Talk:Good Morning Revival

Good Morning Revival was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 17, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on January 9, 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Break Her Heart track name

I'm seeing this track represented differently from different sources, MusicBrainz has it as Break Her Heart, and [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-0815292-9640943?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Good+Morning+Revival depending on the listing] amazon has it both ways. What's the verdict? --70.152.196.31 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The back of the album shows that the song is called "Break Apart Her Heart". Anthonyd3ca 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I've failed this article for GA status. This article is not stable; the album was only released a month ago. The lead is way too big, and most of the information in it should be contained under article headers. The article doesn't discuss the album's reception by music critics at all. The album cover has no fair use rationale and even states "This is a high Resolution Picture", which violates our fair use policy. The covers of the singles should not be in this article, and the information about them should be prose rather than a table. ShadowHalo 07:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Reception" section

In light of the recent edits removing and re-adding the "Reception" section, I have some suggestions editorial suggestions. My main concern with the current text is that I think it gives undue weight to the negative reviews as compared to the positive reviews.

"The album received mixed reviews. The Guardian, NME and All Music Guide, for example, regarded it poorly,[1] while Kerrang!, JAM!, Rock Sound and Teraz Rock gave good reviews."
"The reaction of listeners to the album was mixed. The Guardian, NME and All Music Guide, for example, gave negative reviews.[2] NME went so far as to say, "Go in with absolutely no expectations. Not even low expectations. Nothing." Meanwhile, Kerrang!, JAM!, Rock Sound and Teraz Rock gave positive reviews.".

Note that I cannot verify all of the reviews. Some of them come from this diff (link), which may or may not be an accurate characterisation of the reviews. Anyone got comments or suggestions? :) Cheers, Iamunknown 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the sources that back up the positive reviews?Hoponpop69 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one problem. I don't know. Most of the organizations cited as positively reviewing the album are magazines, which might be difficult to get a hold of. It could be possible, though, so I don't think we should rule it out yet. :) If we find some positive reviews, though, would you be okay with characterising the reception of the album as "mixed reviews"? Thanks, Iamunknown 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for mentioning any positive reviews as long as they can be cited.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged it for unbalanced viewpoints. A general Google query reveals some positive comments regarding the album release. The professional reviews is also an indicator of that, and the mention of a wholly negative viewpoint is rather disparaging. More sources can be found within the professional reviews, so finding citations is not an issue here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To become a GA

It still needs a bigger lead and the references should be using the cite web template. I hope this helps. Spiderone 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little more info onto the lead and I'm currently changing all the references to the cite web template. Anthonyd3ca (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with the improvements. Spiderone 08:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just noticed the "Internet releases" section is unsourced. Can sources be found for some of these statements? Spiderone 08:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do a formal GA review (if that's what you're doing) and note that at GAN. I was about to start reviewing this, and I disagree completely - it is in no way, shape or form a potential GA. There's little or no information on the background, songs, recording process or anything like that, and for a release by a major label artist the critical reception section is tiny. Unless you think you can fix these within a reasonable amount of time I'm just about convinced to fail it. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I wasn't trying to do a review I was just giving quick advice to avoid a quick-fail. Spiderone 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Good Morning Revival

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Good Morning Revival's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Billboard":

From The Young and the Hopeless: "Billboard". Billboard. Retrieved 2008-06-24.
From Avenged Sevenfold: "Eagles Fly Past Britney to Debut at No. 1", Billboard.com, November 7, 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing falsifications

Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Morning_Revival&diff=314069502&oldid=314069102 shows a user falsifying professional reviews (changing correct ratings to incorrect ratings). Tevi (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions

Why has this article got two tables of chart positions? Why do the two tables not agree with each other on positions attained in many countries? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock?

Just wondering, shouldn't "Alternative rock" be listed as one of the genres? "The River" is clearly Alternative rock song and has been described as one by Professional critics. I also used "Wayback Machine" to check and apparently "Alternative rock" was listed as a genre for this album from 2007 until 2015. So i'm not really sure why it was removed, because it makes perfect sense to be one of the genres on this album. I'm not saying that it needs to be added, but for the song "The River", it just makes perfect sense. Just saying. Musicmovies2024 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]