Talk:The Smeezingtons

Review

To the article creator-

I think this article is really well written. You've got some nice references and links, and the tone is nice too. It could just do with a few more references, though.

Just what I think of the article :) Chevymontecarlo. 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you. Unfortunately, since they "dismembered" no more works were realeased and Mars doesn't talk anymore about The Smeezingtons. However, if anything else is find it will be added. If you have any sources feel free to add them. Have a nice day MarioSoulTruthFan1 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article clearly features content that is subjective and non-balanced. Take "They are currently one of the most sought-after production and writing team"; says who? By what measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.148.197 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. "In 2008, Lawrence was an under-appreciated Los Angeles artist" and "sitting in the car with no money in their pockets"...again, subtle but unacceptable abuse of a neutral medium for opinions and marketing talk...this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please someone place that tag "this page reads like an ad" or at least put quotation marks around the phrases above. Once again, those phrases make it sound like someone was hired to write this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.115.13 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge of The Smeezingtons production discography

I feel that it is superfluous to have a separate article for the production discography, when it could easily go in this article. If the objection is that it would take away from the "flow" or "structure" of the main article, then I would suggest collapsing the structure on the page (but, if possible, I'd like to avoid doing that). The production discography is short enough to include in this main article, especially compared to similar articles about other producers such as Polow da Don. Only producers with long credit histories tend to have separate discography pages (e.g. RedOne and Just Blaze). Thoughts?  Amit  ►  14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like The Smeezingtons will be getting a lot of work in the next few years...why merge when we're going to probably need both articles eventually anyway? I mean, I'm not Nostradamus or anything but I'm thinking both articles will require major expansion as time goes on so it might be a bit hasty to merge the articles. But if you do, it's really not that serious to break them up again if these guys keep getting work.--mikomango (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think it might be a good idea to merge for now but keep an eye on this article as Bruno et al keep working. You're right, they're not exactly Just Blaze yet.--mikomango (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

production discography

I have been adding information in order to improve this page. How about creating a production discography page? I have a lot more info to add.

Readability and grammar

Small point, but there are a large number of punctuation and grammatical errors in the article. I'm working from my iPad which makes it difficult to do the switching back and forth thing to cite specific instances. I like the content overall and arrived here because I think Bruno et al will be an important force in music moving forward. As a reader i found myself having to re-read several sections due to structure and grammar.

ScoobyLives (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Ted M. ScoobyLives (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

---I know I'm trying to fix that. It's really hard working you could help if you want

MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)

I noticed that as well. The paragraph about how Mars and Lawrence met was riddled with issues, as was the equivalent paragraph in Mars' own article (one must have been copied from the other). I've fixed (mostly, at least) that paragraph (in both pages), and I've also extensively copyedited the rest of the article (as well as Bruno Mars' own article, which was much better but still subject to many flaws), and I've also made the style more consistent and formal by referring to people by their surnames rather than first names (previously it often used first names, which seems too familiar for me and also it changed from one system to the other which made it a little more confusing than was necessary). It took quite a while, but hopefully now the errors you were referring to are pretty much dealt with. However, I think that there is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done on this article. I do not understand how it could have been nominated for Good Article status in the state that I found it. BreakfastJr (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with your opinion the article had several mistakes and I thank you for correcting them. Secondly, it is nominated due to the extensive work that has been done in the article, despite having grammar errors and "issues" with ponctuation, paragraphs, etc etc and these articles take several time to be reviewd and accepted as FA, GA, A...so there is a lot of time to correct them. When an article is submited it has always issues, so it's normal. You also mentioned that is work that needs to be done in this article. Could you specifie? (MarioSoulTruthFan 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

Firstly, thank you for the thank you. I spent quite a bit of time doing those edits, so it does feel good to receive gratitude in response. (I'm new to seriously editing Wikipedia, and I've now begun to understand how most proper editors probably feel a lot of the time; spending ages creating/improving pages that millions of others will read without taking a moment to think about the editors. Still, the product is great, and it's awesome to be a part of it.)

