Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

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 · contribs)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · 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

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.
  • That's just an American English thing, though I do prefer British when talking about bands this way... dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's reasonable! This does just seem to be my own preference of English variety, apologies. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• performing the new song "Right Back at It Again" at each show. — 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?
  • I think it just adds up to three weeks? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it, the phrasing made me ask this, not that there's any issue with it. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.
  • That was an unintended way to understand how I wrote the sentence, and I've reworded it. It was supposed to be a transition into a different topic. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The home studio was constructed specifically for the purpose of recording — "the purpose of recording" feels redundant.
• "Wrapped up everything for the @WhereisADTR Common Courtesy episodes" — 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 — 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]
        • Ah, I actually fully agree with you! I'm just talking about the semantics: the list is set up with, "the band wanted to fully appeal all sides of its fanbase". The "as well as an acoustic song" bit would have to be changed to something like, "and those who listened to their acoustic ballads" to work as an element of the list. Once again, I'm confident that their ballads are popular among fans, it's just the phrasing! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now I think we're rolling. Talk about "Same Book But Never the Same Page", eh? dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • okay wait... i.. that's genius, anyways, with the pendantics aside, I quite like the change! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dead & Buried" "just came together" with few adjustments needed to the original take. — 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," — 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. — 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. — the nomination of a music video of a track; I don't think this is too relevant.
  • This is habit built from writing albums that make songs which generally don't have any tracks that are notable by themselves. Obviously that's different here, so I can understand this. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

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:

• There are many indepednent sources of unknown reliability. Most of these are from Kill Your Stereo (with 9) and Alter the Press! (with 6). Feel free to argue for their reliability, though, I might be missing something. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to re-source a handful of them or remove the unecessary ones. Here's a list based on this edit, I'll add more suggestions as I go.
  • 3 (could be replaced with a The Music article)
    • Replaced. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 (covered by ref 5)
    • Removed. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 (according to a fan tweet? You could replace it with this more concrete LoudWire article from August)
    • Replaced with [1] (the site appears on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). This has a May date while the LoudWire one has an August date; figured something closer to time would be better. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 (probably from a tweet, but that would be hard to find)
    • Wasn't able to find the tweet from McKinnon or the band's accounts. Removed. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12
    • Replaced with tweet from Gilbert. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16
    • Replaced with [2]. It seems the Kill Your Stereo posts moved over to The Music. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I probably should've realized the connection between the two, but either way, I feel more comfortable with them now being cited to The Music. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • 20
    • Removed as covered by existing refs. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22
    • Replaced with [3]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24
    • Replaced with the tweet being quoted. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28
    • Removed as covered by existing ref. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36
    • Removed. See next one below. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37
    • Replaced with the tweet being quoted as it seems this didn't get moved over to The Music. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 49
    • Removed. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 55
    • Replaced with [4] (the site appears on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 58
    • Replaced with [5]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 63
    • Removed as the below one covers it. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 64
    • Replaced with [6]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 65
    • Removed as covered by existing ref. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 76
    • Replaced with [7]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86
    • Replaced with [8]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 117
    • Replaced with [9] (the site is on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE). MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For the reception section specifically, Alter the Press! doesn't seem very prominent, you could incorporate this Renowned for Sound review in place of it.

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

• Replace Under the Gun per WP:A/S
  • Removed. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 70 is a dead link
  • Replaced with [10]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

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

• Goodwyn, Tom (November 24, 2011). "Interview: A Day To Remember's Jeremy McKinnon on new music and winning over Rise Against's fans – Alternative Press". Alternative Press. Archived from the original on April 3, 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• "A Day To Remember Countdown To Their Next Album 'Common Courtesy' | News | Rock Sound". Rock Sound. December 4, 2012. Archived from the original on March 1, 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• Beringer, Drew (December 20, 2012). "Stream New A Day To Remember Song - News Article". AbsolutePunk. Archived from the original on July 29, 2013. Retrieved May 16, 2013.
  • Time-zone stuff, the other confirms Dec. 21, looks good Y
• Chichester, Sammi (December 20, 2012). "Interview: A Day To Remember Frontman Jeremy McKinnon on New Song "Violence (Enough Is Enough)" and Their Next Album - Heavy Metal News | Music Videos |Golden Gods Awards". Revolver. Archived from the original on December 23, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• "A Day To Remember Talks 'Really Special' Next Album, 'Common Courtesy'". News.radio.com. February 28, 2013. Archived from the original on May 11, 2013. Retrieved May 12, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• Heaney, Gregory. "Common Courtesy - A Day to Remember | Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards". AllMusic. Archived from the original on February 18, 2014. Retrieved November 29, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• Benjamin, Jeff (November 25, 2013). "Metalcore Band A Day to Remember: "Rick Ross Asked If We're Satanists" - Exclusive Interview - Fuse". Fuse.tv. Archived from the original on September 14, 2016. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  • Video confirms it, looks good Y
• Horansky, TJ (September 10, 2013). ""I'm not going to let someone sit on my career and ruin our album"- Jeremy McKinnon on ADTR's return - Alternative Press". Alternative Press. p. 1. Archived from the original on September 12, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
  • Looks good Y
• "A Day to Remember Rocks Billboard Studio: Watch Live Performances & Q&A". Billboard. Archived from the original on October 2, 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2024.
  • Alas, the videos no longer show up and aren't archived. Would this bundle citation work? (side note, you could also add that they performed "All I Want").^[1]
    • The information I shared on Wikipedia is covered by the source's prose. The videos are not needed for the necessary coverage. I may be interested in adding information on the performances later, I will keep that in mind. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, you're right, they do mention the performances! Sorry for how very nitpicky this is, but I can't seem to find the specific track titles. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was very confused when you originally commented this, but it turns out I goofed and duped this reference. You are talking about a different place in the article than I believed you were - I thought you were referring to the band's former boss and his angry voicemail on "The Document Speaks..." dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • the plot twist; no worries about that! for some reason, the two citations have different archive URLs with basically the same content, which is kind of confusing. anyways, would the bundle still be the best choice? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • oh, you already did it, it looks nice! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "A DAY TO REMEMBER | full Official Chart History | Official Charts Company". Officialcharts.com. Archived from the original on 2013-09-27. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  • Link doesn't work, can't find info in archive. Would this be simpler?
    • Duh, I used an archive link older than the album's release date! 😛 Changed the archive URL. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • tehe, I don't know how I missed that Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

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

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

Stable

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

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:

• The three non-free images should have more detailed rationales. Many of the answers are short or just "n.a.".
  • I've expanded the rationales. MusicforthePeople (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

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 😛. 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]