Talk:Blink-182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blink-182/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Tom Delonge is still in the band. Text says he is not. He says otherwise: https://www.facebook.com/officialtomdelonge/photos/a.161059613916386.30214.161055970583417/867662499922757/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.67.233 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Pass
  • Has a reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Prose is clear and readable. I'm not seeing any significant problems, and I'll do any copyediting as I continue the review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • NPOV - initially I felt that some of the claims about the band were excessive, but a variety of sources do support what is said. There are a couple of points which still need clarifying, but on the whole I'm not seeing an imbalance - indeed, there are negative comments in the Legacy section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is informative and detailed. Major points appear to be well covered. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Query
  • Images are OK, though File:Soma San Diego flyer.jpg and File:WMAA Blink.jpg are copyright images used under fair use which requires that the use must be related to relevant discussion in the article. I'm not seeing that discussion in either case. Also, in both cases the captions are possibly a little too long, per WP:Caption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What does the AllMusic page have that this article does not have? Readers are being directed there in the External links section; but if this is to be a GA standard article, it should have broad enough coverage to contain all the important elements that AllMusic has. (This comes under WP:LAYOUT, a GA criteria) SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Focus. There appears to be too much fine detail for a general article. While the article should also be of interest to fans of the band, the main audience is the general public who are looking for an overview of the main points of the band; detail such as "Key's girlfriend, Anne Hoppus, introduced her brother Mark to DeLonge on August 2, 1992. The two clicked instantly and played for hours in DeLonge's garage" is unlikely to be of interest, and may irritate the general reader who are simply looking for the key facts. If a reader wishes to get into such fine detail, they can go to one of the book sources listed in the Bibliography. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Fail

General comments[edit]

  • The statement "Blink-182 was one of the most popular bands at the turn of the millennium, and spearheaded the second wave of pop punk and its journey into the mainstream" is sourced to a book I'm not able to consult at the moment. I've had a search on the internet, Google Books, and in the usual places, but I can't find another source to support this statement. It's a strong statement, and I'd like to be able to verify all aspects of it it. Is there another source which can confirm this statement? I found an About.com page - [1], though I haven't yet checked if About.com is considered a reliable source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion on WP:RSN is apparently where people are directed for views on About.com being a reliable source. It appears that consensus is that it is not because the authors are bloggers rather than respected journalists. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, this source is useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for long delay - I have been seriously busy elsewhere. I should have time to finish the review this weekend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the band timeline really necessary? Per MOS:TABLE and WP:EMBED we limit the use of tables to when the information is complicated and a graphic presentation would be helpful. I'm not seeing that is the case here. Indeed, it could make the band's history look more complex than it is. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Passed[edit]

I think there are aspects which still need working on as mentioned above - but that is more in line with tidying up rather than significant flaws. The information is accurate and is sourced, and the article is organised appropriately. Some trimming and tidying up would benefit the general reader, but that is more for ongoing development rather than work needed to be done to meet the GA criteria. Listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

small change of "the" to "they"[edit]

in the section "formation and early years" the last paragraph there is the line Their first big show on the main floor took place on a Thursday, where the opened for Face to Face.[12]' which should read Their first big show on the main floor took place on a Thursday, where they opened for Face to Face.[12] 71.244.106.187 (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Side project[edit]

It is known that DeLonge is mainly focusing on Angels & Airwaves, Hoppus has started a new band Nothing and Nobody, while Barker is contributing with other artists as a studio drummer, putting blink-182 on hold. It has been stated that blink-182 will be put on hold until all members are available, once again. Is it safe to say that seeming other members are focusing on other projects, while giving blink-182 some, if not little attention, that blink-182 have now become a side project? --1.252.87.54 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Management[edit]

Who is the current manager of Blink-182? Is it still Rick DeVoe? --Wudumindif (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo identifying Band Members on RHS is wrong and requires correcting.[edit]

Photo identifying Band Members on RHS is wrong ande requires correcting. I cant get in to edit and correct this. Can someone please correct.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015[edit]

There is a small photo identifying the band members on the RHS. It is mixed up and wrong. Can you please correct it 220.227.153.161 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 11:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The photo that features the band in 2003 in the "Mainstream breakthrough and continued success" section incorrectly identifies Hoppus as Delonge and vice versa. Delonge is on the left, Hoppus is in the center.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015[edit]

Tom DeLonge is not a past member, he's still in the band, only temporarily replaced LIVE by Matt Skiba. 134.24.149.212 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015[edit]

Tom DeLonge has yet to actually leave blink 182 so it should be made clear that he is still a member of the band as nothing has firmly been decided about his long-term future. Vaspala (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - The current article is based on this report amongst others - you need to find contradictory reports to support your assertion. Arjayay (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Band members/timeline[edit]

PacoDaKing14Sportz[edit]

Hi, I recently have been part of a edit war on the Member Section/Timeline on the page. I feel it should be styled like on of the two below because it's what most pages do as well. I can list sources as needed. So below are the two I feel would be best if one is chosen.