Secondly, I think I should probably apologise; I had the wrong tone in my earlier comment. I had just spent quite a while looking very closely at the article and combing through it for the mistakes, and by the end of it I think I was a little frustrated. Upon reading it again today I did see more mistakes (small ones) and corrected them, but overall I realised that this is actually quite a good article and that it has a lot of value (I think earlier I'd gotten to the stage where I couldn't see the forest for the trees, so to speak). I've looked at the Good Article criteria again and I think that the article as it stands definitely seems to me to deserve it (however, I am now biased so I won't join in that discussion).

I can only see three things that I feel could do with some more work. Firstly, as a different user mentioned, there should probably be a source for "They are currently one of the most sought-after production and writing teams in California" or that statement should be changed to something less in need of support from a source (I read the source linked after it and the closest it came to that statement was "the production trio's services are increasingly in demand"; perhaps something more like that could be used). Secondly, the "Other ventures" and "Levcon studios" sections are both very short and the "Other ventures" mentions Levcon studios, so maybe they'd be better off merged together somehow, unless more info can be added to at least one of them. Thirdly, the "Formation and early works" section seems to me to be slightly confusing since it seems to not be in chronological order. I don't know the subject well enough to fix it, and maybe there's not really a problem, but I think it could do with just a little bit of a rewrite/shuffle around or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong.

But these aren't big issues, and the rest of the article is well-written and informative, so I think it deserves Good Article status now. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your frustration had it myself sinsce this article began with nothing and now has everything. Regarding the Other Ventures/ Levcon Studios I believe you are right and they should be merged. Once I found a source (can't find it anymore) saying that the label has offered them a new studio but they refused to move, however they still need to be merged. Secondly, you are right I will change the words in that paragraph it could be miss reading or people will miss interpret. I will see what I can do about that topic ("Formation and Early works"), the hardest part is select the info and you get mad sometimes when the internet is not responding. Thank you for contributing for wiki, I hope we have the chance to edit more articles together. MarioSoulTruthFan MarioSoulTruthFan 10:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you also for putting time into this article. BreakfastJr (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Philip's birth year

The article says 1980, but Italian wikipedia says 1976. The source provided only provides a citation for the birthday, not the year. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smeezingtons. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://justbrunomars.com/bruno-mars/interviews/bruno-mars-interview-justbrunomars-com-exclusive/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversals of my contributions re Bang Bang, Wavin Flags, and name change.

Mariosoultruthfan, you said that I made a mess. I'm assuming you are referring to my December 10th edits, since a few days before that, you sent me a Thank you note. What is the problem with my December 10th edits? Is it: Inaccurate? Poorly written? Inadequately supported with citations?

I thought that I added good information about wavin Flags and bang bang. The support for the wavin Flags info is in the Wikipedia article for wavin Flags. I checked all Wavin flags info carefully regarding the chronology.

I Tried to show when the name changed . The Troubadour 2/2009 cover notes do not say Smeezingtons, but the 8/2009 cover notes for Get Sexy do say Smeezingtons. So that narrows down the date of the name change.

If my edits lack citations, I can restore them with more citations. Thanks. Robinesque (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Those were others edits which helped the article, the latter you made it didn't. I didn't understand the use of release dates brokedown to the day it's pointless, plus no citations were used. On top of this, you changed the date the team was formed with no reliable source. Not only that but "Bang Bang" doesn't need to be mentioned in the main article, as it wasn't the song that gave them recognition. However, I would add it to the discography as it was released as a single. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Mariosoultruthfan, and for letting me know the problems so I can fix them. I added date info but I didn't change any key dates. I'd love to know which dates you're referring to. Bruno Mars considered Bang Bang significant as an early work that already displays their mature sound, including their skill with live instrumentation. The citation makes this clear. Maybe Bang Bang would fit better in the section on influences and style. Robinesque (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the formation of the Smeezingtons, you should add dates like "May 2009" just an example, instead of "05/2009". Yes, I agree bang bang would fit better in that section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)