Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MewithoutYou discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

MewithoutYou discography edit

MewithoutYou discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that this list is outside of my wheelhouse, but following the example of past FLs I think this is ready --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • I might mention in the opening sentence that they are/were a Christian band. I read right through the first paragraph and was quite surprised by the reference right at the end to them charting on the Christian charts
  • "....[A→B] Life. [A→B] Life is an post-hardcore..." - any way to avoid writing the album twice so close together? Also "an post-hardcore" isn't right......
  • I notice that the use of singular/plural to refer to the band is inconsistent - you have "The band was formed in 2001" but then "mewithoutYou released their second album". Personally, being British, I would always use the plural form, but I was under the impression that in the States a band, unless called "The Somethings", was always treated as singular......
    • Umm. I wrote like I talk. I need to dig into this --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Guerillero: - did you get to the bottom of this? If it's valid usage in US English to say "the band was formed....the band released their first album" than that's cool and I will close this query and immediately support the nom. I only asked because I had always been led to believe that in the US a band name was always treated as singular (unless it was an indisputable plural like e.g. The Rolling Stones) i.e. an American would say "Coldplay was formed in 1998 and released its first album in 2000". Maybe I have misunderstood....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I asked HĐ for guidance. I will wait to see what they say. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the message. Though I am flattered by your remarks, I should clarify that I am just like any other editor in this field. To the main point--I think either plural or singular can be appropriate--though I observe that British English often favors plural (i.e. the Beatles), and American English the other. Whichever is fine, but treat it with consistency throughout the article. The current use in this article is completely fine imo. Best, HĐ (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" - this should be either "With It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" (if the change was a specific single event with the release of that album) or "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band had shifted genres" (if it was more gradual)
  • "The band announced that 2020 would be their last year as an active band in 2019" - wording is mildly confusing, I would suggest "The band announced in 2019 that 2020 would be their last year as an active band" would be clearer
  • Refs against Pale Horses are in the wrong order
  • Live Albums table should not have a capital A
  • Refs against Blood Enough For Us All are in the wrong order
  • Refs in the two Appearances tables should be centred to match the others
  • Refs against Split with Circa Survive are in the wrong order
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there really no other refs for the music videos other than mewithoutYou's website? It would be better to avoid primary sources...
Formatting
  • I'm not sure Jonathan Bautts can count as the publisher for ref 2
  • your inclusion of locations is inconsistent, unless there is some pattern I'm not identifying
  • You link Billboard but no other publishers/works, I suggest unlinking
Reliability
  • What makes Jonathan Bautts a reliable source?
    • I see that you have been reading my FAC reviews :P It is an interview with one of the band members and the answer comes directly from them. This was a hard one, because of how old the EP is and how rarely people ask the band about Blood Enough For Us All. I can go back to looking for a better source, but I haven't found much. The internet is devoid of references to the EP and there is nothing in newspapers about it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Punk news a reliable source?
Verifiability
  • spotchecks not done. Will probably do some later. Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have checked a couple (15, 27, 35, 21), looks good.
@Aza24: please let me know what you think -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of looking when you pinged! Given the lesser sourcing restrictions for FLC (vs FAC) I'm inclined to let certain sources be permissible. Give me a second to do some spotchecks... Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, pass for source review. Good work! Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • If any of the tables needs sortability, it would be the one called "Music". I think I buy that the table is short enough that sortability wouldn't make a big difference ... but I'm open to thoughts that you or the other reviewers have on this.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding is fine. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems. All relevant retrieval dates are present. The source review should have this criterion covered.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image seems fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "seven extended plays " put (EP) after extended play (as it's used in the infobox).
  • "and split albums or video collections." or?
  • "side project to The Operation by Aaron Weiss" neither are notable it would seem so some context, at least to "The Operation" wouldn't go amiss (e.g. is that a band? Genre? Location? Dates in operation (!)?)
  • "The debut extended play by ... " -> "The debut EP..."
  • What makes bautts.me a WP:RS? It looks like a Wordpress blog.
    • I answered the question for Aza24 above. It is an interview with a member of the band --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "post-hardcore" link.
  • "was a turn away" -> "moved away"
  • "vocals by Aaron Weiss" -> "vocals from Weiss".
  • "with Run For Cover Records in" not a capital f. in the tables too.
  • "in 2019 that 2020 would be their last year" -> "in 2019 that the following year would be their last as..."
  • "Label: Self" if this means self-released, I'd say "Label: self-released" to be clear it's not a label called "Self".
  • "that mewithoutYou has appeared on" -> "on which mewithoutYou has appeared"
  • "that mewithoutYou has appeared in" likewise.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

Can take a look. I have an old FLC myself, if you are interested.

  • "The band was formed in 2001 as a side project to The Operation, an alternative band that shares most of its members with mewithoutYou that was active between 1999 and 2001" I don't really like 'that shares... that was", imo it makes the sentence feel a little clunky. Can you rephrase, maybe "The Operation, an alternative band active from 1999 to 2001 that shared most of its members with mewithoutYou"?
  • "as a mewithoutYou release is murky." can you expand on this? what does 'official status' mean? What does 'murky' mean? Maybe add note 2 here...
  • link campfire songs? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think, Eddie891 --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/MewithoutYou_discography/archive1&oldid=1035488659"