Talk:Toil (album)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toil (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks strong. It's brief, but there's presumably not a lot of content and analysis out there on this. It's well-organized and appears to cover main aspects. Again, thanks for your work on it.

Quibbles to address:

• "The song has been seen as symbol of the band's faith." Can we add a citation for this interpretation? Otherwise, it should probably be deleted as a tiny bit of original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Both the album and the single failed to chart, unlike Flatfoot 56's previous album, which peaked at number two on the Billboard Heatseekers Chart." -- this fact should appear in the body of the article if it's going to be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Also, comparing it to the band's previous album seems like just a tiny bit of original research if no sources make this comparison. It would be better to just say "Both the album and the single failed to chart", I think, and offer a citation for that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• I changed this. Does it sound better? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that I also made some copyedits for grammar and style as I went, including adding one inline citation that got omitted. Please take a look at my edits to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed or removed the dead links --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Dead links are permissible under the GA criteria, but obviously it's better to have them fixed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See note above about lead section. Also, a sentence on the album's blue-collar/Christian themes would be a useful addition to the lead, to better summarize the "Writing/Composition" section.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	See small points about this above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Requested move 20 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Not much to toil over here Mike Cline (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

---

• Toil → Toil (album)
• Toil (disambiguation) → Toil

– Wikipedia already has an article on manual labour which toil should really redirect to. A non-charting 2012 punk album is not the absolute majority meaning of "toil" in reliable sources. Alternatively move the dab to baseline, which is a quick flick for mobile phone users. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Toil" is not the same as manual labor by a long shot. This is a WP:GOODARTICLE, and there is no evidence that it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for topics called "Toil". Dohn joe (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good article, lovingly crafted by a fan of Chicago Celtic punk band Flatfoot 56, that's great. But that doesn't earn loss of (album). Wikipedia cannot distinguish initial capitals: and in the real world "toil" is clearly the primary topic for "toil" small t. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation page should be a base location; being a good article has nothing to do with being at the base location -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment. This is the primary, and only, topic of this title. I just deleted the dab page per WP:G6, as it was a dab page with only one link, this one. There are no other articles titled Toil, or that cover anything called "Toil". Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so it doesn't need to cover the dictionary definition of the word "toil". I can undelete the dab page if there are objections, but it seems unlikely any topics will be identified to be listed on it. Dab pages are for directing readers to information they're seeking by listing out ambiguous titles, not related concepts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I undeleted the dab page until the discussion wraps up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. If the discussion closes as not moved, the new stub Toil (concept) can be linked from a hat note; the dab page is still not needed. It's also worth looking at whether the "concept" should be a standalone article or if the content should be merged somewhere appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain what has whether a topic covered in Wikipedia is standalone or not got to do with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. What percentage of the Google Books hits for "toil" refer to a non-charting album by a Chicago Celtic punk band? In what way is this album of more encyclopaedic importance than the idea or toil itself? In what way are fans of Celtic punk music disadvantaged by (album) being on an album article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a COATRACK to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and a WP:PERMASTUB as well unless it's merged.

In ictu oculi: the answer is the same as usual. When there's only one real article with that title, or covering a subject of that title, we shouldn't throw obstacles in our readers' way. The goal is to get readers to the content they want in the quickest fashion, and here there are no other real ambiguous articles causing confusion. I'm sorry, but your Toil (concept) article is a stretch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

But how exactly do we know that everyone who inputs "toil" and ends up at Guerillero's excellent article contribution were looking for a non-2012 punk album? Is it not possible that some of this non-charting 2012 punk album's hits include people who weren't looking for it? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a moot point if there are no other articles to direct them to anyway. If they want a dictionary definition of the word "toil", a link to Wiktionary is included. This proposal would throw an obstacle in the way of readers for the benefit of no one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not bound by the dictionary definition of the word. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cuchullain. Manual labour is not the primary topic for "toil". sst✈ 09:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Request for relisting : I honestly believe that toil (concept) is simply another word for manual labour, however since manual labour as an article does not have anything about the philosophy of the virtue of work, dignity of labour - either in Greek Cynic terms of the concept of toil, nor in Christian/Jewish concepts of toil as virtue or consequence of Adam's fall, I have created a philosophy article at toil (concept) : to get past the tiresome "Wikipedia's editors haven't covered it so it doesn't exist" argument. That will not affect the view of some editors I know. But it does justify relisting. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guerillero et al. Calidum
• Relisting comment. I think the chances of this RM gaining a consensus to move are very slim, but no harm in relisting per the nom's request. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said: barring the dictionary definition (which is on Wiktionary), this is the primary topic. clpo13_(talk) 06:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ASTONISH. If I typed in "toil" into the search engine, I would expect a disambig page of some description. I don't think most people would think of the album as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. And having "Toil" as the disambig page would make it easy to spot incorrect incoming links too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose move -Hatnotes will serve the same purpose as a dab page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Toil (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)