Talk:The Boxmasters/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Billy Bob Thornton, credited on the band's material as 'W. R. Thornton', has remarked that "I never intended to become a movie star... It happened accidentally. I appreciate it because I'm able to make a good living for my family, but other than that, it seems like a job to me. Music is what I love." The way that the quote fits in the text [has remarked that I ?], don't looks good; please rewrite.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead section don't summarize the article's contents.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   montrealgazette.com not worked.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   From 2008 to 2009, the group played in Canada and in the United States alongside musicians Bradley Davis on mandolin, guitar, and vocals, Teddy Andreadis on harmonica and organ, and Mike Bruce on drums. The source don't say about years and countries where the band played.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The group resumed touring in July 2008. The group resumed touring where?--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   File:BillyBobThornton.jpg needs an alternative text, see WP:ALT.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   Passed.--Cannibaloki 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the Thornton quote. I also added more material to the lead. I also corrected the OR about touring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I had to rearrange that paragraph per MOS:QUOTE. Okay, original research was removed.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, though, about the other issues that are cited. Why is it relevant when he played in those cover bands? The Squicks (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, I rewrote that paragraph.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when and where the touring took place is important and I found references for that. I also fixed the missing link. The Squicks (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Great.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Touring and controversy" should not be "Controversy in the Canadian tour"?--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a few additional comments, the article appears mostly good, and could probably be promoted to GA with a little more work. However, there's a few concerns. First, there's quite a few citations in the lead section, which indicates that some material may be being introduced in the lead and not adequately covered in the article itself. While some citations are acceptable in the lead, the lead section should ideally serve as a summary of the article, and citations should preferably appear in the article text and subsections that are being summarized.

The 'Canadian touring and controversy' section seems a bit unweighted and I'm not really sure how much of a "controversy" it really is? Could be leaning towards violating WP:NPOV. And I'm not really getting the point of why it's being covered? Is it really that important in terms of the band overall?

While the article discusses several albums and live performances of the band, it doesn't really talk about any songs or singles that they've produced that might be notable. It might be nice to include some popular songs they've come out with. Have any specific songs made the top 40 or top 100 rankings? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I think that the lead does not need citations at all. Everything in there is already covered in the article itself as you can see. I can remove those citations.

Secondly, the controversy really is important in terms of the band overall. Not covering it would be like not covering, say, Eric Clapton's racial outburst in his article.

Thirdly... As far as I know, their singles have failed to chart. I don't think that this really means anything- they're specifically designed to be an album oriented band rather than a singles band. The Squicks (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the lead section. It looks much better. I'm ok with the rest -- if the band is a more album-oriented band, then that makes more sense. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)