Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:29, 6 April 2013

Bleed Like Me is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by igordebraga ≠ at 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Note: On hold for 7 days within which the nominator should copy-edit the prose and bring it upto some standard at least

Albums B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Alternative music C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected

Protected due to edit war over content.

Please discuss your differences civilly and arrive at a consensus on the page content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, this is an open-and-shut case. The current revision is correct. The album is being released everywhere in the world by Warner Brothers on April 11th 2005, except North America where it is being released by Geffen on April 12th. Therefore, the current revision, which reads 'Released: April 11 2005' (April 12 in North America)' and 'Label: Warner Bros (Geffen in North America)' is correct.

Mike's version (see history) states: 'Released: April 11 2005 (Europe) April 12 2005 (USA)' and 'Label: Warner Bros (Europe) Geffen (USA)' is technically correct, but the album is also being released in Austrailia, Asia etc. by Warners on the 11th and the Geffen releases covers all of North America (not just the USA) and comes out on April 12th. Therefore, Mike's version does not give as much information as the current revision (and is actually slightly misleading as readers may think that the album is not being released in Asia, Austrailia, Canada etc.). Simple. 81.174.247.96 14:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far, so good. Now could Mike explain why he thinks this is inaccurate? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current version. Acegikmo1 19:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Mike doesn't reply by tomorrow evening (UTC) I'll unprotect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected again. Mike, please justify your changes. I'm not letting you have yet another edit war over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike doesn't seem to want to talk in what seems to be one of the silliest, most pointless edit wars I've seen around here. He's also accused others of "vandalism" for no good reason, just because they don't agree with his version of the wording. Perhaps a different wording would satisfy everybody, like "This album will be released on April 11 in most of the world (including Europe, Asia, and Australia) and on April 12 in North America (including the USA and Canada)"? *Dan* 14:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that wording is redundant. If Mike cannot mount a substantive argument against the wording, he should stop changing it or be banned from editing the article. Acegikmo1 18:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I won't be blocking or banning anyone for disagreeing about stuff, but I am asking Mike to stop reverting to his version without explaining why it's better than the other one, which seems to give more complete information. I'll unblock again and if he reverts I'll go to RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diagreement is fine. But continuous reverting without explanation is not. I see a problem because album comes out in the next few days. If the page is protected, it will be impossible to update this page with reviews, chart positions, fan reaction, the nature of the album, etc. I think there is a consensus about the proper wording; if Mike continues to violate this without providing a proper explanation, I think we should try to find a solution other than simply protecting the page. Acegikmo1 19:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia confirms

Mike, on my talk page you make the first utterance I have seen you make on this issue since I intervened: "No, I wasn't only trying to get into an edit war again."

That is not enough. Explain yourself or stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explain myself? OK. The reson why I kept reverting this page is because those IP address users may not be liking my version, please see. He also thinks that I'm the one in the wrong, but I'm not and I don't know why keeps restoring the version that isn't mine. That's why the user needs to be banned or blocked. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is not particularly coherent. Just what is wrong with the other version? As has been mentioned by others, your preferred version is, while technically accurate, not complete; North America is not just the USA, and the non-North-America world is not just Europe. As for a version not being yours, nothing here is supposed to "belong" to any individual; we're all supposed to be collaborating to create a well-written encyclopedia. Certainly, it makes no sense to ban or block somebody just because they disagree with you on which version is better. *Dan* 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article. Now the album is released people have their own copies and will want to write about it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I think that the article needs to be cleaned up a bit with information being better organized and maybe put under headlines. Underneath-it-All 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unconfirmed charts

|- | Danish album chart | 26 |- | Polish album chart | 36 |- | Czech album chart | 53 Breakinguptheguy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bleed Like Me/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IndianBio (talk · contribs) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment I was going to pick this review up, if IB hadn't beaten me to it! The only point I'd raise for the moment is that the date is in a US format, which looks odd for a British Group. The correct date format for this should be "11 April 2005", not "April 11, 2005". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Starting review. —Indian:BIO · 07:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Only 1\4 of Garbage is British, don't think it's that much of a deal... igordebraga ≠ 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Except for Smar studios, why are the other studio names in small font in the infobox?
  • Smart was the primary location (most are the bandmembers' home studios), where mixing .
• It was released in April 2005 by Warner Bros. imprint A&E Records internationally --> what is internationally here? For someone in US, the european countries and Asian markets are international, but the converse is also true. So rephrase this.
• The album went for a straighter rock sound reminiscent of Garbage's live performances instead of the electronica that permeated predecessor Beautiful Garbage  The album went for a straighter rock sound reminiscent of Garbage's live performances, instead of the electronica (wikilink) that permeated predecessor Beautiful Garbage (give the year in braces).
• The first recording sessions in March 2003 were mostly unproductive due to passive aggression between band members Duke Erikson, Shirley Manson, Steve Marker and Butch Vig, and a general lack of direction for the record --> Too long needs rephrasing. Try “The first recording sessions for Bleed Like Me took place in March 2003. But they were mostly unproductive due to passive aggression between band members Duke Erikson, Shirley Manson, Steve Marker and Butch Vig, as well as a general lack of direction for the record”
• As Garbage struggled to create the album, in October 2003 the band quietly split for four months.  As Garbage struggled to create the album, the band quietly split for four months from October 2003.
• After reuniting under producer John King in Los Angeles studio and a guest appearance from ex-Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters frontmanDave Grohl on "Bad Boyfriend"  They reunited under producer John King in Los Angeles studio and was followed by a guest appearance from ex-Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters frontmanDave Grohl on the song "Bad Boyfriend".
• the band reformed with renewed focus, recruiting drummer Matt Walker and bassist Justin Meldal-Johnsen for the new recordings, completed by the end of 2004.  The band had renewed focus and recruited drummer Matt Walker and bassist Justin Meldal-Johnsen. They refromed and started the leftover recordings, completing by the end of 2004.
• Reviews were mixed to positive, praising the new sound but finding the album inconsistent and at times outdated.  Reviews were mixed to positive, with critics praising the new sound but finding the album inconsistent and at times outdated.

