Talk:The Ghost Inside (album)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Ghost Inside's self-titled 2020 album is their first release since a deadly tour bus crash in 2015? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that The Ghost Inside fired their bassist the day after releasing their self-titled 2020 album? Source: [2]

• Reviewed: n/a - 2nd nom

5x expanded by Kncny11 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC).

• article has indeed been expanded 5x -- nice work, Kncny11! Reads neutral, passes an Earwig's test, and cites numerous sources. I prefer ALT0 & think it's quite interesting. I believe this is good to go! = paul2520 💬 19:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 21:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably finish this review by the end of the day, although I do wonder why the nominator hasn't tended to my nomination of Hot Pink since we completed the fixes he suggested? versacespaceleave a message! 21:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lead

• "The Ghost Inside also did well commercially" → "The Ghost Inside was a commercial success"

Background

• Good

Composition and production

• Good

Release and promotion

• Good

Reception

• The sub-sections here should be their own sections

Critical

• Good

Commercial performance and accolades

• Kind of awkward to read but it's fine

Track listing

• There aren't any production credits in the track list

Charts

• Good

References

• Good

Comments

ping me when the fixes are addressed. this article is  On hold. versacespaceleave a message! 03:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: just so you know i've finished this versacespaceleave a message! 12:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

✗ Fail for failure to acknowledge my comments or edit this page at all. versacespaceleave a message! 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ghost Inside (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 01:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DannyMusicEditor. I saw that this nomination had been in limbo for over half a year, so I thought I'd tackle it. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. I currently have another review on hold, so if that one continues anytime soon, I might leave this one for a bit. Anyway, I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Holy honey biscuits, I thought I'd never get a GA review again after how they changed the priority rules. I appreciate your accepting of the review, I'm patient once I get someone. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The other review hasn't been touched since I "on-holded" it, so some preliminary comments will probably follow shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments after initial read-through

Background

• Probably a bit nitpicky, but the first source doesn't state that the bus was a tour bus.
• Similarly, the source doesn't give the distance from the border checkpoint. (It just says "a few miles East")
• The second source states that the driver of the other vehicle, just that someone inside is believed to have died. You should probably find a stronger source for this info.
• described his injuries in an Instagram post; they included... - The "they" here is ambiguous, and the following sentence sounds kind of stilted. Maybe it's best to just remove the semicolon with something like this: "described his injuries in an Instagram post, which included".
• Why is there a semicolon after Facebook? I don't think it functions like that (though I'm certainly no expert on typography myself)
• What is the signifance of the response to the tweet? The source described it as them "appearing to be working on new material". Maybe include this info with an attribution, e.g. "responded with a photograph of themselves where they "appeared to be working on new material", according to Alternative Press." Maybe a bit of a lengthy line, so tweak at will.

Such engagement from artists to fan questions posed like this are regarded as quite uncommon, so that is presumably why it was included to begin with. I saw no issue with it. I should probably add that I didn't write most of what you see here - I am just a fan of the album, noticed there was a lapsed attempt at a GAN, and wanted to try again myself. Of course, have thoroughly familiarized myself with the article. I'll try to rework it, though. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• adding to fan speculation - This is not in the source. Either find one that states this, or remove it altogether.

Obviously it'll add to fan speculation, that doesn't need to even be said. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Please provide a citation for McKinnon producing their two previous albums.

Should be easy, I'll use their liner notes and if I find anything else I'll use that instead. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Composition and production

• the rest of the songs avoids overt references to the bus collision - The source doesn't state this (as far as I can see anyway)

Jonathan Vigil, per the source in question: "The whole record is not about the accident." dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"The whole record" doesn't mean "every song except the two previously mentioned". There could be a third song on the album about the accident, and the sentence "the whole record" would still hold true. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. I've reworded it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• This section includes a lot of lengthy quotes. Maybe paraphrase or shorten them a bit.

Release and promotion

• "Aftermath", the album's most personal song - The source does not state this.
• before showing Vigil performing at the site of the accident - The source states that it "appears to be" the same stretch. Maybe find a more definitive source.

That's sadly as good as it gets; I've updated the sentence so as to stick to the source's interpretation. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• The next day, the band announced they had dismissed Riley. - The source does not state that. It says that they "parted ways", which might be slightly euphemistic or purposefully vague, but it's better than anything else.
• Riley returned to the group in September - This is not stated in the source (which might be obvious, considering it was written in June)

Critical reception

• This section contains a lot of lengthy quotes. It might be better to paraphrase here, and shorten the quotes significantly. Nearly half of both paragraphs consists of quotes, which is dangerously close to copyvio territory.
• Decapitalize "Dead Press!" in both the prose and the reference, per MOS:ALLCAPS

I'll probably come back to the reception section once I feel comfortable with the quotations. Anyways, a checklist of the GA criteria will follow shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Aside from some of the sourcing concerns in background, I've made an attempt to address averything. The rest I'll finish up tomorrow, let me know if you have any further concerns - I did add some information about "Pressure Point", which included a quote - though I found Riley's interpretation key to understanding the context. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: I believe I am finished. If I missed anything or a change is not satisfactory, please let me know. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I just saw your message. I'll look through your changes in a bit (also I just noticed that I missed the R in reception, which is kinda embarassing...) ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Everything you've added seems to check out. I've made some small changes to the article. I have one question, though. @DannyMusicEditor: Why did you remove the reference to the studios in the infobox? This isn't present anywhere else in the article, and I assume that this was verified through the citation, so why remove it? ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't realize this wasn't mentioned in the article; all I knew was that the idea was to avoid citations in the infobox, and that the booklet information was already cited. I'll add this information in the body. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have everything covered now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think everyting's good to go. I feel comfortable passing this GA review. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The Metal Sucks source might be better to replace with something else, as other editors have had concerns with its factual accuracy in the past. Some statements in the article are unsourced, which is why I've given it a no. I'm more hesitant about the copyvio situation, as the quotes are borderline, but not necessarily copyright infringement.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Maybe provide alt text for the cover in the infobox

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article doesn't seem particularly far from passing as long as the above concerns are addressed. Good work so far. As stated above, I'll probably look over the reception section again once that is done. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.