Talk:Sempiternal (album)

Good article nomination

I think this is good article, shall we make it a good article? Thanks and also, I've removed the improve tag in the controversy credit to Jona Weinhofen because Oliver Sykes talked to Jona Weinhofen using his Twitter. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre

It's absolutely amazing everyone I know loves it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.68.10 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This album marks a drastic change of their style from what they had exhibited on previous releases. With lighter sound, it could be tagged as alternative rock and metal with electronic instruments use. More than post-hardcore and, of course, just simply metalcore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.30.29 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you have any reliable sources to show us that can support this? Thanks. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done.

Also, use you ears and brains. By the way, most bands prefer not to put any genre-lables on their music. They say, this is mostly listeners' deal. Now I don't speak particulary about BMTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.30.29 (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I do this a lot with the genre boxes on my own articles, we're not meant to use our ears and brains. And iTunes isn't a reliable source. Please use something like an album review etc. But nevermind, your edit was intercepted by our friendly patroller Yintan, as you didn't provide an edit summary. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Weinhofen

I've removed the tag and replaced the Twitter things with interviews. EthanMars (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This section currently relies too much on Twitter posts, which are by its very nature self-published and WP:PRIMARY. Due to the issues around the conflict, better third party sources need to be found. In the meantime I have placed a tag on the section. Karst (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I remember looking at this article recently, and it definitely had some problems. The cleanup banner I remember is gone, but let's see what this article has for us. I just hope the nominator actually knows what he's doing this time. First GANs are generally hard. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Quickfail. The nominator has been blocked for hoaxing. I'll give a list of problems this article has later anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Jeez, this thing's not even B-Class. Reads more like a C. I think There is a Hell... is in better condition.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is poor in several sections of the article. The list in the critical reception section is unnecessary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ten dead links detected. Property of Zack, Metal Storm, and adamNOTeve don't appear reliable, and I'm unfamiliar with Lambgoat.com. I'm suspicious. There aren't enough refs for the singles. The last line of the Weinhofen credit section doesn't necessarily constitute that it was written about him. All the quotes in that paragraph should be cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Reception section needs some huge expansion. And the section for the individual tracks - is that the best you can do? There's also no mention of the album's fourth single in the Singles section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article has so many issues, why even bother scraping for this stuff? I mean, I didn't notice any clear violations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There haven't been a lot of edits to this article recently, but the ones that have have mostly been reverted. I don't know how I feel about that.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

God knows how this mess even got to be a B-Class article. I mean, yes, I have edited the article, but have not been a heavy contributor, so I believe I am currently fine to call this verdict.

Pop rock

I added the pop rock genre with the reference. Stop removing it please, it's perfectly valid. Thank you. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the article says that while it has a more pop rock sound, it still has enough metalcore roots on the album to give it a rougher edge. However, I will not remove it, because I'm not too sure if that's enough to make it invalid.Quilladin206 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Instead of just adding it to the infobox, why not incorporate it into the musical style section's writing? It will add to the article in a more meaningful way Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add it. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pop rock -- again.

Please stop removing the pop rock genre I added with the source. It's valid, and if there's any problems with it please talk on here first. Thanks. --- Editted by the Edit King 👑 15:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)