Talk:Nothing Is Sound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nothing Is Sound article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Nothing Is Sound was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 29, 2008

Contents

[edit] Neutral point of view

  • I deleted the "POV" caption. Andrew, you really should give some solid reasoning for this article to be tagged as such. Otherwise it gives off a rather negative view of the article which--I think--is NOT biased.
    • Please, just delete/edit what WORDS/PHRASES you feel are biased! :) --Teenwriter 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the neutrality of this article could be disputed. I think it could do with a bit of rewording in places to appear more neutral. Andrewduffell 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --T-rex 23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
After all, I was bold, and added a link everyone hated...but we removed it, and now all is well again. Yeah, stick your neck out, write something bold...and dont worry, it'll be deleted in 5 minutes if its totally wrong or innacurrate! ;) --Teenwriter 14:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am going to fix it, in due course, but there are a number of other articles that need my attention to, so I thought it best to make people aware of this one. --Andrewduffell 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the double platnium thing, but what besides those three words or so what is the reason for the NPOV tag? --T-rex 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • T-rex.....the Removal of link is not neccessary. That is a veeery detailed, in depth, well-written review of the album. :) If people dont want to click it, thats fine. But it isnt harming anythign being there, and it has some very helpful aspects to it. --Teenwriter 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course, I could always be wrong, and I'm open to change. :) But lets just discuss this properly first and save each other the bother of continuous editting. :) --Teenwriter 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Its just a link to your own site. Honestly I appretiate your work in creating pages for the other Switchfoot singles, as I had wanted to do that for a while, but never got a chance. In the end you just can't go and fill Wikipedia up with links that arn't really that important. --T-rex 03:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There is truth in what you say about "fill[ing] Wikipedia up with links that aren't really that important" BUT...I dont think that review is your typical review. It carries a unique perspective, and is about as thorough and in-depth as any review you'll find. Does that count for anything, or do you still vote to remove the link? --Teenwriter 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO the review is appalling. I think we should stick to more professional reviews for that reason. If we linked to everyone who reviewed the album on their blog there'd be a lot of links. Your review is nothing special.Andrewduffell 10:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • LOL! Well then, if it is sooo appalling, good thing it is removed with all speed! *chuckles* Well, to each his own. :) --Teenwriter 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DualDisc (DVD side)

I think we should add something on the DVD version of the album. I haven't seen it or have it, so I can't help, but it isn't mentioned at all in this article. Some pages might need to be created for their other DVD's, linked to in the Switchfoot article, too. Akrabbim 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the duel disk either (wish I bought it as it didn't have that XCP thing on it), but I think it is just audio in a dvd format... maybe someone actually has the disk? --T-rex 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
taking that back

[edit] GA Nomination

I have nominated this article for Good Article Consideration --T-rex 02:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I considered this article for a review. Comments coming soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
  • use dash to indicate that the recording was done in 2004 to 2005.
  • Delimit genres with a comma
  • Sony BMG is not a label.
  • Delimit the producers with a comma
  • Reviews from Amazon.com are not valid.

