Talk:The Amps

Fair use rationale for Image:The Amps.jpg

Image:The Amps.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 06:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

• Genres Pop, Rock
  • Well, that's news to me. As far as I know, The Amps are considered indie rock. I generally avoid AllMusic for this reason, although I realize the community has a diverse range of views on how to best write music articles. Could you find additional sources that categorize the band as "pop, rock" or "pop" for that matter? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks like the print version of the All Music Guide to Rock is more accurate, as it categorizes the band as "Indie Rock, Alternative Pop/Rock" which sounds just right.[1] Do you have any objection to using this print source from 2002 over the online blurb? As it turns out, both were written by Heather Phares, but the online version seems to have simplified the genres from the print version or modified them in some way. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Hi Viriditas. I really don't have a strong opinion about this but here are my thoughts. If you have strong opinions about any of these, I am happy to go along with you.

1. We could as you suggest use the book as the source. My only concern is whether for consistency we would then need to use the book for all the other AllMusic refs. Maybe we would or maybe we wouldn't, it's just a thought.
2. On the website http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-amps-mn0000756089/biography the genre is given as Pop/Rock, but underneath that it lists Indie Rock, etc. as the "Styles". If we consider Pop-Rock as the "umbrella" genre, and "indie rock" as a more specific genre, possibly that point of view could be justified. But others might argue that AllMusic has on their website chosen to make a distinction between genre and style, and we shouldn't presume to interpret the meanings of each.
3. Going back to Pop-Rock as being the umbrella genre, which could include everything from possibly rockabilly to heavy metal and probably other extremes in other directions, it does not bother me at all to call the genre of the Amps "Pop-Rock". For me, pop does not have to be mainstream top-40 pop, and lots of melodic music has elements of pop. Songs like "She's a Girl" definitely encompass pop elements, for me (but you may disagree). And their music is even more definitely encompassed in the general rock category. Erlewine in his review of Pacer calls it "gut-level rock & roll". I am perfectly happy to define the genre at a general level and not worry about splitting hairs over the exact sub-genre. If you have pop-rock at the same level as jazz and classical music, you can say the Amps is not jazz and not classical, it's pop-rock. But again, if you disagree, I don't have that strong an opinion. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem now. The online version of the All Music Guide to Rock is using the genre/style field in an altogether different way than most sources. And editors (like yourself) are citing that version as definitive. I guess I can't address this problem in the space of this review, so I'll set it aside for now, but the print version of AllMusic lists the subgenres first, then the main genre. This is also how most of our articles list the genres. Apparently, AllMusic online is no longer following this format and is splitting up the subgenres and calling them "styles". I'm not sure that placing "Pop/Rock" as the genre in the infobox is helpful to the reader since it doesn't list the subgenres they are actually known for first. The print version doesn't separate these subgenres as "styles", simply listing them as " "Indie Rock, Alternative Pop/Rock", which appears to be correct to me. You have them listed as "Pop/Rock", which leaves out the indie and "alternative" part. I think it's debatable whether The Amps ever had a "wide appeal" and whether the music was "conceived for mass distribution to large audiences". I think most of our GA/FA's do not follow the online format espoused by AllMusic. For example, the featured article on Nirvana lists their genre as "Alternative rock, grunge", not "Pop/Rock" like AllMusic.[2] But the print version lists them as "Grunge, Alternative Pop/Rock".[3] I am curious, is there a consensus on the music projects to remove the subgenres from the infoboxes per AllMusic? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know of any such consensus or any voting on the question. OK, to move this issue forward, let's agree to call the genre "Indie Rock" or "Indie Rock/Alternative Rock". The question is, do we achieve this by (1) changing the source of only this one Allmusic ref to the book (possibly inconsistent with the other Allmusic refs in the article, but maybe OK), or by (2) changing all the Allmusic refs to the book (more consistent, but possibly overkill), or by (3) assuming that it is OK to use the online Allmusic's "styles" as genres? Moisejp (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• This still brings us back to original point. Why were they listed as genres in the book and years later as "styles" online? It looks to me like they are trying to create a standardized tree/hierarchy of genres, which is fine, but why would you refer to a band's genre at the top of the hierarchy in the infobox and in the lead? Surely, you don't see that as standard practice, do you? Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said, I am not against calling the group Indie Rock, especially if you have a strong opinion about this. My own personal opinion is that labels at the bottom of the hierarchy can sometimes be meaningful but are often subjective. "Alternative rock" (or Indie Rock) in particular does not seem very meaningful to me and the alternative rock article itself says "Alternative rock is a broad umbrella term consisting of music that differs greatly in terms of its sound, its social context, and its regional roots." At least if you are comparing music at the top of the hierarchy, you know that rock music is pretty distinct from classical or jazz or lots of kinds of world music. But my opinion on this is not so, so strong, and I am very willing to call the Amps Indie Rock. But in my last comment I was asking your opinion about the best way to cite this. What do you think about my three proposals in my last message? Also, I will try to get to your other comments this weekend. I have been really busy the last few days. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's not really how I feel that counts, what matters is how to best characterize the genre in the infobox and the lead. Forget about what I want, ask yourself what is best for the article. In any case, you don't have to respond to anything until I finish the review. You will be notified by the bot on your talk page when it is finished. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Changed the genre to alternative-indie rock. Moisejp (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why is there no caption in the infobox image? From the file description: "Kim Deal playing guitar with The Amps in Dayton Ohio, 1995". Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Added a caption. Moisejp (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• I note that the lead section is essentially duplicated from the GA-class Pacer album. I would have to search through the page histories to see which came first, but as the reader, I would expect the band lead to differ considerably from the album. I'll have more to say about this later. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Viriditas. Thank you so much for taking on this article for review. About similarities with the Pacer article, I wrote the Pacer one first and this one after. I was conscious as I was writing the two that because the Amps only released the one album and had such a short life, from one point of view the story of Pacer and the story of the Amps have a good deal of overlap. But I did consciously try to highlight different points between the two to make them as different as I could (while still not contradicting each other or the sources). But it is very possible I wasn't careful enough to vary the two leads. I will be happy to try to revisit them. If you have specific feedback about differences you would like to see between the leads, that's great, or otherwise I am sure I could try to come up with some ideas. Thank you again for reviewing this. I'm looking forward to your feedback. Moisejp (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• As I said above, I'll have more to say about this later. I'm busy with a few other things, and this review will take me a few days to a week to complete, although the article looks pretty good, so hopefully not that long. BTW, I saw The Amps back in the mid-1990s. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's cool that you got to see the Amps. I would have liked to have. Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• One thing that was interesting was the connection the band had with the audience. It was a family occasion, like having your brother and sister on stage. That kind of connection is pretty rare these days. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll never forget the way Kim Deal looked at the audience with a big smile on her face. She was happy to be there and happy to have us. You could tell she loved what she was doing and loved having us appreciate her. Regardless of what people say about her, there did seem to be a sense of true gratitude and respect for her fans in her overall demeanor as a musician, which I've never forgotten. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• As above with the infobox, the lead also calls the band "pop-rock". I'm putting the question of genre aside until the review is complete. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• the group consisted of Jim Macpherson, the drummer from the Breeders, and Luis Lerma and Nate Farley, two musicians from Deal's hometown of Dayton, Ohio.
  • I assume they are musicians, but why does it say Mcpherson is on drums but does not say the band features Lerma on bass and Farley on guitar? As the reader, I want to know that in the lead, and I'm fairly certain that's standard for most band leads regardless of the fact that they can probably play multiple instruments. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am revamping the lead to make it more different from the one for Pacer. It is still a work in progress; will likely tweak it some more in the next few days. My edit included adding mention of the instruments the different members played in the Amps. Moisejp (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Parentheses in the lead make for a poor read. I would work the instruments into the text. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Background and formation

