Jump to content

Talk:No Code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNo Code 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
May 24, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
September 30, 2020Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

File:Polaroids Set E - No Code.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Polaroids Set E - No Code.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:No Code/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Idiotchalk (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another well-written and thorough Pearl Jam article but there are a few issues to be addressed before passing the article.

  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 (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Some minor issues with references. (see below)
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Minor issue with one caption/alternate text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold until some issues below are fixed.

Issues in the article

[edit]
Infobox
  • The article mentions No Code was mixed at Southern Tracks Recording and Doppler in Atlanta, not recorded there.
  • No need for language parameter.
    •  Done
Lead
  • "even more diverse" sounds POV/like journalism, perhaps rephrase or remove the "even."
    •  Done
Recording
  • "For its fourth album, Pearl Jam again worked with producer Brendan O'Brien." It would be useful to note what other album O'Brien produced.
  • Add "(1994)" after Vitalogy.
  • It would be useful to mention the recording studio's name in Chicago.
  • "the band seemed to have found a calmer place in which to exist" could use better wording, sounds very like journalism.
    •  Done
Music and lyrics
  • "anthemic stadium sound, favoring experimental ballads and noisy garage rockers." "Anthemic" either needs a source or should be reworded. "Rockers" sounds very out of place, is it supposed to be just "rock"?
  • "Flemion is given credit in the "No Code" vinyl." No Code should be italicized, not in quotation marks.
  • "The lyrics to "Red Mosquito" ... in front of 50,000 people." This sentence drags on a bit, it would be better to split it into two sentences for clarity.
    •  Done
Packaging
  • Image caption needs fixing. The caption shows alternate text instead.
  • Is there any reason why Polaroids is capitalized?
Tour
  • "out-of-the-way" sounds vague, this could use better wording.
    •  Done
Release and reception
  • Remove "at" following ""Who You Are" peaked at number 31 on the Billboard Hot 100."
  • "Album track "Red Mosquito" also charted" could use better wording, it might also be useful to note it was not released as a retail single.
  • Remove space before ref tags after ""Red Mosquito" also charted."
  • For "Critical response," a quick summary (e.g. "No Code received mixed reviews," "upon its release, No Code received a mixed critical reception.") to begin the section would be useful.
    •  Done
Track listing
  • The sub-section "Outtakes" would be better suited in Recording.
    • in Outtakes "weren't" should be "were not."
    • the Dead Men Walking soundtrack statement needs a source.
    • "Both songs were included on Lost Dogs as well" could use better wording like "Both songs were also included on Lost Dogs."
      •  Done
Personnel
  • Again, any reason why Polaroids is capitalized?
    •  Done
Chart performances
  • For clarity, "Position" should probably be changed to "Peak position."
  • For clarity, End-of-year charts should probably be before Certifications.
References
  • Ref 15 should link to page 2 of the article.
  • Ref 16 has an "a name" html tag, it might be useful to put "#06/29/06" after the URL so it can be easily found.
  • Ref 19 is sourced from a Billboard article on Google.com.br. Seeing as it's English Wikipedia, it might be better to just use Google.com.
  • Ref 25 should link to www.pearljam.com/tour/shows/1996 instead of just pearljam/comtour/shows.php
  • Ref 36 links to page 104 of the Billboard article, the source content is one page 103.
  • Refs 42-44, 46-48, and 51-54 should add Hung Medien as a publisher and have accurate titles. (e.g. ref 47 is "finnishcharts.com - Finnish charts portal" not "Finnish Single/Album Chart / Pearl Jam / Longplay."
    • Put Hung Medien, but is replacing the title necessary?
      • Not neccessary, just recommended.
  • Ref 50 seems to need search parameters, it should be noted in the references how to access the information.
  • Ref 65, like ref 50, also needs search parameters. Something like "N.B. User must define search parameters and enter either "Pearl Jam" into Search By Artist or "Who You Are" into Search By Song Title."
    •  Done


Done most, if not all. igordebraga ≠ 04:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's not something that's neccessary but it would make the last section a lot clearer if the Certification Table templates were used. Otherwise, it's ready to be passed. Idiotchalk (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voila! Good work, another fine Pearl Jam article! Idiotchalk (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in No Code

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of No Code's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

  • From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  • From Riot Act (album): "BPI: Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry (BPI). Retrieved 29 August 2010.
  • From British Phonographic Industry: Gallup (4 February 1989). "The Top of the Pops Chart" (PDF). Record Mirror: 4. Retrieved 16 July 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on No Code. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on No Code. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Code&oldid=1211289575"