From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Mezzamorphis was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
May 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
November 28, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Christian music / Contemporary (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Contemporary Christian Task Force (marked as Low-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Albums (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Mezzamorphis:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Upload US album cover.
  • Expand : "content" - some lyrical and *lots* of musical; also, "reception & response"
  • Verify : by using more print sources. (Thanks, Dan!)

GA Review[edit]

Excellent article; I made a few very minor copyedit corrections, and the only thing that's keeping me from passing it is a fair-use rationale on the album cover. Once that's taken care of, it should be good to go. This is not necessary to pass, but would it be possible to get more precise sales figures for US and UK markets? Chubbles 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use statement added. Dan, the CowMan 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Delirious fusebox2.jpg[edit]

The image File:Delirious fusebox2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

This article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment as part of the Good Article sweeps. Looking through the article, I had a few concerns:

Lead section

  1. The second sentence is a little awkward. Could we rephrase it as "Released in 1999, it represented a large step towards a more electronic and mainstream sound for the band and received a largely positive critical reception."?
  2. "Mezzamorphis spawned two UK singles, "See the Star" and "It's OK", both of which landed in the top 20 of the UK Singles Charts, whilst the album itself peaked at number 25 on the UK Album Charts, giving Delirious? their second top 30 album in a row." - could we split this into two sentences after "UK Singles Charts"?
  3. "gone silver" reads as jargon. Could it be "was certified silver"?

Recording and production

  1. "King of Fools" should be italicized.
  2. Who is Martin Smith? Perhaps "In the words of front man Martin Smith"?
  3. Wikilink reverbs.


  1. Is a reference available for the end of the first paragraph?
  2. "the fact that out in the world, although everybody wants to be their own selves, we're pulled this way and that. Everyone you meet wants you to be something or another. The song asks God to help us to be our own true selves, as God sees us, not the way folk pressure us to be what they want us to be." - where is this quotation from? Can a name be given?

Promotion, reception, and response

  1. The hyphen after "two in the indies" should be an em-dash (replace it with "—" without the quotation marks).
  2. Did Radio One give a reason for not playing their music?
  3. Can "Virgin" have a wikilink?

Chart success

  1. This could be the most difficult issue. Can references be provided for each of the chart positions?
  • Most of the references were actually easy to find. The only one that needs referencing still is the US Christian Radio chart, since I couldn't find any mention of it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Those came from Powell. I tagged them. I also may be able to find more specific data in CCM Update. I'll look in a few days.


  1. The main infobox image should use a non-free use rationale template like the one for the alternative cover.


  1. Several references are missing access dates. These are important but won't prevent the article from being kept as a Good Article.
  2. For Reference #3 ("View from the Dressing Room"), can a page number or link to the article be provided?

Overall, the article is quite good and just needs a bit of work. I will place it on hold for one week to see how much progress can be made in that time. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely disappointed that it has come to this, but there is simply no interest at present in making the (relatively minor) fixes required to bring this up to GA standards. I hope that, in the future, someone comes across this review and is able to use it as a checklist to make a few fixes before nominating it again at WP:GAN. At present, though, I am delisting the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)