Talk:Augie March/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Lead

 * "Augie March's rise to fame was slow;…" Could be reworded to sound a little better.
 * "Their first album, 2000's Sunset Studies was a critical success and an ARIA Award nominee, but again sold poorly." How about something along the lines of "Their first album, Sunset Studies, was released in 2000. Despite its poor sales, it was a critically acclaimed and received a nomination for an ARIA Award."
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "Critics lauded its 2002 successor, Strange Bird, but its reception was equally mediocre in Australia." Word in bold is a POV.
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "The reception in the United States was similar; critics praised the album, but it sold and charted poorly." Can be merged into the sentence above.
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "Augie March's third album, Moo, You Bloody Choir (2006), broke into the mainstream spotlight; its lead single "One Crowded Hour" attained critical acclaim and charted successfully on the ARIA Singles Chart, while the album won numerous awards." Broke into the mainstream "spotlight"? This needs to be reworded.
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "Now a mainstream heavyweight,…" Needs to be reworded, as pointed out above.
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "In 2008 they released their fourth album, Watch Me Disappear; while it was their most successful sales-wise, the album received the least favourable critical reception yet." → "In 2008, they released their fourth album, Watch Me Disappear. It became their most commercially successful album, but received the least favourable critical reception."
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Formation and early EPs (1996–1999)

 * "Despite very positive reviews, it received very little airplay and failed to launch the band. "
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "Produced by Richard Pleasance, this EP included "Asleep in Perfection", which would become the most requested song on ABC's rage program." → "Produced by Richard Pleasance, it included "Asleep in Perfection", which became the most requested song on ABC's rage program."
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Reference six doesn't seem to work.
 * Seems to work okay to me (the ARIA one, I assume you're talking about). Perhaps a transient network issue?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * It seems to work now. Hmm, strange. Diverse  Mentality  18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Augie March went into the studio in March 2000 to begin work on their first full length album." → "Augie March began recording in March 2000 to work on their first full length album."
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Early albums (2000–2003)

 * "Album launches in Sydney and Melbourne were attempted, but these were unsuccessful as both cities were very crowded with musicians at the time; Donovan said…"
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "The album did not chart highly; it spent one week…" The part in bold needs to be rephrased.
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Personally, I don't see the purpose of linking Triple J Hottest 100 and then Triple J Hottest 100, 2001 in the year afterwards. Why not simply link Triple J Hottest 100, 2001 on its own? But of course, this is just my opinion.
 * I agree this is a bit clunky, but I can't see any better way to both explain what the Hottest 100 is, and provide a link to the relevant year article, since it's not mentioned before here.
 * If Triple J Hottest 100 is linked in Triple J Hottest 100, 2001, I don't think that would be much of a problem. For example, if we were to link Billboard 200, we'd link it as Billboard 200 (one link), not Billboard 200 (two links). Diverse  Mentality  18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, shortened to only one link. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Sorry, bad habit of mine. Feel free to fix wherever it happens. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The critical response to Strange Bird, unlike its brief chart history, was overwhelmingly positive. Too much so at times". To who?
 * I agree this needs changing, but I'm at a loss right now as to what to change it to. "Who?" would be the critics listed in subsequent sentences.
 * I think it could be argued how "too much at times" is POV-ish, as others might not thing it was too much at times. Diverse  Mentality  18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack, I had another look at this sentence, and it's Glenn Williams from the band making that comment, not some music journo. I've adjusted the sentence accordingly to "The enthusiastic response even caught the band by surprise; Williams told Rip It Up..."  Is this better, do you think?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you will find his name is David Williams :P But yeah, the reword seems good to me. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream breakthrough (2004–2008)

 * "Following the mixed fortunes of Strange Bird, Augie March returned to the studio." I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mixed fortunes".
 * ✅ Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "This studio was built by Augie March in 2004." I don't see much relevance in this following line.
 * ✅, removed sentence Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "The album's popularity also saw it nominated for the 2006 J Award." → "The album was also nominated for the 2006 J Award."
 * ✅, by someone else. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "Augie March's musical abilities were confirmed when they became the winner of…" This line is strange to me. The band's musical ability was confirmed when they won the Australian Music Prize? How so?
 * ✅, changed 'confirmed' to 'recognised' Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Discography

 * The discography section should follow the format found in WP:LOW#Discographies.
 * As far as I can tell, it does, except that a full date is used instead of a year. Is this really a problem?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Not really, more of suggestion, since the full date can be found in the article of the albums.
 * ✅. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

General comments

 * I noticed that the references don't use the and  templates, which it should.
 * , not sure why it was done this way, but I'm slowly reformatting all of these by hand. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no rule anywhere stating that you have to use those templates, especially when doing it manually contains the same information (as was the case here). I think the templates suck only grudgingly use them when I have to, as (it seems) will be the case here. :( Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the lead, you use "Augie March is an Australian indie/pop rock band", but in the second paragraph of 'Formation and early EPs (1996–1999)', you use "After playing several other gigs, the band were signed by…" It's inconsistent.
 * There are a few instances in the article where it says "…would see the band…", "…they would also record in Melbourne…", "…they would also record in Melbourne…", etc., which are grammatically incorrect.
 * ✅ Fixed, although it's a common enough speech pattern that I may have missed an example here or there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Did a Ctrl+F and fixed some more. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did a Ctrl+F and fixed some more. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Diverse  Mentality  17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * I prefer to have in-line references in the Lead see WP:LEADCITE.
 * Having read this part of the MoS, I disagree that they are required, as I don't see this topic as being "complex, current, or controversial". It also said that "(some) subjects may require many citations; others, few or none".  Is there any particular statement in the lead that you feel definitely requires a cite? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * As indicated this is my preference not a universal requirement. I've got some suggestions for Cites in the Lead further along.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "their first two EPs failed to make an impact on the market, despite being nominated for an ARIA Award." some ambiguity with two EPs nomed for an ARIA Award, try "their first two EPs failed to make an impact on the market, despite each being nominated for an ARIA Award." But check that both were nomed, or reword sentence.
 * ✅ Waltz got two ARIA nominations, I have clarified this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Not quite, "despite Waltz being nominated for an two ARIA Awards." > "despite Waltz being nominated for two ARIA Awards."Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Their first album, Sunset Studies, was released in 2000." > "Their first album, Sunset Studies, was released in 2000." MoS: Album Names not Album Names.
 * ✅, good pickup. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "it was a critically acclaimed and received a nomination for an ARIA Award." > "it was critically acclaimed and received an ARIA Award nomination." Grammar & brevity.
 * ✅, don't know how that extra 'a' slipped through. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "charted successfully on the ARIA Charts," successfully is PoV e.g. #29 is not notable for some artists whereas some artists might consider #50 to be 'successful', let the reader decide if it is successful, unless you're quoting someone reliable? If so, cite.


 * "while the album won numerous awards." I assume this relates to the album, Moo, You Bloody Choir  and ARIA awards: which ones did it win? The main text later states that "It was nominated for three ARIA Awards in 2006, with "One Crowded Hour" also nominated for "Single of the Year". Despite the hype,[25] the band did not win any awards.[6]" So which is it numerous or none? This appears to be contradictory.
 * This is probably the most controversial statement in the Lead and if left, as is, definitely requires a Cite because it is not supported within the rest of the article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "now a commercial heavyweight" according to whom? Cite or NPOV it. Other statements nearby appear to be either NPOV or unattributed quotes, including: "most commercially successful album, but received the least favourable critical reception" and almost all of the last paragraph. Each sentence requires a cite.
 * This is all cited in the body, particularly in cite #23, which states that "...the Melbourne band went from a favourite of underground critics to mainstream success". I feel that re-citing this in the lead would be redundant and unnecessary, per the above.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * "now a commercial heavyweight" Becomes an NPOV interpretation then? Does some mainstream success equate to commercial heavyweight? Are they up there with Silverchair and Powderfinger?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, they're much better than Silverchair! I reworded in the lead so I don't think it needs to be cited there - if anyone disagrees, the ref is this one (#24 as I write, but that may change). Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-wording is good.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Augie March's musical style is distinctive, and is led by songwriter and vocalist Richards." Ambiguous: is the musical style led by Richards or is the band led by Richards? Try "Augie March's distinctive musical style is directed by songwriter and vocalist Richards." or "Augie March's distinctive musical style has been developed by songwriter and vocalist Richards." Either way, it still needs a Cite.
 * ✅ Both really, but I see and agree with you about the sentence being unclear. I've replaced the sentence, but I'll think about it over the next few days to see if it can be improved further. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Formation

 * "Augie March's first performance was in Brunswick at a friend's art exhibition.[3]" I'd like to know when as well as who is the arty friend?
 * The citation in question only says what the article says. If I knew more, I'd include it.  Obviously, accurate information on the early days of most indie bands can be difficult to come by.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Just my personal curiosity, no drama.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Thanks for the Memes, was produced by Victor Van Vugt" Cite. Try Australian Rock Database entry on 'Augie March' Also usable for band members, instrumentation and label information.
 * Good link, thankyou, I will include it in the article. Odd that the "Australian Rock Database" seems to be hosted on a Swedish website!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Magnus Holmgren, the site's editor, was a Swedish exchange student who developed a love of Australian music, the site is acknowledged by the Australian Government, see their Culture and Recreation Portal. I've used it extensively when editing numerous Australian music related articles. Try something like Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I wasn't criticising the source, just stating that it was odd, is all =). This point is now cited.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the link! Hadn't thought of looking there. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, did Thanks for the Memes get an ARIA nom or not? Not mentioned here, if no nom then fix Lead sentence.
 * ✅, no. The two nominations were both for "Waltz", as in cite #6, I have already adjusted the lead to make this clearer.


 * "Waltz, in October 1998. Produced by Richard Pleasance," Cite. (use ARDb again?) ARIA noms for single on this EP, no noms for first EP? See above point.
 * Again, will do. The ARIA nom situation between the first two EPs is hopefully clearer now.
 * ✅. Now cited.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).


 * "and their popularity increased through word of mouth." Cite.
 * I duplicated ref 2 just to make it clear it applied to this too. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through rest of article will do so in next few days if possible.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Early albums

 * "first single, "Hole In Your Roof"." > "first single, "Hole in Your Roof"." MoS: Prepositions have lower case in song/album titles (unless start or end of title).
 * Is this the case even if the band itself capitalises the preposition (see: )? No problem with doing so if that's the case, but it seems like it would be slightly inaccurate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Who produced Sunset Studies - considering that the EPs had named producers, why does the album miss out? Who was/were the ARIA Award winning engineer(s) - considering this is Augie's only ARIA Award win why aren't engineers named?
 * I'm not sure if it's worth listing the producer in every case - that was one partially because there was not that much other early information to include in the first section... That said, the engineer being an award winner, it's probably worth naming them here. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go with whatever you decide.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "The band produced Strange Bird independently;" implies they did it totally by themselves whereas ARDb (see url above) claims it was Produced by Paul McKercher and Chris Thompson for the rA label. Thus, this point needs checking and citing.
 * See my response on the first point in "Mainstream" below. In the "Beat" interview, Donovan stated that "We produced Strange Bird ourselves", which obviously doesn't seem to jive with what ARdb says.  How would you suggest resolving this apparent contradiction between the sources?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * I would be inclined to go with the band over the ARDb on this one. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Giggy.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Strange Bird was a better album than Sunset Studies," according to whom? Needs cite or is it covered by the Beat interview cite at end of sentence (I haven't read the interview, so I'll take it on good faith).
 * It's covered by the "Beat" interview. I tracked down a copy of the text here, the formatting is a little wonky but it's clear that it's a Donovan quote.  I'm open to suggestions if you think it should be made clearer in the article text here.  I've added that above URL to the ref so hopefully this is clearer for the reader now.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * I hadn't linked to that interview out of some copyright paranoia. Looks like Lankiveil beat me to re-adding the link; the paranoia is probably not justified as the interview is on the band's website... Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "failed to make an impact on the charts," compare this with Lead statement that a later release had "charted successfully on the ARIA Charts," and that the Augies were "now a commercial heavyweight". There appears to be inconsistency/NPOV in description of similar chart performances. #34 vs #29 is not enough difference to explain these inconsistencies.
 * The MYBC album reached #10, while Sunset Studies only got to #34. A top-10 album versus a top-40 would seem to me enough to justify that comment.  #29 was the peak for the One Crowded Hour single.  Comparing single charts to album charts is often akin to comparing apples and oranges.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Could be my interpretation of original text: reads better now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream

 * "as they co-produced on all their albums," not supported by ARDb: needs its own cite.
 * The next cite states that 'Donovan agrees: "And we’ve always [co-]produced all our records as well"', which would seem to support this.  It seems overkill to me to have the same citation twice in two sentences.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * I just had a further think about this; it looks like that article was produced in between Strange Bird and MYBC. So that supports Augie producing Strange Bird.  I dug out my copy of Strange Bird, and it doesn't contain any clear info either way in the liner notes.  MYBE has some songs "produced by Augie March", overlapping with some produced by Paul McKercher and Glenn Richards.  WMD has a simple "Produced by Augie March and Joe Chiccarelli" printed on the back cover.  Would it help if I cited the liner notes here to back this up, and how would you suggest I do so?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Citing the liner would help. Cite album-notes is what you want. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Upon completion of the recording of Moo, You Bloody Choir, there was a six-month delay before release, as Augie March meticulously added finishing touches to it." If the recording was completed why would it need a further six months of finishing touches? Try "Upon completion of initial recordings for Moo, You Bloody Choir, there was a six-month delay before release, as Augie March meticulously added finishing touches."
 * ✅ Anecdotally, no actual work was done at this point, the label just sat on the (completed) album because they felt that it would do better being released in the new year. Unfortunately, the best source I could find for this was this, which doesn't scream "Hey, I'm a RS!!!"  What you've suggested is the "official story", so I've changed the sentence as suggested. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * The Beat interview doesn't say they were making meticulous changes, so I'm inclined to leave it as it was since that's the correct version according to our industry insider here :D Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "It was nominated for three ARIA Awards in 2006, with "One Crowded Hour" also nominated for "Single of the Year"." Not sure how you count here, the source ref [6] gives six award noms for the Augies in 2006. I believe the engineer/producer noms would be for work on the album? I'd use the ref for Winners by Year: ARIA Awards 2006. Try "Work by Augie March was nominated for six ARIA Awards in 2006, including "One Crowded Hour" for "Single of the Year".[6]^" Note: new history by year ref needed at ^.
 * Good point; I overlooked those last two because "various tracks" didn't jump out and bite me as songs on the album. Thanks for pointing them out. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Despite the hype,[25] the band did not win any awards.[6]" compared with "winner of the second annual Australian Music Prize in 2006" in next paragraph. Previous statement needs clarification, perhaps "Despite the hype,[25] the band did not win any further ARIAs.[6]"? It's not 100% clear that you're talking about the ARIAs here, as this paragraph mentions other awards/accolades.
 * Done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Augie March worked with producer Joe Chicarelli, who took a significant pay cut to work on the album after declaring an interest in Augie Mach's music." Cite? How significant was the pay cut? May be NPOV. BTW fix Mach > March.
 * The source says "He took a big pay cut to do it" - "significant" seems like an appropriate formal synonym for "big" in this case. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I can go for that.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Watch Me Disappear entered the ARIA Albums Chart at number four.[9]" Any sales certs? Nah, just checked at ARIA Accreditations 2008 Albums. They don't have December included yet.
 * Unlikely; it didn't spend long on the charts. It also sucked. Giggy (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when was that important for Gold/Platinum records?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, unfortunately. I'll keep an eye out but I think its being certified is unlikely. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * December Accreditations are now out & still no Augie: looks like you were right.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's enough for today, more tomorrow if I can.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'm tired right now so I won't be addressing any tonight, but I'll have a good look through these tomorrow if I can.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Musical style

 * Have you considered the possibility of sub-dividing the whole 'Musical style' section into subsections? It reads rather long. Possibly by date, album or sup-topics: e.g. Genres, Songwriting, Studio, Live performances. Just a personal preference, not requirement: your choice.
 * I hadn't until now but I'll have a play around with it and see if I can do something that looks nice with it. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First sentence includes "generally fall into an "indie rock/folk rock" genre" compare with inbobox "Indie rock Pop rock Baroque pop". Article Lead uses "indie/pop rock band" Are there any contradictions in the descriptions here? Or are they just not explained enough? Folk rock should be reconciled with Baroque pop for consistency with the infobox and Lead.
 * Now consistently indie/pop rock throughout. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "James Christopher Monger Allmusic said the album" > "James Christopher Monger of Allmusic said the album" OR "James Christopher Monger for Allmusic said the album". Otherwise it looks like his last name is Allmusic.
 * Yeah, that was an embarrassing typo... fixed. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Magazine/periodical titles should be italicised, e.g. Pitchfork Media. See MoS:Italics.
 * Pitchfork isn't a magazine/periodical. It's a website. Its article calls it a webzine but I personally disagree with that definition—either way, italics are not required. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but does the same apply to Stylus Magazine and PopMatters?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither are magazines or periodicals, so yes, the same applies. Diverse  Mentality  23:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I've probably made the mistake of italicising Stylus due to its new (how mischievous of them). Thanks for pointing that out. Giggy (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "while still maintaining some of the successful aspects of their music." What is the measure of success in this context? Is it critical aclaim or charting success. If the latter is it a contradiction?
 * Critically acclaimed. Adjusted. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "summarised the album as featuring "smooth, emotive vocals mingle with soaring melodies that'd make Paul McCartney proud"." This sentence does not flow too well with the mix of plain text and quote. Try "summarised the album where "smooth, emotive vocals mingle with soaring melodies that'd make Paul McCartney proud".
 * Reworded. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "the baroque work on earlier albums" see first dot point in this section. Baroque quality of early work has not been clearly established.
 * Good point. I really haven't seen much discussion of their baroque qualities other than in this review (the one cited). Reworded it a bit. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Songwriting for Augie March is primarily done by Richards, who delivers demos to the rest of the band members. The rest of the band then collaboratively develop the music written." > "Songwriting for Augie March is primarily initiated by Richards, he delivers demos to the rest of the band members who then collaborate with him to develop the music written." As it stands, it seems to imply that Richards is excluded from the final development of his songs after delivering demos, i.e. the rest of the band collaborate. Also the phrase is repeated unnecessarily.
 * Good suggestion, reworded. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "This meme continued throughout Augie March's career;" > "This meme continued throughout Augie March's career;" meme is not a familiar term to casual readers: should be wikilinked.
 * Done. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long to review all the main text, RealLife(tm) interrupted.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "and forgotten the song's lyrics on a live television performance at Federation Square." > "and he had forgotten the song's lyrics on a live television performance at Federation Square."
 * Split into two sentences, probably the easiest and most readable way to do it. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and pass the article now. I'm far too busy at the moment to convert any further refs and it really shouldn't hold this article back. A bit of advice, though: if this article plans to go through WP:FAC, please make sure to convert all references; this is a requirement there. Good job Lankiveil and Giggy on the article. Smile.png Diverse  Mentality  06:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats to both Lankiveil and Giggy: a good job well rewarded.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)