This would be my first choice.

Timeline

This would be my 2nd choice

Timeline

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to discuss this. Thanks. PacoDaKing14Sportz (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

4TheWynne[edit]

I appreciate you stepping in, seeing as nobody else will. I don't agree with either of them, however there are aspects of both that I am happy with. The first one lists DeLonge first, which I agree with because I feel as though guitar should always go before bass. Also, I agree with the length being 1000. The second one is aligned at left, which I think is more common, yes? It also lists the vocals and other instruments together, something that I have always done and agreed with (however I would have it as "vocals" as opposed to "lead vocals", seeing as they are both the same and there is no backing vocals). There are also aspects of both that I disagree with. Firstly, both list non-studio albums, etc., which I feel is completely unnecessary, and the bar increment should be 30, because there are only four people on the timeline. Secondly, the way that the sections list the members, I feel as though the vocals should be stated before the instrument (e.g. vocals, bass), the touring members should be listed together, and the years should be small (I don't understand why people would think that to not do so is common – very rarely have I seen years that are not small, like with the above examples). Lastly, I don't like the colour schemes (not that it's the issue). This is how I would have the section:

Timeline (although this would be a sub-section)

Also, for this discussion, I feel as though everyone should start a sub-section when they have their say, so that it is easy to differentiate between everyone's examples/opinions. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Anonymous User[edit]

I like different aspects of the first two.

As for the first one:

  • I like that the vocals are split in color from their respective instruments. Reason being, if Blink decides to pick up a new guitarist, it won't necessarily mean he will also be a vocalist.
  • I like the colors the best. Maybe switch Orange to Yellow. You can't go wrong with primary colors.
  • I like the order that the members are listed. Obviously both are Vocalists, and traditionally, guitarists are listed before bassist on Wiki.

As for the Second one:

  • I like that both Studio Albums and Non-Studio Albums are included. There's no need to be more detailed by splitting EP's and Live Albums.
  • I like the horizontal length. The first one seems too long, horizontally, but this isn't really an issue for me to be honest.

As for the third one, the only thing I like about it is there is only one header for the Touring Members. I agree that there is no need for "Former Touring Members" as the years next to their name already represents this, and they aren't official members so they technically can't be "former". They were just simply filling in. Now, what I don't like is that it doesn't show any Non-Studio Albums and the color scheme is just too similar between the Blue and Purple.

My pick is the first one with some minor tweaks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.96.129 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request January 31, 2015[edit]

There are numerous references to Tom Delonge leaving the band, which is untrue. Band-mates Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker SAID Delonge left the band. This was followed by Delonge denying he left the band[1] and Hoppus and Barker acknowledging he, technically, is still a member of the band. Here's an excerpt from the referenced article: Interviewer:"If this is a permanent break for Tom, do you see a future for the name Blink-182 without him?" Hoppus: "There are legalities involved with this. As Tom pointed out, he technically didn't quit the band."[2] So any edit involving Matt Skiba, who is only filling in at one single show at a festival, which is by no means permanent or binding, and Tom's departure are overzealous and factually incorrect. Also, I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly. Zammitj1 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheshire Cat (debut studio album) release date[edit]

When was this album actually released? It's a fact that it was released on February 17, but what year? On the album page itself it states it was released on 1995; however physical copies of the album states it was released in 1994 link. --1.252.90.151 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"as at 2015"?[edit]

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:5F00:8FC:EC85:2451:5FE3:B966 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Matt Skiba[edit]

The article used to say that Matt is a "full member" of the band, although no source back this up. To the contrary (as you can see here). Like I said, the sources say that he is joining the band for recording sessions and a few concerts, but that does not necessarily means that he is a 'full member' yet, as depicted. Does the majority of the users also came to the same conclusion? Or the fact that he will join the band for some recording sessions and a couple of shows already makes him a full member by definition (although no one connected to the band expressly said so, unless a unknown reliable source to me explicitly says so). What is the consensus? Coltsfan (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The way it usually goes is that if he is currently playing all the recent shows with them and is now going into recording with them and hoppus refering to them as a "Trio", and the photo shoot with Skiba in it, I think it's safe to classify him as a full member. I do believe is we need to have a poll if they vote they should explain it detail why the vote what they do. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
He might be playing "all recent shows" for now but is this temporary? He is there permanently to replace DeLonge? Or only through this next album cycle? You need reliable sources to back this out. Coltsfan (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

https://www.wow247.co.uk/2015/07/31/a-blaggers-guide-to-blink-182/ (Refers to him as full member of Blink) http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/225576/20150730/blink-182-matt-skiba-permanent.htm (Mentions recording album with them seals the deal) I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the second source you provided actually leaves open the possibility of him not being a permanent member. The first one does not actually say he is a full member and it also raises the question of whether is permanent or not. Coltsfan (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)