Background

• The band regrouped to perform "Pride (In the Name of Love)" at a MusiCares tribute to U2 frontman Bono, and almost immediately after returned to their Madison, Wisconsin recording studio to begin writing their follow-up record. Garbage had already completed some groundworks sessions over two weeks of the previous August --> Bad prose. "The band regrouped to perform "Pride (In the Name of Love)" at a MusiCares tribute to U2 frontman Bono. Immediately after the event, they returned to their Madison, Wisconsin recording studio to begin writing their follow-up record. Garbage had already completed some groundworks sessions for two weeks in August"

Recording

• The first day of studio time in March 2003 saw Garbage compose a new track, "Right Between the Eyes" in thirty minutes --> The first sday in the studio saw Garbage....
• "Hangin' With The Bitches --> "Hangin' with the Bitches (Wiki MOS)
• Vig also ran into Foo Fighters frontman and ex-Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl in a party, and asked him casually if he would mind drumming on a Garbage track, "Bad Boyfriend", to which Vig had been frustrated with the drum track --> Rephrase making no sense.
• Recording for the album was halted during the summer when Manson underwent surgery to remove a cyst on her right vocal cord. Manson had to recuperate until August --> Join them together
• Due to rising tension within the band and a breakdown in communication, by the end of October the band suffered "a complete and utter band meltdown". ---> There is no mention of what the tension was and why there were breakdowns
  • It's in the next lines, should I rewrite them?
    • It would be better to join both the ideas together, makes it a better read. —Indian:BIO · 08:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Song names should follow wiki standards, please donot capitalize "the"
• Vig declaring that "he sort of brought a different energy level to the song, and then in turn Duke and Steve really upped the ante on their guitar playing which set the bar for a lot of the songs that followed. We wanted to get more scrappy and primal sounding --> rephrase to passive voice, too much quotes
• so we played fast and furious - as if our lives depended on it --> so we played fast and furious – as if our lives depended on it

Okay I'm stopping here. Can you please get a copy edit of the prose of the article? I'm going through each and every line finding issues, which should not be there for GA level. I know GA prose standards are lower than FA, but come'on, each and every line cannot be pointed out. I'm giving you 7 days to polish the prose. —Indian:BIO · 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Did what you requested (except the one if I asked if needs a rearrangement). Will see if I get outside help if you're not willing to continue the spot check. igordebraga ≠ 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely cumbersome to change and enlist each and every line in the prose as having problems. You should get someone to copy-edit it pronto because I really don't wanna quick fail it. —Indian:BIO · 08:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you see if things are still needing outside help? Two users took a look at the article. igordebraga ≠ 21:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It still needs more cleaning up of the prose and more copy-edit and a general restruccture, those tracklisting in between the prose is really distracting and makes it look like the article ends there. Any tables and columns and charts all come at the end of the article. Check existing FAs on albums. —Indian:BIO · 08:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Igor I think I have given enough time, an I don't think you would be able to turn around the article. —Indian:BIO · 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the involvements of third parties... can you please check other things other than the prose? igordebraga ≠ 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Stray comment by Cirt

1. Content - looks like some broken formatting at the bottom of this sect?
2. Track listing - might be a better idea to set this to collapsed=yes, and that way give the option to the reader and make it a bit more compact?
3. Track listing - also, appears to be some broken formatting at the bottom of this sect as well?
4. Release history - I really like the tabular presentation of this information here. :)
5. Personnel - this sect should probably be moved up a little bit higher on the page?

— Cirt (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

• What is the status of this review? It's been two weeks since the April 23 discussion of the prose, and the only edit appears to have been to address Cirt's comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, IndianBio wanted an outsider copyediting the article before raising other issues, and no one appeared so far. Could you help? igordebraga ≠ 22:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm afraid I don't have time. If this article has significant prose issues, perhaps you should apply to the guild of copyeditors for assistance, and resubmit the nomination once the prose is at GA levels. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I don't think we are doing anything fruitful here. Its better to go for GOCE and then re-nominate Igor. —Indian:BIO · 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1. "Velkommen til Hit-listen.dk". Hit-listen.dk. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
2. "OLIS official sales chart". Olis.onyx.pl. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
3. "Oficiální česká hitparáda IFPI ČR - 16. týden 2005". Media & Marketing (mam.ihned.cz). Retrieved 2007-06-25.

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees currently on hold
• Good article nominees on review
• B-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• C-Class Alternative music articles
• Mid-importance Alternative music articles
• WikiProject Alternative music articles