hey. Ill be back. --Efe (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is Sony BMG not a label? --T-rex 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
to Efe, Sony BMG is a distribution label, owned by Sony. Columbia Records operates under Sony BMG, so I would think that SonyBMG is label, and it should remain in the info box. Peace Joberooni (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a record company. Labels under this company includes Columbia and Arista. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • All Music Guide's new name is Allmusic
  • Rolling Stone and Paste should be in italics; they're magazines
  • Do not italicize IGN.
  • Switchfoot is from? What type of band?
  • Link September 13, 2005
  • it would be better to use the word instead of the sign #.
  • just mention in peaked at number three
  • Billboard should be in italics
  • Billboard 200 must be linked
  • Remove the component chat info; only the official US album chart.
  • Can you generalize info about the singles? Its too detailed.
  • Bassist needs link
  • is it their official website?
  • "about ways to get around it" is vague.
  • I thin it would be better to remove the parenthesis and reword it or add semi colon like …;Columbia, the band's record label, removed it promptly…(or something to that effect) Note, Columbia should be linked to Columbia Records.
  • The tracklisting must be put after the prose.
  • Are those extra songs significant? If no, remove. If yes, better merge it with the track listing and re-write it in prose, not in bulleted style.
  • The section "extra songs" is completely unsourced.
  • "at different record stores"
  • Who is Jon Foreman? Any link?
  • Link San Diego.
  • Comma after "In Japan"
  • Link montage
  • Switchfootage must be in italics; it's a DVD.
  • How large? It's somewhat a POV and its not clear.
  • Remove the quotation marks in The Beautiful Letdown and format it in italics.
  • Successive "as a result"
  • Remove the quotation marks in "Nothing Is Sound" and format it in italics.
  • "while the band was on tour" is redundant; it repeats what has been said in the preceding sentence.
  • Is reference two covers the whole section "album history and recording"?
  • References must be put right after the punctuation, no spaces.
  • The release date must be mentioned in the section "market success".
  • Spell out RIAA
  • "meaning that it had shipped" is not encyclopedic. Just say "…for selling at least…" or to that effect.
  • Incredible is very much POVic.
  • What is a rootkit?
  • Italicize Billboard
  • "Despite the obstacles to continued sales, its debut position on the Billboard 200 at number three is the highest that any Switchfoot album has ever placed." There is no relationship with the first clause to the second one. If it debuted at number three, there has nothing to do with the obstacles. Those only occurred after it debuted, hence the tapering sales.
  • Mention when was the lead single was released before the charting information.
  • Copy edit to: "Stars" is the best-charting single…
  • "a way around the protection" is vague…
  • Comma after However
  • Overlinking of Jon Foreman.
  • Jon felt the album was…
  • What is "by this"?
  • The ref comes before the punctuation; refer to above comment.
  • Produced or published? (in EMI)
  • The section "DualDisc release" must be merged with related section and this needs sourcing.
  • A DualDisc version of Nothing Is Sound was released simultaneously with the standard editions…or something like that…
  • "Notable is the fact that was originally the only version of the album that did not contain the copy protection software." Not clear.
  • Link Surround sound…
  • Are there useful information in the 30-minute long documentary to beef up the album's production section?
  • " Nothing Is Sound is characterized as being a much "darker" album compared to Switchfoot's other releases" needs source.
  • Jon Foreman must not be identified here. It should be in the first section or the first occurrence of his name.
  • Remove the comma after "dark theme".
  • Jon says, "I…"
  • What is the significance of the video section? It does not give any information very related to the album itself. This information must be added, instead, to the article of the song.
  • Remove the chart position table and write it in prose merging with the "market success" section.
  • Format the references. For instance, the retrieve date must not be confined with parenthesis and linked if a complete date.

That's all for now. Let's see the effect if these all are addressed or given proper objections. I'll put the article on hold and will pass or fail per GA criteria. You may drop me a message for concerns. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment

The article do not contain information about the reviews and the music/theme of the album. It should have at least an overview. --Efe (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

This article will be put on hold for only seven days. Also, please strike out my comments that are already addressed for easy tracking. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

There are still lots of work to do; so I am failing this GA nominee. It's over a week since I put his on hold and there seems to have no interest in working on this article. I might be wrong but if you want me to put it in an extended hold, and informed me so, I'll be happy to wait then and see improvements. If comments have been addressed, you can renominate this in WP:GAN. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with your claim that there is no interest in the article. Your grammatical concerns were even mostly taken care of. That said, you had little to nothing of substance to really say about the article to work on. It looks great to me, but I guess you can disagree if you wish. --T-rex 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, you have the interest then. But I clearly stated that you can object those comments if you think they're wrong or inactionable. There are still a lot of things to take care of specially sourcing. You can carry this concern to Wikipedia talk:GAN if you want. --Efe (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't leave a single comment about sourcing. Just alot about what "must be" in one section instead of another. I'm sure not going to take it up with Wikipedia talk:GAN, if anything it would be easier to just renominate it in a few months --T-rex 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, I forgot. If you were able to source them all, I will still fail this article for some comments you did not fully address or properly objected. Very obvious is the tracklisting which must be put after the prose. Also, it fails Comprehensiveness/Broadness. --Efe (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The track listing just so happens to be after the prose so I still have no idea what you are talking about. Even still there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the tracklisting being before the prose. Also I'm well aware that I didn't respond to some of your comments, and I never intended to. Also saying that it fails something and not pointing out how isn't going to help anything get approved. --T-rex 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahm, sorry. but still, it fails comprehensiveness. You can renominate this now if you feel this review is a joke or a blunder. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)