Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 30 June 2011

Who We Are (Lifehouse album) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 30, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Who we are instead

For one, we're about to his the 3 reverts rule, so please don't revert this again. This piece of information abotu the jars of clay album is a notable one as Ron Aniello, a crucial part of Lifehouse's past, was a participant in the JoC album and is rumoured to also be involved in this album too (I can't find a reliable source, but have read this in a few places, but that's why it's not on the page). If you revert again, you'll break the 3R rule and the page will be locked, so please leave it there.

--linca 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lifehouse-WhoWeAre.jpg

Image:Lifehouse-WhoWeAre.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead

• Lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD.  Done

According to WP:LEAD#Introductory text, it says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It meets this requirement. It also says under the "Relative emphasis" subsection, "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources." Furthermore, it also says under the "Opening paragraph" subsection, "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." Therefore, it does conform with WP:LEAD. - Rp0211 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Background and release

• Combine release with Reception.  Done
• Expand section by providing new relevant information.  Done

Singles

• Move to Background. Combine into one paragraph.  Done

Reception

• Rename heading to conform with subheadings.  Done
• Three reviews? Weak.  Done

There is nothing in WP:GAC that states anything about having a certain number of reviews. - Rp0211 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

• There is no working reference to support the information in this section; please find another source.  Done

Charts

• No references for chart information.  Done - There are references; you just need to scroll down to see the chart and what number the album peaked on each chart.

References

• All references are not properly formatted, and many are inactive.  Done

According to WP:CITE#What information to include, under the "Webpages" subsection, citations for World Wide Web pages typically include name of the author(s), title of the article within quotation marks, name of the website, date of publication, page number(s) (if applicable), and the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown). Therefore, the references are properly formatted. I checked all of the references and they seem to work for me. If some aren't working, you need to be specific with which ones. - Rp0211 01:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes in closing

I'm placing this article  On hold to allow time for changes. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the issues in this article according to Misplaced Pages policy. - Rp0211 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominator comments

• Question 6A: The only image in the article is copyright tagged and it does have a fair use rationale. See File:Who_We_Are_-_Lifehouse.jpg and look at "Other information" under the "Summary" section as it gives the copyrights to the creator. Also, under the "Summary" section it does have a fair use rationale. - Rp0211 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question 6B: Images are provided where possible and appropriate, and since there are no captions, it does follow this guideline. - Rp0211 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Review summary

The article still retains issues within it that currently keep it from reaching GA status. For an album that peaked at number 14 on the Billboard 200 for and subsequently appeared on the charts for an additional 75 weeks, the article is not broad in it's coverage. The prose is lacking throughout and Billboard should only needs referred to once in the subsections where it mentioned. To only have three reviews is not proportional to the number of reviews that are not included. I have no idea when and what other countries the album was released in. There is not even one interview! The references are not up to par and over-linking remains. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer banned for incivility

Following the discussion at WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mattchewbaca I am renominating at the original date. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees