Jump to content

Talk:Coexist (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCoexist (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Some things

[edit]

This:

Five new songs were played live at their show in London in May 2012.[1]

probably violates WP:ELNEVER, and the 'Possible tracks' section violates WP:CRYSTAL unless a reilable source is provided. Radiopathy •talk• 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the removed sentence:

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): 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):
  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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Additional Comments

[edit]
Not sure about this sentence in the lead For Coexist, The xx drew on the electronic dance music that occurred when they were away on tour in 2010. I find this section about electronic music 'occuring' a bit vague. Unfortunately, in the source for the similar statement in the article (source 15), Jamies quote is also a bit vague, although he doesn't say anything about it happening in 2010. FM talk to me | show contributions ]  23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt clarify whether the music that was recorded or performed at clubs. I just wrote that sentence to summarize parts of the background and "Writing and recording" sections: they toured in 2010, the dance music they say they missed out on during their tour, etc. Dan56 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the prose is very good. There are bare urls that could be improved, [1] does not list the position. Otherwise most references are pretty reliable, while some sources are not the most reliable but acceptable. --Tomcat (7) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed bare links. Some IP added those bare ref.s just recently. Cited olis.onyx.pl link with WebCite. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping sections

[edit]

There's notable overlap of thematic content among Composition, Lyrics and themes and Songs sections. It looks like two of these sections should be merged.--Lpdte77 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at present. The creation of an article for the bumper sticker image during the discussion means any argument that the album is primary topic based on page views is going to be outdated. I recommend looking at the evidence again after a few months. Cúchullain t/c 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– The other two articles on the disambiguation page only have "coexist" in part of their titles. It is unlikely that readers searching for just "coexist" would be looking for these two articles. Also, this article has higher page views than the other two articles on the disambiguation page, making it the primary topic for "coexist". sst 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we do now coexist (image) which makes the move more evidently moot. But even if we hadn't it still would have not been absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we do, that article ought to be the primary topic, so I must now oppose the first move, while still supporting the second one. Also, thank you for starting that article. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Post-close post-script: On 2 December 2015, Coexist (image) was linked to from the Main Page's "Did you know?" section. It had over 8000 "hits" that day, compared to less than 8700 hits for the entire past 30 days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]