Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fall Out Boy/1

Fall Out Boy

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was reviewed as part of the Sweeps process. I made all the requested changes and the article was delisted anyway because the reviewer disagrees with me and another editor about what constitutes reliable sources. I replaced those that were unreliable or removed the information altogether. Each noted reference was addressed. However, in his/her delisting message, no specific references were mentioned, only that new unreliable sources were added. I contest this. Primary sources, regardless of whether they are on YouTube or are in blog format, are reliable for the type of information sourced to them in this article. Lara ☁ 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reproduce below the referencing table of the references and my comments as they stood at 1 December when I de listed the artcile after 9 days on hold.


 * as can be seen there were a number of unresolved issues, which are mentioned in the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The references initially noted in the review were all addressed. I just saw the paragraph with new concerns of old references. How is it a copyright violation for the record label to release a video they made on their own YouTube account? And him saying they're "moving away from pop punk" is still a reference to them being pop punk. I don't see how one can claim that a video of the front man of a band is not reliable. Also, you're categorizing a site that belonged to the band as a self-published source? It doesn't contain the same information as it did at the time it was referenced, but just because the source died doesn't mean the information becomes untrue. It's not particularly important information, in my opinion, and can be removed, but the classification of this source as a SPS makes no sense to me. It's a primary source. As is the blog of the cover artist. I don't understand where this requirement to verify that a primary source is authentic by a secondary source came from. What brings the authenticity of the artist's blog into question? You also have that there's "no evidence" that Clandestine is Pete Wentz. It was the blog from the band's website. Who would impersonate him on his own website and him let the posts sit? That makes no sense. Fender can easily be considered reliable for all things music. VH1.com has never, in my years here, been questioned as a reliable source either. While Redline Distribution is now defunct, the interview still took place. Or are you questioning that the interview is authentic? Others updated or removed as unnecessary anyway. Lara  ☁ 19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a bit lost on which facts in the article are still considered to be without WP:RS. Is the list above a statement that everything without WP:RS next to it is not reliably source according to the reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of them were unnecessary sources, added to information that didn't need to be sourced, already.had a source, or could be covered by another existing source. In a couple cases I found a new replacement. In all other cases I believe the questioned source is reliable. Lara  ☁ 05:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What disagreement am I suppose to be evaluating here. As I look at the list above the first contentious ref is not to be found. I am lazy and need you to tell me what to look at to understand the dispute.  At the time the article was delisted, what refs were in debate? Now what refs were in debate? Where there other topics at issue that are still in disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the unnecessarily cumbersome table to the refs not marked by the reviewer as RS. I also added their current status and my comments for clarity. I believe I addressed all references called into question originally. I did not see his response to my notice that I'd made all requested changes until after the article was delisted. That response brought up new issues with other refs. That is what you see above. To my understanding, there were no other issues still pending with the article at the time of its delisting. Lara  ☁ 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to TonyTheTiger, the original table showed the state of referencing at the time of de-listing not as it stands now. Improvements have been made since then, in response to this reassessment. I still have queries about those currently shown above and will await the comments of others  in this discussion.  One improvement could be made by directly attributing primary sources such as the Youtube and the artist's blog in the artcile, such as Pete Wentz in a clip posted on Youtube by Island Records said....' Also note that when I clicked on the link to the poster of that clip on Youtube, I got a copyright noticed saying this was not available to my arae (UK). The concerns were posted in responses to User:Jennavecia's comment on the review that everything had been fixed.  This is clearly tehre in the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What issue is resolved by descriptive attribution? I would still have to site the source. Same with the artist's blog. I can say "[the artist] stated on his blog...", but the reader can see as much from clicking the source. Pointing out that Wentz makes a comment on a YouTube video is easily established when you click on the ref and see him speaking on a YouTube video. What is accomplished by changing the form of attribution? Lara ☁ 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has come up at many GA reviews and reassessments, it seems a good way to distinguish the use of primary sources.
 * Amongst the references now in the article I see JBTV online which has no content, it may be broken
 * most of the VH1 references are actually reports from other sources such as MTV news. The original source should be cited, not the aggregator site
 * The Citizens fou Our Betterment site has just one line of content: Exposes! Scandals! Are America's sweethearts in love with their own sins? It is our responsibility as citizens for our own betterment to find out. Come November fourth we will What is that supposed to support?
 * Friends or Enemies.com - their about us page says Launched in 2006, FriendsOrEnemies.com (FOE) has become the new backstage pass for music fans and lurkers, giving them the chance to experience what their favorite artists are doing when they're being the rock stars they are. Everyday FOE is unleashing video footage and photos direct from our VIP's phones, breaking news and so much more! Who are these VIPS, you ask? Bands like The Academy Is..., Cobra Starship, Fall Out Boy & Gym Class Heroes PLUS over 30 more you know and love. It doesn't appear to be a site owned by the band, more of a forum
 * Fender is indeed a musical equipment manufacturer - that doesn't make a biography posted on their website a reliable source.
 * Redline Distribution was a record store - that doesn't make an interview posted on their website a reliable source.
 * the copyright notice that I referred to earlier was found when I clicked on the poster link (IslandDefJamMG} was actually referring to another clip, so I can now see that this was indeed published by Island Records, so fine as a primary source for the statement, "this whole pop punk thing is over" Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The JBTV link works fine for me. For "most of the VH1 references", there are only two. One is an interview done by VH1. The other does indeed reprint from MTV, but it includes the byline and I don't know where the original MTV report is. So, since VH1 is a reliable source, I don't see what the issue is. We don't require the original news reports when it's one paper reprinting a story from, say, The New York Times. As long as the source is reliable, it's enough. Again, the Citizens for Our Betterment site, at the time it was cited, contained different content. I checked the site recommended by the band on the last page of the insert for their Folie a Deux CD (see here) and rewrote the details. As for the FriendsOrEnemies site, my apologies; It's the CFOB site that belongs to the band. Friendsorenemies.com is the website they blog on and used extensively during their viral campaign, including to make official announcements about the release of the album. Also included in the aforementioned CD insert. So it remains a primary source. Lara  ☁ 21:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. This review has stalled. Let me try to breathe some life back into it by focusing on specific issues in the article text.
 * Early years. "his impressive vocal range" needs rephrasing or a reliable secondary source.
 * Independent success. The citation in the second paragraph only supports the gold status, not the implied reasons for it. Also, in the third paragraph "In the meantime of recording its mainstream debut" departs from English as I know it; is this idiomatic in the US?
 * From Under the Cork Tree and mainstream success. "...prompting a huge new interest..." according to whose analysis?
 * Infinity on High, Live in Phoenix and other projects. Second paragraph: "Of note" editorializes. Also "On March 18, it was revealed" by whom, how? I guess you need also to cite the earlier news article.
 * Folie à Deux. "Wentz stated the song is about the ongoing Bush administration." Where, when? In the present tense, this is out of date.
 * Believers Never Die: Greatest Hits and indefinite hiatus. The source for the last paragraph is Kerrang! magazine:
 * That's all. Geometry guy 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)