Talk:Daybreaker (Architects album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDaybreaker (Architects album) 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
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
March 11, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
September 2, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 19, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Daybreaker (Architects album)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Earwig's tool found a high similarity in content between this Wikipedia article and Metal Hammer Italy's article on the band, but it looks to me like this content was lifted from Wikipedia, not the other way around.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Daybreaker was praised by music writers for its variety and marks a return to the technical sound of their earlier albums—especially Hollow Crown—while incorporating several melodic elements from their fourth album, The Here and Now." - this sentence changes subject from the album to the band without signalling the change. Perhaps re-write as "Daybreaker was praised by music writers for its variety and marks Architects' return to the technical sound of their earlier albums—especially Hollow Crown—while incorporating several melodic elements from their fourth album, The Here and Now."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "They invited Green because they believed his screaming vocals had a Satanic quality..." - put "Satanic" in quotes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "and Sykes for a collaboration the band considered "long overdue " since Carter had sung on Bring Me the Horizon's 2008 album Suicide Season.[11]" - rewrite to something like: "while a collaboration with Sykes was something the band considered "long overdue", since Carter had sung on Bring Me the Horizon's 2008 album Suicide Season.[11]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "They fused the intense technicality and metallic style of Hollow Crown with the "soaring vocals" and the much improved production of The Here and Now.[2][44]" - When I first read this, I thought "they" meant the critics, but that didn't make since. I would work this sentence into a different part of the "Music" section. Perhaps make it either the intro sentence for the section, or else have it follow the first sentence on the album's genre.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "The album then breaks into intense and heavy songs such as high-octane tracks "Alpha Omega"[52] and "These Colours Don't Run", which are full of interesting rhythms and powerful melodies.[52]" - put "high-octane" and "interesting rhythms and powerful melodies" in quotes, since those are descriptions lifted from the BBC review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Italicize the mention of Enter Shikari's A Flash of Colour. Also italicize all mentions of Big Cheese, Exclaim!, Metal Hammer, Kerrang!, and Rock Sound.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical reception section has too many reviews in the ratings box, as per the Album WikiProject guidlines. Also, per this discussion, subjective summaries of reviews which did not assign a rating should be avoided in the ratings box (this means assigned labels of "favorable" or "unfavorable"), as it can be very difficult to neutrally interpret how favorable or unfavorable a non-rated review is. Lastly, as I mention below, the About.com source is not confirmed as reliable, so it should be removed not only from the ratings box but from the article prose. My recommendation is remove the About.com review entirely, and take the Exclaim and BBC Music "ratings" out of the ratings box [and remove AbsolutePunk entirely] - that will bring things down to ten ratings in the box. The article needs to conform to standards in order to pass. Also, maybe replace Blare Magazine, Alt Sounds, Kill Your Stereo or Punktastic with Kerrang! (whichever of these publications is the least notable), though this is merely a suggestion, and I certainly won't fail the review if it is not done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction to above: The About.com review is by Marcus Jervis, who has written for other publications and is thus reliable. However, the prose in the article is wrongly attributed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further note: Jason Gardner is not a staff member of AbsolutePunk. Thus, his review cannot be given in the article. All mentions in the ratings box and in the prose must be removed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Not all references follow a consistent format. For instance, citation 8 fails to italicize NME, and does not list the publisher info. Citation 10 contains the publisher and location, while 12 only has the publisher. A consistent format should be followed for all of the citations in this article.
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    Jam! appears to have discontinued their chart listings, or at least the old version of the listings, so the url (http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/ALBUMS.html) to the listings is now a deadlink. A real pain, that is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tom Seale said the record was darker and heavier and "more technical and so much bigger" in comparison to the style of The Here And Now." - this needs a citation since it contains a direct quote.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan Cooper of About.com is used as a reference. However, per WP:ALBUM/ABOUT.COM, which developed out of this discussion, there is no evidence that he is a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't matter - the About.com review is actually written by Marcus Jervis, who has written for Powerplay magazine and is thus reliable. The article prose, however, wrongly attributes the review to Ryan Cooper.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jason Gardner is not a staff member of AbsolutePunk. Therefore, he cannot be used as a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More dead links: http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=170388, http://metalhammer.teamrock.com/news/architects-alpha-omega-video/, http://metalfuzz.com/2013/01/16/architects-to-rock-warped-tour-and-then-tour-some-more/, http://blaremagazine.com/2012/06/02/review-architects-daybreaker/,
    C. No original research:
    All content is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    All major aspects are covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
    Too much detail is given about The Here and Now in the "Background and recording" section. The first paragraph should be trimmed down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Fair, neutral representation. All major critical viewpoints are mentioned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable, no outstanding edit disputes or other disruptions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The cover image is used within policy for non-free images. The concert photo was released under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The concert photo is good quality, and helps illustrate the content.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall: Some problems with prose, formatting/MOS standards, and referencing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass or Fail:
Sorry for the late work, thank you for reviewing the article. I have met the amendments to the best of my ability. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyedits, Jonjonjohny, and the article now passes the GA criteria. Of the deadlinks which you removed, I did find archives for Metal Fuzz (http://web.archive.org/web/20130123055141/http://metalfuzz.com/2013/01/16/architects-to-rock-warped-tour-and-then-tour-some-more/) and Blare (http://blaremagazine.com/2012/06/02/review-architects-daybreaker/), so if you want to restore that content and cite the archived urls, I'd encourage you to do so. Finally, the album ratings box still has to reviews which use the favorable/unfavorable rating system, which is discouraged. I'd recommend removing those from the box, but they do not affect whether this article meets GA criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daybreaker (Architects album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daybreaker_(Architects_album)&oldid=1206898235"