• ...Wiggs became involved in some musical projects in New York, including collaborations with members of Luscious Jackson.'
  • Is the word "some" necessary here? It makes the prose sound terribly unprofessional and informal. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• At first, she envisioned her next album as being a solo record, on which she would play all of the instrument parts.
  • This reads in a better voice without "being". Simply, "she envisioned her next album as a solo record". Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, when she was recording initial demos for the project, she asked Kelley to play on some of them, to distract the latter from her drug difficulties.
  • Maybe it's because I'm a dumb American, but I've never heard (or read) anyone refer to "her" as "the latter". Very strange (to me). Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Later, Kelley had to drop out of the project for her rehabilitation, and moved to Saint Paul, Minnesota.
  • Why not simply lose the "had to", "her" and the comma, and write: "Later, Kelly dropped out of the project for rehabilitation and moved to to Saint Paul, Minnesota." Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good suggestions. I made all these changes. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pacer

• It was recorded at several different studios, and with multiple engineers.
  • "Multiple engineers recorded the album at several different studios", or "Different studios recorded the album with multiple engineers." Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I just cut "with multiple engineers" for simplicity, and then merged the first two sentences. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the other engineers who helped record the album were Steve Albini,[13] John Agnello, and Bryce Goggin.
  • "Engineers Steve Albini, John Agnello, and Bryce Goggin helped record the album." Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• My only concern is that I don't want it to sound like these three engineers were at all the studios. I am trying this: "Engineers Steve Albini, John Agnello, Bryce Goggin and others each helped record one or more of these sessions." Does it work for you? Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Thanks for catching that problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Touring and reforming the Breeders

• Before Pacer was released, they played some shows with Guided by Voices including concerts in Ohio in June and October 1995, and dates together in the UK in September.
  • "Before releasing Pacer, the Amps played shows with Guided by Voices in Ohio in June and October 1995 and in the UK in September." Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• They then played a series of US shows in October and November with Sonic Youth, followed by a tour of Europe.
  • "The Amps played a series of US shows in October and November with Sonic Youth, followed by a tour of Europe." Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Other groups that the Amps toured with included Foo Fighters and Brainiac.
  • "The Amps have also toured with the Foo Fighters and Brainiac." You don't need to say "other groups that" and you forgot the "the". Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, in May 1996, Wiggs revealed that she would not be involved any immediate Breeders activity, and Kelley chose to stay in Saint Paul, to be close to her rehabilitation facility.
  • You are missing an "in" before "any". This is a pretty convoluted sentence. "However, in May 1996, Wiggs revealed that she would not be involved in any immediate Breeders activity; Kelley also chose to stay in Saint Paul to be closer to her rehabilitation facility." I don't know, what do you think? This is a tough one. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• All good suggestions. I have made all of these changes, thanks, and made another copy-edit or two. Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Deal then decided that she did not want to wait any more to reform the Breeders
  • I guess that works, but I expected to read "wait any longer" not "more". Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Recording and touring

• Reviewers of Amps' concerts have mentioned their unpolished sound and relaxed atmosphere.
  • Or: "Reviewers described live concerts by the Amps as unpolished and relaxed." Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Members

• Kim Deal: Vocals, Guitars
  • I'm not sure what the convention is, but many of our music articles use the First Name Last Name dash lowercase instrument style rather than the colon uppercase style. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Made this change. Moisejp (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Discography

• There's a red link to the single, "Tipp City". Is that really needed? I mean, you've already maxed out the sources for both an article on the album and the band. Do you really think there's enough to write another article on the single? Just asking... Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

• Except for the paragraph about artists who have covered songs from the Pacer album in the "Aftermath" section of Pacer (album), I am concerned that virtually 80-90% of this article is identical in scope and context to the album article. This issue comes up every now and then so this does not reflect anything bad about the nominator, it's just something that emerges naturally when one is writing articles. Now, I'm not arguing that the GA album article should be merged, but I am worried that we will have two GA articles with the same or similar content. An easy solution is to further expand this article with additional and/or unique content. Of course, if you strongly believe the current version of this article is more unique and different, please provide a brief argument stating that, as I am willing to change my mind as I may be mistaken. Personally, I am the type of reviewer who wants an article to pass, and I will try everything possible within reason to help the nominator successfully achieve a GA. I've only reviewed less than 50 articles, but I don't think I've failed that many, maybe less than 10. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand your concern. However, as I mentioned above, I do think in this case there is bound to be a fair amount of overlap because the Amps only released one album; hence, the story of recording and touring for Pacer is pretty much the story of the Amps. I would be happy to further expand one of the articles, except that I have scoured the Internet already and have not been able to find anything good that is not already in one of the articles. I would like to propose this:
  

- I remove the chart position and critical review section from the Amps article (and merge the sentence about being released in October 1995 to the previous paragraph).

- I remove the sentence "The band's lineup continued to evolve, and within two years, Deal was the only of the former Amps left in the group." from the Pacer article. I could also remove mention of Carrie Bradley.

With these changes, I think you'll find there would be a fair number of differences. Only the Pacer article would include the following: the paragraph about Deal focusing on vocals, the Release section, the Reception section, the Track listing, and the paragraph about covers. Only the Amps article would include the paragraph about the reasons for the return to the Breeders, and the paragraph about the what the various members of the group have done since. And although the rest of the content would be similar, you'll notice I have tried to add some different details here and there. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think the Background and Recording sections are pretty essential for both articles. However, I could look for any duplicated details that don't need to be in both. For example, maybe the sentence about how the group got its name is not needed in the Pacer article. Moisejp (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is a really bad idea to alter the original GA in order to promote this one. A really bad idea. That's why I suggested that you expand this article with new information. Go through the sources and see if you can't add more content to this one. But please, don't alter the previous GA to make this one different. That's really not a good idea because that article achieved its GA status based on that version. By altering it, there is an open question of gaming the system to achieve two GA's based on duplicating the former. Don't do that. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK, please give me a number of days to review my sources and try to come up with some new content. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Viriditas, I have made a bunch of edits. Basically I expanded the touring section, and I excised the album review section, which overlaps with the Pacer article (I also felt it was too plodding to include reviews of both the album and concerts). As we agreed, I did not remove anything from the Pacer article, but I think it was OK to remove from the Amps article, since it is still a work in process. So, what do you think? Even if you still have some feedback, am I at least on the right track? I would really like to work with you to make this work. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good work. I will attempt to do one last check later today and close it out. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The word "some" is overused in five separate instances and weakens the prose. I recommend removing it in its entirety.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Regarding sourcing the genre in the infobox (and lead), the print version of AMG appears to be more accurate and complete than the online version, even though they have the same author. It seems likely that the online version was simplified or modified from the original for space considerations

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Lead image in the infobox lacks a caption. Image says, "Kim Deal playing guitar with The Amps in Dayton Ohio, 1995"

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nominator will attempt to expand the topic to differentiate it from the overlapping Pacer (album) article. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

   Nominator has made the necessary changes above. Additional recommendations for improving the prose can be found here. Thanks for your effort. I have passed this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Amps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Breeders,+The%22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151011055430/http://bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/music/reviews/12-21-95/REX/THE_AMPS.html to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/music/reviews/12-21-95/REX/THE_AMPS.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)