Talk:Make-Up (American band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMake-Up (American band) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 27, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Name[edit]

Isn't the name of the band "Make Up" rather than "The Make Up"? I have several of their CD's and they all read "Make Up" rather than "The Make Up". also the Dischord Records website [1], a label that carried the band.

Well I'm going to move this article tomorrow morning. -RRR

Sorry, been in China for a while - as for this question, the band used both names on record sleeves but referred to themselves in songs usually with 'The' - so either is acceptable. --Sachabrunel 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be edited to reflect that their first album, "Destination:Love - Live at Cold Rice" is not actually a live album. It was recorded in a studio, and "live" sounds were dubbed in later.

GA review[edit]

Here are my comments with respect to reviewing this article for WP:GA status.

Thanks for the review! I've done what I can to address the issues you raised:
  • Four paragraphs for lead is too much - refer to WP:LEAD for advice, I'd suggest three maximum.
You read my mind. I was hesitant about one of those paragraphs anyways, so it's gone.
  • Not sure about the use and wikilinking of posthumous - it leads to a disambiguation page which isn't that useful and I'm not convinced it's commonly used in this way.
It used to be linked to posthumous work, which has since been deleted. For a definition of posthumous, check out Wiktionary's definition. Although it does not mention musical groups, it is very commonly used in reference to them. (see Category:Posthumous albums) But if you're not hot on it being wikilinked the way it is, I could unlink it or link it to the wiktionary definition. Whatever you think is best.
The one thing I really object to is a link to a disambiguation page, so in my (humble) opinion, I'd remove the wikilink. The Rambling Man 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Drewcifer3000 11:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yeh-yeh" or "Yeh-Yeh"? Consistency required.
Fixed the one instance of "Yeh-yeh." (It was in the infobox, of all places. Woops.)
  • History section suffers badly from proseline, should be, max, three paragraphs nicely flowed to improve the readability.
I've reorganized things a bit, mainly moving content among the History and Recordings sections, as well as moving the Recordings section up in the article, right after History. I also tried to reword some things to improve the proseline issues, though a few paragraphs are still fairly listy (but I don't see how else to do those sentences/paragraphs).
  • "(see the "biographies" of Nation of Ulysses, Cupid Car Club, David Candy, and Weird War), " nasty. Parentheses don't help the prose, external links within the prose should be avoided, and "see the...." within prose isn't nice either.
I agree that it is oddly styled, but I think external links to other examples might be useful (in some form/style). Do you agree or think I should take them out completely?
Check out WP:EL, "Important things to remember", paragraph 2. Because the WP:MOS says no, I would either remove them or place relevant links in the External links section. The Rambling Man 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Drewcifer3000 11:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At first glance the Make-Up might seem to be a Rascals-style, "blue-eyed soul" group, but were in reality much more complex." - sounds more like an essay than an encyclopaedic article.
Although I think it was a relevant point, I do agree with you, so I took it out.
  • Recordings section is four short paragraphs, lineprose issues again.
Check out my comments above.
  • "skronk"? Not wikilinked and not explained...
I myself find it a questionable term. I've taken it out.

I'll place the review on hold - the most serious issue is the lineprose which I think can be relatively simply addressed. Let me know when you'd like a re-review. The Rambling Man 09:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drewcifer3000 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've passed the article today following the changes made. I'm still a little worried about the short paragraphs but since complete adherence to the manual of style is not obligatory, and the rest of the article is very good, I won't let it stand in the way of the article's promotion. Good work. The Rambling Man 07:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Make-Up/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far..

GA review (see here for criteria):

I will review this article. Lampman (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it's a healthy article, probably because it went through an (unsuccessful) FA review late in 2007. The only major problem is with the references. There are four dead links, three of them associated with the site Drag City (I've tagged the dead links.) One of these is used ten times, and constitutes a major part of the sourcing of the band's biography. I tried to track down the links, but to no avail. This causes a major problem with WP:V. If I understand correctly, these were pure web references, that now simply don't exist any more. This will have to be addressed for the article to maintain GA status. Lampman (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, fixed all the references. Whew. Thank god for Internet Archive. Looks like alot of these pages went dead sometime in 2008, but luckly the archive caught them all before then. So now, there's a ton of references with archived urls, which isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing. And given that the band haven't been active for 10 years now, I doubt there's going to be any more source material made any time soon to replace any of it. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job, those sources look fine (though they take about a week to open...) I'm happy to pass it now. Lampman (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Make-Up (American band)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs better citing and expansion.--Yannismarou 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of June 2007, these issues have been addressed. A peer review has since been requested. Drewcifer3000 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Make-Up. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Make-Up. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Make-Up → Make-Up (American band) – Per WP:THE, "The" should only be used in the article title if the definite article is used by the band on their musical publications (CDs, audiotapes, records, etc.) or on their official website. However, this band doesn't appear to use "The" any more. I couldn't find an official website, but every one of their album covers released after 1996 does not use "The": File:Sound Verite.jpg, File:In Mass Mind.jpg, File:Save Yourself Make-Up.jpg, File:After Dark (The Make-Up album).jpg, File:Untouchable Sound.jpg File:Blue is Beautiful.jpg, and File:I Want Some.jpg. "American band" as the disambiguation was chosen to differentiate them from Make-Up (Japanese band). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make-Up_(American_band)&oldid=1195540706"