The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

Tell All Your Friends[edit]

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primary contributor: MusicforthePeople

Happy holidays, Wikipedia. This article is about the debut album by seminal emo band Taking Back Sunday, released in 2002. Although it received little radio support and charted very modestly, it sold at a steady pace, and became the band's best selling record. It became a gold record in America in 2009. In addition to its singles, it featured the emo staple "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" and the album was likened to Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory (2000) as an exemplary effort for its genre.

I am not the primary contributor to this article. That honor belongs to MusicforthePeople, who initially nominated this for good article status five years ago. As it turns out, I was the one who reviewed that nomination, but I have been mostly hands-off since then, with anything I've done being very minor. From the attitude I got earlier this year at the FAC talk page, I believe this should not be a problem.

MusicforthePeople and I are close colleagues, and we had a chat earlier this year about how both of us have so many good articles but neither of us can really take much credit for a Featured Article. They began making preparations to make this a featured article, but decided the process was not worth the hassle. I then offered if I could begin the process in their stead, and they accepted the offer. Me fulfilling this nomination and seeing it on the front page one day will be fulfillment of a dream seeing his work there. This will also be my first FA attempt in four years; my last attempts ended in failure, so hopefully I have learned from there. I appreciate any reviewers' time! dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • Done
  • Done
If I recall correctly we attempted to investigate this issue at GAN but were unable to find anything further than what we've dug up. I will give it another look to see if anything has surfaced since that time. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. If further information cannot be found, then "personal issues" is fine. It could be a case where this was not disclosed to the public (which is perfectly fine and probably the healthiest thing). Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
Aoba47, got a question here. I'm reading the essay and working on it now, but point number two seems rather difficult. I had an idea, but don't know if it falls afoul of original research. I was going to lead it off with Reviews of Tell All Your Friends dating from near the time of the album's release were generally positive. but the guideline seems to discourage that and I don't know what I'd look to do instead. This album was not collected by Metacritic, which is what I typically source that opinion to. dannymusiceditor oops 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be safe to add a sentence about the album receiving positive reviews since this section is almost all positive reviews (with some mixed ones but not any outright negative ones unless I have missed them). I would work on the wording though. The "dating from near the time of the album's release" part is unnecessarily wordy. I'd use something like Tell All Your Friends was generally well received upon its release. I hope that is helpful, but please let me know if I can clarify anything further or anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
I've switched this to "Best-of lists, influence and retrospective reviews" – is this better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a clearer header to me, but I would also see what other reviewers say about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will look through the article again when all of my above comments have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions, and have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We will be sure to follow up on this. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Just so you know, it is discouraged to use the done template as it can slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I'd also remove the templates used above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have done some significant retooling of the article's reception, hopefully in accordance with the essay you provided me. I also added some new information I thought would be not only pertinent, but helpful and important background. Is my work enough to garner your support? dannymusiceditor oops 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the ping and the update. The section does look better. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose as done in this part (and awarded the record four out of five stars) as it does not add much to the prose and this information should already be in the table. Once that is done, I will look through the section again. I hope you are having a great 2022 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything looks good to me now. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • That might be a good idea, actually. I have a song in mind which would work, and I know what I need to do for the licensing and rationales once the file is uploaded, but I may need assistance with actually creating the sample itself - is there someone I could look to for that, if MusicforthePeople doesn't do it here? Also, I hope you're alright with me making a section out of your heading, since Aoba's list was rather long. dannymusiceditor oops 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I added a clip here. This is the first time I've uploaded audio, so let me know if I need to adjust it. MusicforthePeople (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the FUR the parameters marked "n.a." should be filled in, and some of what's currently in "not replaceable" might work better in "purpose of use". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the file source link. MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition is fine but suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the alt text. MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only picked up a single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't interviews be considered RS since they're interviewing one of subjects (a member of the band in this case)? MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the publishing of the interview is a big part of the process - does the publisher have a reputation for accurately reporting interviews? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed since its only sourcing a minor detail. MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the standard at FAC isn't just meeting WP:RS, but being "high quality" - just as the prose for an FA is better than average, so should the sourcing be. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those are high quality, else they wouldn't even be there. This is an indie record which barely cracked the charts and had almost no radio airplay, what are you expecting? Billboard journalists in 2002 weren't going to pick up some random Long Island indie label's debut record and put it in the magazine. Some of these you've questioned are actually (or at least once were) print-published sources. Those kinds of sources didn't appear until years later after the band became successful. The one I could see an argument for removing was the Allmusic biography; we already have another source covering the information, and I see it is supposedly a last resort per WP:ALLMUSIC. dannymusiceditor oops 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely being a print source does not make a source reliable for wikipedia purposes - if that was so, WP:DAILYMAIL wouldn't exist and we'd be using The Daily Mail. As for the fact its an indie record, I did actually take that into account. The subject matter does dictate whether the sources given are going to be high quality or not. I clicked through to all the sources if they were available (not just the ones I"ve questioned), or checked out the wikipedia page on a source if available. Some of the above may meet the bar for "high quality" but it's not clear to me that they do. You can demonstrate their high quality by showing that they are experts in the field, or that other high quality sources use them as sources, or in other ways. It's not impossible, but it's also part of the FAC reqs for sourcing to be "high quality" - with that of course having some leeway for subjects - I certainly don't expect academic journals or university presses for indie records, but I do expect them for historical or scientific articles. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'm not sure there is a strict by-step process, but they are generally thoroughly discussed (or not if a source obviously isn't usable), and background checks on the sources actually come down to proving they are "experts in the field", as Ealdgyth mentioned. Ultimate Guitar, CMJ, Rock Sound, Drowned in Sound and AbsolutePunk in particular gained consensus that they have established credentials; see the linked discussions for those. The others I would be happy to show you, what exactly are you asking me to look for? If they weren't "experts in their field", I would not expect them to be listed there, but if there's anything I can do to show that, I will. dannymusiceditor oops 15:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... I go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the first source I questioned - CMJ New Music Monthly - I assume it's "CMJ" on the chart - which links to a "2014 discussion" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49 in this archive. However ... there's no discussion in the discussion. I searched the page for "CMJ" and there is one mention on the page - in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49#What makes a single a single? where it's listed in a bunch of other external links. Okay .. so lets see the second one - Rock Sound - the chart says Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_32#Review_publications:_Rock_Sound,_Spin,_Metal_Hammer,_Vibe,_Mojo,_Kerrang!_and_Q a 2009 discussion - which is not exactly showing how this is a "high quality" source for FAC purposes. Europunk's not on the chart. Absolute punk's on the chart, but says "only use staff reviews" - which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of its reliablity, much less being "high quality". Ultimate punk's listing says "Only cite articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere." - which, again, isn't a ringing endorsement of its meeting WP:RS, much less being of a higher standard. ChartAttack has no listing of any discussion on how it got added to the chart. (oh, sorry for the bad pun). Punknews says "use staff reviews only". Drowned in Sound says "only use staff reviews". The Fader has no discussion linked in the chart. Nor does Melodic.net (I"m assuming that's "Melodic" on the chart). I'm going to take it that the allmusic source will be removed. I'm not trying to shoot down the nomination - just trying to make sure the article is the best it can be, and that includes using the highest quality sources possible for its subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that some of these don't have discussion, I just wanted to point the others out. The Allmusic biography indeed has been removed, but I still believe the album review is perfectly valid. As for the others, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The BBC loves Rock Sound, among others, and that is a sound endorsement (ba dum tss) in my opinion. Punknews, Drowned in Sound, Ultimate Guitar and AbsolutePunk had/have a forum and the ability to self-publish content, which is to be ignored; this is what is being alluded to in the discussion of staff, and just because that is allowed should not mean the sources should be excluded from consideration of expertise. I believe such clear-cut portions of the site designated usable and to avoid should validate its use here. On the AbsolutePunk discussion, did you actually click on it and read the whole discussion? I remember MusicforthePeople and I participating in that discussion, with them doing the most heavy lifting. If better sources exist for the same content, I would be happy to replace them, but I'm not seeing the issue here. If there are any publications I haven't addressed in your previous reply I'll get back to you on those. I believe that this article is the best it can be, among source choices. dannymusiceditor oops 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, though. I can see Rock Sound - the BBC usage pushes it enough to make it "high quality" for the subject matter, but the others are not convincing to me. The bar isn't "reliable" .. but "high quality". We're looking for experts writing for them, that other sources thus use the source for their coverage. Just because the Album project decided to list some sources on a page (and keep in mind, that page isn't for "high quality sources", but just the plain "reliable sources") doesn't make them high quality unless we can see why they meet the FA criteria. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's where we hit a brick wall - I think that for them to be listed, they are considered "high quality sources". In any case, would credentials of staff at these websites on other publications sway anything? According to founder Jason Tate's LinkedIn, he oversaw the company while it was a part of SpinMedia, who also operated Spin and Stereogum, among others. I would think that to secure such a publishing agreement, the company would have to be recognized as legitimate enough that they would be experts, right? Still working on the others, just wanted to give an update on that one while I found it. dannymusiceditor oops 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danny, wearing my FAC coordinator hat, it seems to me that Ealdgyth is right and you aren't. Unless Ealdgyth has any further input I would suggest that you take that on board before I look to close this nomination, which will be in the near future. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest with you, Gog, I feel like I'm not being paid enough attention to. I am actively trying to work out solutions and I'm waiting on a response - did you look at the evidence I provided below? dannymusiceditor oops 05:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this - but it said in the hatted section "More on other sources will be coming" so I assumed there was ... more to come. Nothing I saw below was hugely game changing, but I was waiting on the totality of the information rather than rushing to oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I was assuming I might get some clarification that I was at least on the right track before I completed it. Sorry to keep you hanging. Anyway, I've completed the list, but Melodic might be moot. dannymusiceditor oops 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was a bit delayed - I had a husband home for a few days and spent some time with him. I've struck a few above - the main issue is punknews - and give the other issues being resolved (the lists helped a lot, so it wasn't wasted at all), I think I'm comfortable saying that other reviewers can decide for themselves on these last ones. Marking this one complete in my book and unwatching. Thank you for the effort and listing, may I suggest you copy these over to the album project page for future reference? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source backgrounds from DannyMusicEditor

AbsolutePunk

  • As previously mentioned, founder Jason Tate operated the company under oversight of SpinMedia.

Ultimate Guitar

  • Amy Sciarretto – see bottom of the CMJ section

Drowned in Sound

  • Dom Gourlay has worked for Under the Radar, Gigwise, Contact Music (source: [7])

Punknews.org

  • First and foremost, co-founder Scott Heisel, has worked for Alternative Press for a decade, as his involvement in Uproxx and Substream Magazine. (source: [17])
  • Aubin Paul (co-founder) has worked for Exclaim! (source: [18])
  • Brian Shultz has worked for Vice, The A.V. Club and Substream Magazine (source: [20])
  • Ben Conoley has worked for Alternative Press and Exclaim! (source: [22])
  • Bryne Yancey has worked for Alternative Press, Bandcamp Daily (source: [23] / [24])
  • Chris Moran has worked for The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, Yahoo, and a few others (source: [27])
  • Xan Mandell has worked for AMP (source: [30])
  • William Jones has worked for AMP and Skratch Magazine (source: [31])
  • Brian Cogan has worked for The New York Post, Chunklet; written or co-wrote the books The Punk Rock Encylopedia, The Encylopedia of Popular Culture, Media and Politics, and co-edited Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture, and Democratic Engagement. (source: [35])

CMJ

  • Michael Tedder has worked for The Village Voice, Spin, Salon, The Orlando Sentinel, few others (source: [43])
  • Christopher Weingarten has written a book for the 33 1/3 series (source: [46])

Chart Attack

  • Jordan Darville has worked for The Fader (source: [48])
  • Jesse Locke has worked for Vice, Pitchfork, Bandcamp Daily, The Ringer, Exlcaim!, Now, Slant, many others (source: [57])
  • Charlotte Cardin has worked for Exclaim!, Fashion (source: [58])

The Fader

  • Nick Felton - see the top of the CMJ section
  • Brandon Callender has worked for Pitchfork (source: [63])
  • Salvatore Maicki has worked for i-D, NPR, Paper, various radio stations (source: [66])
  • Matthew Trammell has worked for The New Yorker, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, few others (source: [68])

Melodic

  • Ola Gränshagen has worked for AOR Classics, RockUnited (source: [75] / [76])
  • While Johan Wippsson and Nick Anastasia have mostly focused their journalism career working for Melodic, they have worked with the publication for extended periods - 22 and 16 years each with the business, respectively. (sources: Nick and Johan)
  • Done the above two. MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: The Melodic ref was sourcing the amount of copies sold; would this press release be a better alternative? [78] MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm very familiar with the album and saw TBS live a couple of times, and saw Nolan with Straylight Run more times than that. My comments:

  • The background section could be the background section for the TBS article. Can it be focused a bit more on TAYF? Do we really need to know where DeJoseph's final show was?
  • This better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the separation of a guy and a girl.[35]" Perhaps a little informal? And you should be clearer on what you mean by separation.
  • " A Yahoo! Group with over 1,300 Taking Back Sunday fans could download demos of "Bike Scene" and "Head Club", which it was hoped would increase sales.[47] " Not sure this makes grammatical sense.
  • "on the bus". I'd guess that to be the band's tour bus; did Nolan overhear?
  • For the above three, is this better? I'm presuming that Nolan overheard but I don't recall if that was mentioned in the source (I don't have it at hand currently to check). MusicforthePeople (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More