Talk:Three Days Grace/GA2

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

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Middle school. High school. This band brings back great memories, and it pleases me to see it back here at GAN. I'm on the fence as to whether I can hold this - the sourcing is generally pretty good, which was a big concern at the time of delisting. But there are some details missing which I think would probably be warranted to include in it. Like almost all GANs, this will depend on the participation of the nominator or a main contributor to the article - though maybe more heavily in this case. Full review coming soon. Preliminary results return some overlinks, please double check those.

dannymusiceditor ^oops 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was starting this right away, but I had a lengthy start and my power blinked and thus I lost the edit and my motivation for a bit. I will definitely have something up tonight. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll notice I put a single heading here as opposed to what this article currently has. I understand that this is not the place to be arguing whether Groundswell and Three Days Grace are the same band or not, but that doesn't change the fact that there is not enough content here as it stands to have two separate sections. They should be one section, perhaps with separate paragraphs retained.
  • Not to mention the way the headings are written suggests the two were the same band with a couple members who didn't stay with Three Days Grace. The wording on the Allmusic biography suggests they were the same band, just saying...
• Neither of Phil Crowe nor Joe Grant are named in either of the sources provided nearest to their mentions.
• The Groundswell album and singles are not supported in the nearest citation.

(break for ease of access into the other mini-section I'd like merged)

• Florida Entertainment Scene is not my preferred choice of references if I'm trying to make a GA. Good news, though: it's only used there, and the Rolling Stone reference in the previous paragraph supports that same statement. Use that instead.
• You should name the then-president of Jive the article is talking about (Barry Weiss).
• Not the best start, but doable.

Oh, dear.

• Specify that half of the album was completed at Long View (per source given), while the rest was done at Bearsville Studios.
• There's a lot of quotation in here talking about the album. I get that that's what the section is about, but we need a tighter focus on the band than what's given here.
• There is little to no value in the quote chosen from Dave Doray. Why does he think that? The one provided at the album's article is a better start, but I'd prefer something straightforward while still having substance. This is straightforward, but no substance.
• On the contrary, Heather Phares' comments are long-winded and strays too far from the focus of the band. We have an article for this album, don't over-analyze. You could talk about something like how she praised the songwriting and strong choruses to make Three Days Grace a standout among their alternative metal peers, despite its simplicity.
  • To recap on those two points, what I'd like to see most is something that multiple reviewers agree on.
• Bring some objectivity to the table. Spin gave it a D and called it "generic Canadian gripe rock", though I'm not necessarily saying you need to add that literal quote.
• Talk about some of the more notable tours the band went on to promote this record. You say they went on tour for two years - so, like what? You have a well-cited tour section. Bring 'em up.
• Mention that Hate was released in May 2003 - the easiest way to attribute that would be the source I just added in I Hate Everything About You.
  • It was the band's first number one hit on the Canadian rock charts, and I would expect that to be important enough to mention.
• No mention of the other singles after Hate? I'd recommend using the source above for the same.
  • "Just Like You" became the first of many of the band's songs to reach the top of the Billboard Alternative Songs and Mainstream Rock charts.

This is hefty stuff. Not sure this is going to pass without a lot of dedicated hard work. I'm going to stop for the night and continue in the afternoon. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your GA review of this article thus far and I understand a lot of the points you've made. I will take into account of your improvement suggestions and will make these changes within the days to come. I started slow and added a source to the other members of Groundswell. My question right now is if this is a reliable source to add for Groundswell's Wave of Popular Feeling album, https://archive.org/details/groundswell_202104 Shout4Serenity (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept it per WP:ABOUTSELF, but I doubt it will fly at FA. This is a user-published source, so I'm afraid that won't work. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Stock's arrival necessary in the heading here? If you have to have it, put it in the previous section.
• "About this time" should be "Around this time"
• For the closing sentence of the first paragraph, I presume This year's follow-up, One-X, is a document of Gontier's addiction battle. is the portion of the source that is supposed to attribute that information. However, that is not sufficient. Nothing in this source from The Toronto Star addresses lyrics for songs, or when they were written. It sources everything else pretty well though.
• Gontier successfully completed treatment at CAMH... after one month (cite the Star again)
• The Revolver source in the second paragraph has been dead for 12 years.
• Today.com should say Today.
• The second paragraph is too long to just dump those refs there at the end. I'd prefer you put those two before the last sentence, then repeat the Today interview after the last sentence because that's the one the text is talking about, whereas it's mixed subject matter ahead of that one.
• Barry Stock shouldn't be linked here. He also should just be mentioned by last name after his mention in the previous paragraph.
• Should start the second sentence with "Instead of participating in Narcotics Anonymous, Gontier also performed..." per the source provided.
• There is a lot of stretching what this source actually says.
  • "as a "thank you" to the people who had helped him get through his addiction, and..." is a stretch of the source provided, remove it or cite it
  • No songs are directly mentioned in this source in the context of performing them at these shows, so you'll have to remove that.
  • Nothing said these shows were acoustic.
  • "The audience of about 250 people included patients, radio contest winners, family and friends of the band, and representatives from the band's label." not in the source
    • However, it does offer this: He then fielded questions from the audience, comprised of addicts and those in recovery. Use that information to describe how Gontier would interact with audience members after each of these shows, not just CAMH.
• Reception of One-X is aptly succinct, but I would recommend fewer quotations.
• Canadian certification should come before the American one.

• I see "again with Howard Benson", but it's the first time he's mentioned in the article. You should change the way this sentence is written or bring him up beforehand; the way it's currently written won't do. As it turns out, he produced One-X; I would encourage you to work that in somewhere in its respective section.
• Preferably, the lyrical tone should be referenced to more than one opinion, but it's a good one to start with.
• comma after "published statement"
• No need to get specific with reviewer names on a band article. Save that for the album page.
• For the Toronto Sun review, a quote is not necessary; simply say they criticized the album for a lack of sonic identity which drew too many parallels to those bands. Or something like that. I trust you.
• You can cut the long-winded last quote of Allmusic down to saying it served "a competent flurry of fist-bump anthems and world-weary, mid-tempo rockers."
• What about the rest of the singles from this album? At least name them. The first three of the four singles were all number-one Mainstream Rock hits in the US.
• No reference in the article at all for the Canadian shows. The nearest reference supports only who they played with in the US. The one you've given in the tour section only talks about American stops.
• The last reference in the section appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the text in the article.
• In addition to the rock album Juno nomination from 2010, it should be mentioned that they were nominated for Group of the Year in 2011.
• Nothing on the certifications for this album?

I apologize for stepping away from this for so long, been dealing with some stuff and haven't been able to motivate myself to finish the review. I will be doing so today. Now in progress. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no talk about the background of the album's creation. A good place to start would be taking some of the material from Transit of Venus.
• There's not always necessarily a problem with citing the band's official website, but primary sources aren't preferred if there are secondary sources available, and I'd rather you replaced them and not fill an entire paragraph with them.
• As long as the links are accessible, access dated, and not bare, this is not a GA criterion, but the reference formatting needs work and I would recommend you give it some attention anyway.
• Mention something about how Adam stayed out of the spotlight until he re-emerged with Saint Asonia in 2015.
• Last sentence unsourced.
• No talk of the singles at all? At minimum, it should be mentioned that Transit of Venus was the band's first album where all of the singles it spawned were number-one Mainstream Rock hits.
  • Afterwards, note that by the time promotion ended for Transit of Venus, Three Days Grace had amassed ten (!) number-one Mainstream Rock hits.
• Certification awards?

• Link KISW
• The nearest source to said radio station bears a different frequency than the text; I cannot confirm if this is the same station from the source given, and the corresponding article doesn't seem to say anything about it. Fix this.
• "titled", not "entitled"
• It's good information that "Painkiller" was a number-one, but it's disorganized in presentation. With how many Three Days Grace have to their name, you don't need to be that specific with when it made it on the band's page; maybe the song page, but not here. It would be good to note the number-ones as a group in this section like you did the others.
• There's a comma where there should be a period after "September 30, 2014".
• You should probably link "You Don't Get Me High Anymore" to Three (Phantogram album).
• Again with the primary sources.
• Certification awards?

• Small section, missing background details. Take some from Outsider (Three Days Grace album) and add it, sourced properly, to this section.
• 13th number-one (should be written like that, by the way, not no. 1) isn't normally a significant number to hit, but given that they tied a record here, I'll allow it. This same kind of writing occurs around "Infra-Red", change that accordingly.
• Only need to link Van Halen once.
• "November 13, 2018" needs a comma after it.
• No mention of any tours here.

• Same thing with lacking background details, yada yada
• A lyric video isn't that big of news if a song was released, you don't have to have that there.
• Reference 77 (at time of writing) has no access-date, this is required for GA. As long as the reference works, add that at minimum, preferably the name of the article's writer as well.
• "the third single from the album," should come after the song's title, I think
• Link EF4 to the Enhanced Fujita scale
• Insufficient tour coverage.

• I barely even know how to review this section, actually. If I was the one writing this, I'd have included and highlighted a few of their biggest nominations and wins throughout the history of the article instead of this when they have a history this extensive. But I'm going to try anyway.
• First, it's far too split up, you should group them together into a couple different eras of the band. Not this proseline.
• As of writing this, reference 94 has no access date. Recommend completing entirely.
• The 2019 iHeart is already mentioned in the History section. Choose one place.
  • Actually, no. We need to nuke this section. The first paragraph, which dates from the original GA, was good, but it's so disorganized and inconsistent after that that it's easier to re-write it entirely or integrate portions of it into History. I would normally consider this egregious enough to fail given the other problems it had, but stay tuned. I'm not going to be that tough yet.

Far too short. References are plentiful, but it should be fleshed out to include specific portions of the band's musical style other than genre. In my work on The Promise Ring, I integrated different observations about individual albums; I see a little of that is present here on a smaller scale. Most of all, it just needs updated. I will admit having more developed album articles respective to what I used in the Promise Ring helps, but I think some tools to work with.

I guess it's fine? I don't usually see much more than this kind of thing for a band GA, sure it could be better but it's passable.

...is fine.

This article is in worse shape than it looked when I first glanced at it. @Shout4Serenity: I'm sorry for taking so long to finish this, but this is normally something a reviewer should close as unsuccessful. However, it's not fair for me to just dump all this here and slam the door after waiting nearly 3 weeks for me to finish. So, with that in mind, I will offer you a deal. I will leave this open for 4 days for you to respond to this comment, if you're interested and/or think you can fix these problems adequately. If you confirm your interest, I will grant you an additional 14 days from point of agreement to improve the article to GA standards; if you decline or do not answer, I will close the nomination as unsuccessful. Regardless of outcome, I plan for this nomination to be closed no later than March 19. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DannyMusicEditor. Firstly, I appreciate that you took the time to review the article. Secondly, no need to apologize for your absence, I've been keeping up with your review and read why you left for a while. I completely understand and I hope all is well. Lastly, I've been doing my best to fix these issues you've addressed and will continue to do my best to meet the GA standards within the additional 14 days granted from you. Thank you. Shout4Serenity (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts thus far, but it is clear that this still needs a substantial amount of work. I will close this now in hopes that we can use this to bring it back to GA again soon. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]