-nomming this; your input is welcome! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't exactly, but we're extremely close colleagues and he sourced almost all of the article before I made some writing changes 😛. Having no intention of taking this further, I decided to take it upon myself, but they're awake before I am. Not that I have any problem with it at all. I can probably fix the rest of these tomorrow, I'll be pretty busy today.
oops 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Got it! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some really great source finds! I believe the article is now good in this respect. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed everything that's been asked of me and more, or at minimum responded to everything. Could easily have missed something unintentionally. Let me know if there's anything else!
oops 04:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Great fixes! I'll get along with the spot-check, just that one comment. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's everything once and for all.
oops 01:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would agree, I am now happy to give this a pass! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:16, 29 March 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.
  1. ^ Multiple sources: