Talk:Pornography (album)

Pornography (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 11, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several unsourced sentences, even full paragraphs, and the intro is way too short. These issues need to be fixed before the article can be reviewed in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the lead section, but can you please add {{citation needed}}s to the other statements which are unsourced, because from what I can see, everything is properly sourced. Lachlan Foley 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, seems like there were many more last I looked (maybe paragraphs have been moved around since). But there is still one, the first paragraph under "background". But the article looks much better now, I'll take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in-band fighting" band in-fighting?

I meant it as in the fighting was within the band, as opposed to "band fighting" which could imply fighting with other bands (maybe a stretch, I know). Is "in-band" an incorrect/improper term? I just assumed it was, but if it isn't, let me know and I will alter it. Lachlan Foley 09:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think "band in-fighting" would cover that better. In-fighting is per definition fighting within a group. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Lachlan Foley 09:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"When Pornography was performed live it was this period where the band" Awkward, could be rewritten.
"According to Mark Apter" Wasn't it Jeff Apter?
"were initially displeased with the album's title" any word on why they let it pass?

all others I have fixed. Lachlan Foley 09:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I think it fulfils the GA criteria. It could be longer and more detailed of course, but that's for FA. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some changes I hadn't noticed before, in case you hadn't seen them. Lachlan Foley 09:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks good too. I have passed the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember, anything mentioned in the lead has to be mentioned in the article itself too (Charlotte Sometimes info). FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. am fixing now. Lachlan Foley 09:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point that hasn't been discussed yet and need to be resolved quickly. There are two different points of view regarding the formatting of the 1980's album reviews.

it seems important to me to specify if the reference is actually a review or an article/interview. So, do you keep here [Pornography – review]" next to the title for these 3 reviews?

Hill, Dave (8 May 1982). "Cold Turkeys [Pornography – review]".". NME.

McCullough, Dave (17 April 2012). "Filth Hounds [Pornography – review]". Sounds

Sweeting, Adam (1 May 1982). "Blue Movies [Pornography – review]". Melody Maker.

Contributors of this featured article Joy Division, find it relevant.

note 54 Murrary, Charles Shaar. "Closer to the Edge" [Closer review]. NME. 19 July 1980.

When it is not a review (and the source is an article/interview), the contributors of Joy Division don't put anything next to the title. This seems apt.

I've also done a lot of research for this article: it is me who's added the "content" and the "title of these reviews" plus Trouserpress. I've also done the track-by-track description in music. This brings huge plus to this article.

I said yesterday in the history of the article

"WP:CITEVAR" "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article". And yesterday, I (Woovee) was the first contributor (with 46 edits) and the more ancient of this article involved in this discussion.

I really don't see why precising "[Pornography – review]" next to the title of the review is such an issue.Woovee (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the sources are reliable, the style issue is outside the scope of the GA criteria, so won't affect the promotion. But feel free to discuss it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems so unnecessary to me. what's the actual advantage of putting "[review]" at the end of reference titles? by that logic you might as well be putting "[article]" at the end of ordinary articles; all of which is completely pointless and actually a little condescending to mine and everyone else's intelligence. Lachlan Foley 23:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader and contributor of a featured article Joy Division which includes [review] next to "Closer to the Edge" [Closer review]. NME. 19 July 1980, I have never seen someone complaining apart only ONE contributor. The following guideline is clear: "WP:CITEVAR" "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article". I am. This is my work: I found these sources (nme, melody maker, Sounds). WP:CITEVAR" says that it is up to me to choose. Woovee (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track Listing

Anyone else think the "Track Listing" section should be placed earlier the article? "Legacy," for example, is typically near the end. I think the track listing should be immediately after the "Background" section. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.205.186 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia style guidelines for records recommend that tracklists and other non-prose-heavy sections go towards the end of an article. 120.150.60.104 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in lead section

I propose the lead be changed from "English rock band The Cure" to simply "English band The Cure"; or, at least, "English rock band The Cure" – is it necessary to wikilink what is, to most Wikipedia readers, a very well-known genre of music, as well known likely as England or the concept of a musical band? It is more general, and The Cure's music has expanded outside of rock into pop and resists fitting into this easy category. Any supporters? 120.150.60.104 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's lower-case the in "the Cure" in running prose, per WP:THECAPS. Second, can you show that your suggestion is how the band is described in reliable sources? A couple of links to articles would be helpful. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]