Talk:The Reputation

Good Article nomination is on hold
The Good article nomination for is on hold for the following reason:
 * This article needs a good proof read. In places it is hard to read and very awkward. Once it has been edited a bit, I'll approve it. -- The Talking Sock talk contribs 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on this a little? What parts are hard to read?  I'll be glad to fix whatever, I'm just not sure what you're looking at example-wise.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here goes (Some of these might sound nitpicky and my apologies for that ):
 * "In an attempt to bridge the gap between two bands" - this does not make sense. Also, that sentence is a runon. | In the second Paragraph of History, Elmore is the subject of the first sentence but the second one refers to "they" when the band has only been used as an indirect object. | "The Reputation, the band's self-titled debut album, was released in 2002 after spending much of the fall and winter of 2001 recording." who was spending?
 * This isn't as bad as I remember it being when I first read it and most of these problems aren't *that* bad. -- The Talking Sock talk contribs 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, please nitpick. I'm trying to bring this up as much as possible.  Thanks for the pointers, I'll go over this with a more critical eye tonight/tomorrow and leave a message here again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a few others. Let me know what you think of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stamp of Approval -- The Talking Sock talk contribs 19:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New questions
Anyone have a source for plans to record in 2006? Isn't the band without a label?
 * That was the plan when written. Things are obviously up in the air on that for a few reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GA a year later...
I noticed that this article was given GA status about a year ago, and although I don't know what has changed with the article or the criteria since then, after looking at the article, I've noticed a few things that might qualify the article to be delisted from GA status. But, instead of automatically putting the article up for review, I thought I'd bring up the issues here first:
 * The main image does not have a fair-use rationale. I would recommend adding template:Non-free media rationale and template:information to clear this up.  This in and of itself would normally qualify the article for quick-fail of GA status.
 * edit: In fact, it would be much better to use a free-image altogether. Looking through the FA nomination and whatnot, this was apparently a difficult task, but a quick search of flickr finds some free alternatives.  And since there are alternatives to the non-free image, the non-free image is replaceable and should be deleted.

Hopefully these issues can be addressed soon. Feel free to discuss the matter here or on my talk page. I'll nominate the article for GA review in a few days otherwise, at which point your welcome to comment and contribute there as well. Drewcifer3000 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the band is now defunct, the article speaks about the band in present tense sometimes.
 * The article is referenced very well, so no problems there, but the format of the references are somewhat inconsistent with each other and wikistyle. I'd recommend using citation templates, though to be fair, use of those templates are required for GA status, but consistency is.
 * The article as a whole is very limited in its scope. The article doesn't discuss the band's sound ("indie" is about all it says), criticisms/controversies (if any existed), etc.  It's just a historical account, which is fine, but there should be much more.
 * The lead paragraph seems somewhat small (especially if you expanded the article like I suggested above)
 * There are no external links! Surely there's a homepage or MySpace of something to provide more information.


 * Given these issues detailed above, I've put the article up for Good Article review (here). Contributors and reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the review. Drewcifer3000 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R notice
This article has been listed at WP:GA/R. Discussions are being held here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 02:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What this means for the unitiated is that the articles status as a Good Article is in dispute, and we are discussing needed fixes to remain on the GA list. If you frequently contribute to this article, you may want to drop in to see what fixes are needed.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was Keep. An archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article?
Isn't this article just too short to be a GA? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)