Talk:Underoath/GA1

GA Review

I'm currently reading through this article and will give a review of it soon. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 21:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Review

• Y Done: Dashes – the section titles need to use endashes (without spacing) to separate years, such as "They're Only Chasing Safety (2004–2005)". Verify that this is consistent in the members section, as well as the record label years in the infobox.

Is it alright if I use & ndash;? (no space) – Jerry^teps 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine. Jamie^☆S93 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done: The lead is a decent summary of the article, but needs to be at least two paragraphs per WP:LEAD, so I'd suggest that it be both expanded and some of the info split into a couple of paragraphs for it to look nice.
• Y Done: Could you add a caption, such as who is who, for the infobox image? Also, I'd like to see who is in the second picture specified, too.
• Y Done: "Though the change in style caused some long-time fans of the band to criticize the album, The Changing of Times went on to outsell both of their earlier releases combined" in the second section is unreferenced with a {{fact}} tag.
• Y Done: Chart positions like "#1" and "#3" are now being spelled out as "number one" - this should be done for all numbers under ten (except for the wikitable...leave that alone).
• Check the consistency with linking to month/days, as well as full three-part dates (see the 2008-present section). Full dates should be linked to, and preferably, it'd be best to continue and link all mm/dd dates ("July 24") too. That last bit is generally optional, but just be sure to stay consistent.
• The section for Define the Line is kind of big; this should probably be pared down, or split into another section, such as "2007".
• Y Done; I think: The prose should be checked throughout this article. I've already altered some of it, but still some of the wording needs improvement. For example: "They're Only Chasing Safety was released on June 15, 2004 and proved to be a more commercial success for the band..." and: "a side project with Seattle producer Aaron Sprinkle under the name of The Almost; The Almost subsequently was signed...", which is redundant with the term "The Almost". Most are little issues, but a few are literal grammar problems. I can point out more specific instances and try to help if you want.

• Also, "It is the second album in Tooth & Nail history to reach that distinction (The first being Slowly Going the Way of the Buffalo by MxPx in 2000)." – sentence structure and capitalization of "The" with the parentheses needs to be changed.

Tell me if it's ok now. – Jerry^teps 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks good now. Jamie^☆S93 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done: Avoid using season terms such as "spring", because of hemisphere differences per WP:SEASON.
• Y Done: Their producer is referred to as both "James Paul Wisner" and "James Wisner". This should be consistent.

Changed James Wisner to James Paul Wisner. – Jerry^teps 00:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done: "...and a DVD with over two hours worth of the band touring in support of the album" should be clarified and reworded - the band on tour, right? Also, that fact should be referenced.

I reworded it, let me know if it makes any more sense. I am currently looking for a reference about the DVD. – Jerry^teps 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The wikilinking is decent, but looks a bit lacking: link to some of the fairly relevant topics/terms, if applicable, to spruce up the text.
• Y Done: A few times in the Define the Great Line section, there are "rumors" mentioned that don't always appear notable enough to mention, or should at least be presented in a different way.
• "During the 2007 fall tour, Chamberlain confirmed various times that the band will have a new record out in the summer of 2008" was a little confusing.

I also reworded this. Let me know if it makes more sense, if it doesn't i'll try to change the entire sentence. – Jerry^teps 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done; I think: Album titles should always be italicized, and song titles in "quotes". This is generally good, but there are one or two errors in this article; do a quick check-through for that.

I only found 2 instances of songs having only single quotes (') instead of double quotes (") is that what you were talking about because I went through the article and could not see any not formatted... Could you point out where you saw these? – Jerry^teps 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think it's all fixed now. I was especially thinking of one instance in the last history section near the bottom where their latest album wasn't italicized, but I fixed that just now, along with some prose rewording. Jamie^☆S93 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Just wanted to mention that I noticed there are a few more unsourced facts, and it mainly looks like the "Lost in the Sound of Separation" and "Define the Great Line" sections. Some facts are easy to source (like release dates), others may not be quite so – I'll add some {fact} tags to statements that need to be backed up, however, to get that issue out of the way. Sorry for not giving prior notice of this, but there are a couple of issues with refs here, too:

• Y Done: Ref #32 and #42 aren't formatted with a {{cite web}} template. There might be others, but those are two that I saw.
• Magazine/newspapers (websites for something of a larger publication or work) should be in italics with the references (under the |work= parameter of the cite template), while online-only websites should simply be in the "publisher" parameter. Check all the refs for this.
• Refs 35, 36, 30 are first-party sources, and need to be replaced. #10 is a first-party ref as well, and should get replaced, too.

Check these items off the list, and let me know when you're done or have any questions. I'm watching this page, though, so I should be able to catch any questions or comments that are left here. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: As this article has been on hold for 2 weeks, I'm considering the review abandoned. Normally this would be an automatic GA failure and you'd have to renominate the page. Fortunately for you, however, the only standing complaint against it seems to be a couple of first-party references, which is not intrinsically wrong so long as they are used solely for information about the subject itself. So, since I see nothing controversial claimed by those refs, I'm deeming them valid uses of first party sources and passing the page. Good work. --erachima talk 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I just haven't found time recently to finish the GA and was hoping others would help it. I'll try to find other references when I have the time. – Jerry^teps 06:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)