This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia 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.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
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 articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The article's intro states that "Reveal (2001) was referred to as "a conscious return to their classic sound"". Referred by whom? HOW IN THE WORLD is an album that has highly electronic and experimental songs like "Saturn Return", "I've Been High" and "Beachball" a return to R.E.M.'s classic jangly indie rock IRS sound?? The biggest offender is, that sentence doesn't bring a source. Either it's an extremely wrong opinion with at least a source (and it sure as hell shouldn't figure on the intro) or it's just a wrong opinion by an anonymous who came and edited it. To clarify: the album Up was indeed a change in direction; Reveal followed in that same direction and was never, by any conceivable standards, a "return to R.E.M.'s old sound". -- 2804:14C:5B84:82B3:B5ED:A4E8:AC74:B210 (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still an unbelievably bad take that shouldn't be considered for mention in an encyclopedic intro for this band. Whoever doesn't know R.E.M. and comes here looking for their first info will be duped by that. I'd just vote for the removal of this wrong and misleading sentence. Either that or adding something like "... classic sound, which is proven right by... (song names)", and you won't find any, because there aren't. It could be called a conscious EFFORT, never a conscious return. It's really not that by any stretch of the imagination. -- 2804:14C:5B84:82B3:B5ED:A4E8:AC74:B210 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That inbox picture of the band is terrible, nothing can be seen clearly and people are cropped. Surely there are better alternatives out there? 86.1.92.136 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're an admin on this page? Sorry not sure how the process works. There's a collage of the four founding members in there that looks good ... 86.1.92.136 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no special class of user who has administrative rights for this page in particular: we're all editors, including yourself. I think the onstage photo is better than a collage. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see! Hmn do you not reckon it’s best to show the founding members clearly? That collage seems to be the best bet, surprised it’s not been used 86.1.92.136 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to show the band as a band, in this case performing live as a unit. The individual images that make up the collage are in the article anyway, so there is no value added by including it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the current picture adds any value cos it’s hard to make anything out, and they’re performing in the collage so is it not a good compromise? Collage aside there are better live photos on here than the current one. Makes more sense to show the individuals clearly especially for a band long defunct surely 86.1.92.136 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good for showing a stage show and also gives a decent view of them. I also added File:R.E.M. on stage, 2008.jpg and File:R.E.M. performing Let Me In, 2007.jpg to give closer shots that are better for identification. Anyone reading this article would get a pretty good look at all of the performers for R.E.M. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or is this article’s lead section quite lengthy? I haven’t tagged it with {{lead too long}} as I may well be missing something/there may be a reason for it, but I thought it was worth noting on the talk page. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 09:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe a little long, but from looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I don't see absolute or relative limits on the lead. This is 759 words, which is a little over a five minute read and with an article body of c. 8102, this is about 9% the length of the article. Seems long-ish but not outrageous to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
