Talk:Common Courtesy (album)

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Averageuntitleduser in topic GA Review

I'm Already Gone

edit

Although I can't find official digital downloads (besides iTunes) or physical releases, several sources describe this as a single and I'm thinking maybe videos are what they want to be called singles.

One of them even calls it an official single. I'm really thinking this should be an exception to that no-video rule for the singles list and we should list this one. 65.185.86.64 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's only a music video, it's crystal clear. Like "Violence" is only a streamed song. You need to read what is really a single, maybe. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quotation templates

edit

I am aware that the article has a few maintenance tags in place and I expect to be able to resolve them pretty handily. Please do not use this as grounds for quickfail, just trust me. dannymusiceditor oops 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quotefarms have been successfully harvested. I would like to expand critical reception as well, ideally. dannymusiceditor oops 20:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Common Courtesy (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DannyMusicEditor (talk ยท contribs)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk ยท contribs) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll be giving this a spin! Very 2013-coded, I kinda love it. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tour announcement Tuesday, a review for Common Courtesy Wednesday? I'm being spoiled... dannymusiceditor oops 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comments should be done today, thanks for your patience! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Well-written

edit

I've started to realize that I really like background sections that have some sort of hook, especially with the quote, this one is no different. The rest flows nicely as well, no issues with structure.

  • General comment: "the band", "the album", and sometimes member names, are used quite often, to the point that it becomes repetitive. I'd use pronouns more often, and sprinkle in one or two "A Day To Remember" or "Common Courtesy"'s.
    • Was this an impression you built off the lead? I personally recall trying to give this extra attention when I was rewriting the body, but come to think of it, until tonight I had never really given much thought to the lead. I just switched up some of the issue you're talking about here specifically in relation to the lead section. I've made some changes to that area outside your comments; if you have any encouragements on the lead as a whole other than your third bullet I'd be happy to hear them. I consider myself a weak lead writer. dannymusiceditor oops 04:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually, I thought the lead summarized everything quite nicely! I did a few more tweaks (mainly to the sentences where "the band" was used twice). I sticked to it/its, but had to use they/them sometimes when the former wouldn't work. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • General comment: for the band, I would swap the it/its pronouns to they/them ones. I might just be used to it, but I prefer the connotation that the band is a collection of members more than a unit itself.
  • performing the new song "Right Back at It Again" at each show. โ€” perhaps "performing the eponymous new song at each show." to avoid repition.
  • Per MOS:US, make the "UK" and "U.S." acronyms consistent with their use of periods.
  • Do the "21" days have any significance, or is it a random number?
  • Could you clarify the connection between the album only having five heavy songs with that fact reflecting on the band's history? I'm not really getting it.
  • The home studio was constructed specifically for the purpose of recording โ€” "the purpose of recording" feels redundant.
  • "Wrapped up everything for the @WhereisADTR Common Courtesy episodes" โ€” perhaps bracket "@WhereisADTR" to "[A Day To Remember]" for those who might not realize that it is a Twitter handle.
  • those who enjoyed the metal side of the band most, those who preferred the more alternative-leaning direction, as well as an acoustic song โ€” do you mean they wrote an acoustic song for the part of their fanbase that enjoyed their alternative music?
    • Not really, no. I fixed it, but it feels personally weird to me because it's only one song that he's talking about (would become track six). It's the right thing to do though. dannymusiceditor oops 04:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • It still feels off: the two items in the list make it seem like the "as well as an acoustic song" bit would be another portion of their fanbase. Would it make sense to remove it? It seems to be adressed by the quote. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
        • That's exactly intended. I believe there is an argument to be made that an important portion of the band's fanbase comprises those who became fans in the first place from listening to their acoustic ballads, and thus is worth mentioning since McKinnon mentioned it in the same sentence. Their most well-known and successful song by far is a predominantly acoustic ballad. This isn't the only example either; they had recorded "You Had Me at Hello" on And Their Name Was Treason, and it remains the most-played song from the album by an overwhelming margin. Two other songs from Homesick were also re-recorded acoustically on the deluxe release. What would become "I'm Already Gone" isn't an outlier, you see. dannymusiceditor oops 23:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Dead & Buried" "just came together" with few adjustments needed to the original take. โ€” the quotation marks side-by-side are a little confusing, perhaps: "Dead & Buried" was completed smoothly, with few adjustments..."
  • he said it was a "feeling like you're helpless," โ€” perhaps: "he said it represented a 'feeling like..."
  • McKinnon revealed that there was a plan to release the album which was temporarily halted by ongoing legal issues. โ€” this doesn't seem relevant to the question, perhaps you could lead it into his next statements by replacing "that there was a" with "their"
  • The music video for "Right Back at It Again" was nominated for Best Video at the Kerrang! Awards. โ€” the nomination of a music video of a track; I don't think this is too relevant.

Verifiable with no original research

edit

Most sources are reliable in their use, Alternative Press is prominent, but they've done a lot of coverage of the album, so it makes sense. Earwig shows a solid score of 28% and ideas are paraphrased quite nicely. However:

Angeles, Jana. "Album Review: A Day To Remember โ€“ Common Courtesy". Renowned for Sound. Archived from the original on April 1, 2023. Retrieved March 24, 2024.

Spot-check

edit

Mostly randomly generated, I tried to find the magazine issues, but alas:

Broad in its coverage

edit

Based on my search for sources and read-through, the article seems quite comprehensive. A variety of reviews, articles, and interviews are well used; no large time-period or aspect is missing.

Neutral

edit

No issues during my read-through, all opinions and quotations are attributed.

Stable

edit

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

edit

All images improve the reader's understanding, the webseries one is similar to the cover, but it shows what it would've entailed and puts the era into perspective. The image of McKinnon is correctly labeled Creative Commons. However:

Summary

edit

A very pleasant read with only a few prose tweaks. I suppose it comes down to replacing a few of those sources (unless I'm missing something and they are reliable). Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And howdy MusicforthePeople, I just realized you were co-nomming this; your input is welcome! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
He wasn't exactly, but we're extremely close colleagues and he sourced almost all of the article before I made some writing changes ๐Ÿ˜›. Having no intention of taking this further, I decided to take it upon myself, but they're awake before I am. Not that I have any problem with it at all. I can probably fix the rest of these tomorrow, I'll be pretty busy today. dannymusiceditor oops 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Got it! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some really great source finds! I believe the article is now good in this respect. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think I fixed everything that's been asked of me and more, or at minimum responded to everything. Could easily have missed something unintentionally. Let me know if there's anything else! dannymusiceditor oops 04:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great fixes! I'll get along with the spot-check, just that one comment. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe that's everything once and for all. dannymusiceditor oops 01:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would agree, I am now happy to give this a pass! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2024 (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.
  1. ^ Multiple sources: