Talk:Won (As Friends Rust album)

Critical reception
Generally, I don't explain why I assess an article the way I assessed it, but as you left an explanation on why it would be a B/Mid article, I'm not assessing it as Mid because its pageviews are pretty low for a mid-class article ("Many readers will be familiar with these albums") despite its acclaim. Maybe it is mid-class for the Punk WP, but I'm not a member of that project to determine it. Now going back to the reception section, many of these sources should be removed per WP:CITEKILL (excessive citations), and the album rating ratings should be drastically decreased to 10 reviews, which is the recommended limit. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Tbhotch! Thanks for the recommendation on trimming down the clutter of citations in the Critical reception and recognition section and reducing the amount of Professional ratings. I've gone ahead and done that, and it really does help with the readability of the article! Do you think that the article now qualifies for higher than a B rating in quality?
 * With regards to the Mid-level rating of importance, you're also right; I should have specified that it is within the scope of punk rock and hardcore punk music. I will leave a request for assessment on the appropriate project page. However, the reason for the low page count is due to the fact that up until last month, this article was a redirect to the band's page. I don't even think my article (and un-redirect) has been officially reviewed yet (I didn't get a notification). So that's why it hasn't had that many page views! -- Bricks&#38;Wood  talk 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to obtain a higher grade, you will need to go through their respective processes. A GA is obtained at WP:GAN, an A is a process that cannot be applied to this article because both WikiProjects don't support its grade, but it is a process that is similar to the GA process, but the article is evaluated by two editors instead. And the highest process is the FA, which is obtained at the WP:FAC venue. If this is the first time you nominate an article for any of these processes, I would highly recommend you to start with GAN, but before, you should check other GAs at Category:GA-Class Album articles, so you can get an idea on what is expected to read. Other good pages are WikiProject Albums/Sources and Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where you can see if a source is approved, questionable, or completely deprecated. It's likelier to be questioned about the reliability of the sources at FAC than at GAN, but it can still happen, so you should be aware of why you are choosing a source (including the writer and the publisher). For example, AllMusic is not in itself an unreliable source, but due to some incidents and internal conflicts (WP:ALLMUSIC), its trustiness has decreased over time. I have read at FAC "what makes AllMusic a reliable source?" a few times. If you are asked, you are expected to explain what makes it a reliable source, and you should support it with evidence on the reliability of the writer. "Although AllMusic has had some issues in the past, the writer of the review is Kurt Morris, a music critic that has written for other reliable media like X, Y, Z", or something like that. I didn't perform a thorough review because the article is structurally a B, so I can't tell if it's already GA-shaped. I could still read minor issues like "#16" (MOS:HASH), "AllMusic" (on running text, AllMusic is not italicized, italics apply only to magazines, newspapers and books [in this context]), or that Moyal is listed 12 times at the track listing under the lyrics column (a simpler "Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes. All lyrics written by Moyal" is enough). So I would also recommend you to check the WP:MOS (and WP:MOSALBUM), to aid you with the style. Once you've checked and correct the issues, you could nominate it. Even if it fails, it can help you further, and you can renominate the article as many times as possible. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 15:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Tbhotch, thanks a lot for this incredibly detailed explanation! It would be my first time nominating a GA so this is very helpful to me! Of note, I tried to reduce all of the citations to 2 at the most per sentence, to improve readability. In some cases, the information was fragmented across several websites, and more than 2 citations were originall required. I scarified that for the sake of readability but now I'm worried that it might cause a problem when the article is analyzed for accuracy. For example, some of the tour dates in promotion of the album. In that particular case, the complete dates of a specific tour had to be pieced together from 4 different archived websites. This was because the Wayback Machine did not take snapshots at the right intervals, and most bands tend to update their touring schedule regularly by removing all dates older than the day of. Or if changes to the schedule were made during the course of the tour, then a snapshot taken prior to the tour was outdated/inaccurate. Just from memory, there were maybe about 10 sentences where I cut back 4-5 citations down to 2. Will this be an issue? Should I restore those citations?-- Bricks&#38;Wood  talk 16:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In those cases (the tour dates), it is valid to have multiple sources because the information is scattered (but when you combine information from multiple sources, be aware of WP:SYNTH and WP:SYNTHNOT; in your concern, it doesn't apply). When we talk about overciting, we refer to the addition of several sources to back up a noncontroversial statement. Here, for example, the overcited statements were comparisons by music critics to punk/rock bands. This is not controversial, anyone can expect that music critics compare the sound of a punk rock album to be similar to works of other punk/rock bands. A controversial comparison would be to say that the album was compared to pop/R&B/electronica/funk/etc. musicians and it would require an explanation about why the album received such comparisons. In any case, you can just merge the sources into a single source to avoid the visible overcitation. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)