Talk:Invisible Circles

Invisible Circles has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 18, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
July 22, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: 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 articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I've removed the hyperbole-filled description of the album's concept and musical style. It would be good if someone familiar with the record could write a more balance desciption. Radagast1983 April 14th 2006, 11.55

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 Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:Invisible Circles/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA

for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "...whose musical tastes had strongly influenced the sound of their first work Prison of Desire and their successful second offering Decipher" ---> "...whose musical tastes had strongly influenced the sound of their first work Prison of Desire (2000) and their successful second offering Decipher (2001)", so that it can
provide context for the reader
. Do the same in the Background section. In the Background section, "These musical differences lead to Mark Jansen leaving the band" ---> "These musical differences led to Mark Jansen leaving the band". In the Concept and storyline section, "The birth of a baby girl destroys in the mother her hopes of career and passion", a word is missing between "of" and "career". In the Tour section, "...and Borgman was back behind his drum kit for the final leg of the Invisible Circles tour in South America, in August 2005", the comma is not needed after "South America".
Done, Done, Rephrased, and Done.
Check.

B. It complies with the
list incorporation
:
In the lead, "It was released on March 25, 2004 by the small Dutch label Transmission Records" ---> "It was released on March 25, 2004, by the small Dutch label Transmission Records", commas after dates, if using MDY. Same section, you have "symphonic metal" linked twice, you just need it linked once. In the Tour section, "The Pinkpop Festival performance on May 30, 2004 was televised for a Dutch TV station" ---> "The Pinkpop Festival performance on May 30, 2004, was televised for a Dutch TV station".
Done, Done, and Done.
Check.
Is it source spot-check
?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
:
The link titles in References 50 and 52 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per
here
.
Fixed capitalization

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:
Are "ProgVisions.net", "FaceCulture", and "The Dutch Progressive Rock Page" reliable sources?
About the sources:

FaceCulture.tv ---> In my search for Dutch sources for the article, I found this site which produces and hosts a large number of video interviews to artists and musicians of every genre and is a spin-off of the general site FaceCulture.nl. The interviews are both in English and in Dutch and are conducted by freelance journalists, not related to the subject of the interview. [1] Moreover, the facts related in the video interview are largely verifiable through other sources indicated in the references section. I think that all this qualifies the source as reliable.

The Dutch Progressive Rock Page ---> DPRP.net is by far the most important Dutch site about Progressive Rock in activity since 1995. It hosts thousands of reviews and interviews to rock bands of every nationality. DPRP team of contributors comprises journalists and musicians coming mainly from the Netherlands and the UK, not related to the subject of the article. The DPRP references were used in the article to show the variety of opinions about the band and the album and I think that they qualify as reliable and independent.

ProgVision.net ---> ProgVision.net is a Spanish web site dedicated to Progressive Rock, active from 2000 to 2004.[2] It contains many reviews of albums and concerts held in Spain. The source examined relates of a 2002 concert of After Forever and expresses an opinion about their performance. The author Germán Villén is a Spanish prog rock musician [3] not related to the band and his opinion appears valid and independent.
Alright, I was just wondering, cause I'm not familiar with the sources and you wanted to know on their status and stuff. Check.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Is it neutral
?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war
or content dispute:

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are
copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
:

B. Images are
suitable captions
:

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´will be working on the article starting tomorrow morning. I think your observations can be properly and quickly adressed. Thank you for your time reviewing the article. Lewismaster (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for it, just doing my part. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done fixing the article and I leave it to your judgement. Now back to work on the next one... Lewismaster (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done good, cause I believe everything is in order. Thank you to Lewismaster for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for my first GA article. Lewismaster (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (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.

fixed staff

I am not sure what fixed staff d.p.r.p. has on retainer. It isn't a reliable source regardless of whether it passed a GA review. Sikonmina (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure, bring it to discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, instead of deleting everything like you appear to like doing. Your opinion counts for one and I don't agree with you about this source. It is independent, it has and editorial staff and it has been active for 26 years. By the way, a discussion was opened on the topic in 2014 without reply:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Is Dutch Progressive Rock Page reliable?. Until a consensus is reached, please do not delete sources that may be considered reliable. Lewismaster (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on your talk page but let's move the discussion here. On your talk page you state that reviews are written by the team. The statement was actually a response to the question: "Can I send my own review to you for publication on DPRP?". So really, the site is still
WP:UGC and the page you cited still does not state "fixed". Sikonmina (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. DPRP is not a platform for any user to add every kind of content or review. Sputnikmusic is such a website, where any registered user can add his own review of a record. Just like any other reliable music magazine or webzine, apparently on DPRP only a small number of people work on the publication of content. The writers review what they receive and have some knowledge about. Regarding Invisible Circles, the reviews were round table ones, not relying on just one opinion. In fact, the reviewers' opinions were divergent. The other references are about a band interview and the date of a concert. I can't see how they can be considered unreliable. If we cannot use as sources the huge amount of interviews released by artists to websites all over the world, a large part of wiki articles about music would lose most of their content. Lewismaster (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here there is something about the team: [4]. Here [5] says that: "The team has kept on changing of course, but slowly. We're a group of 25 people now." Lewismaster (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The writers of DPRP still express their own views. DPRP is only a website and content is still created by unpaid individuals. Maybe most articles about music should lose most of their content. Sikonmina (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sources
WP:REFSPAM. Sikonmina (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I find that what you wrote does not make much sense.
"The writers of DPRP still express their own views", just like every music journalist and reviewer that I have read in my life. Check out any issue of Rolling Stone to read the most grossly opinonated reviews on Earth.

"DPRP is only a website", just in case you had not noticed, 2/3 of the music news, interviews, reviews and sounds are published through websites, often way crappier than DPRP. Labels, bands and artists in general promote their products through the Internet, using any channel available and to deny the fact that the info is out there in different formats than in the past is silly and laughable.

"created by unpaid individuals", I don't think that being paid is required for being independent, actually I think that money usually goes against independence. It is rather funny that you write something like this when we do the same on Wikipedia.

"Maybe most articles about music should lose most of their content." What you wrote here is very serious and unsustainable. You don't show respect for the work of hundreds of other contributors, who spent hours researching and writing articles that you deem unworthy. Wikipedia have rules, but the first of them is that it is a collaborative effort, not a one man show. I think that it would be much more useful for Wikipedia if you research better references and citations, instead of bluntly ereasing the work of other editors, hiding behind
WP:REFSPAM (which have nothing to do with this article). Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Is DPRP a reliable source is the question. What you are saying is all websites are reliable isn't it? Why do you think DPRP is a reliable website? "just like every music journalist and reviewer ..." could create a website and post a review whether or not they are reliable or not. i could post a review and describe a song with my own
reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought that my points about DPRP were clear. It has a fixed staff of 25 members, it has the editorial guidance of people who have been doing this job for 26 years, it does not accept user reviews, it is independent and it has reviews and links published on magazines [6] and official band websites [7][8][9]. I am not saying that all websites are reliable, but I say that you cannot refuse content from websites only because they are not in a short list on Wikipedia. In particular, I often cannot find interviews of artists and bands outside of websites or social networks nowaday. Many artists do interviews only on web radios and YouTube and what thay say can be interesting not only for the music geek, but also for the casual reader of Wikipedia who is looking for a more rounded and complete information on a specific topic. It's up to the writer and to the following editors to select the sources and the content to make an article as interesting and complete as possible. Lewismaster (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invisible_Circles&oldid=1207732131"