Talk:Back to the Shack

Back to the Shack 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
Date	Process	Result
August 12, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CyrockingSmiler (talk · contribs) 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be starting the GA review shortly. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Disambiguation: Karl Koch leads to a disambiguation page.

I just unlinked his name altogether. There is the Karl Koch (Weezer) page, but that just redirects back to the band article.

External:~~They are okay except link no. 1~~

What external links? There's none of those in the article. You mean the citations?

Oh sorry, that was my mistake. I was talking about the citations.

Prose

Lead

"Back to the Shack" is a song by the American rock band, Weezer." Remove the comma

Done

"It was released as the first single from their ninth studio album, Everything Will Be Alright in the End, on July 22, 2014." Remove the commas after album and End

Done

"The song was written" It was written

Done

"Overall reception of the song has been positive." The song received generally favorable reviews.

Done

"The song debuted at twelve on the Alternative Songs chart." This should be put in the commercial performance section, not in the lead.

Done

Background

The sections Background and composition should be merged into one. Also, a sample of the song would be nice, although not necessary.

The sections are now merged.

"...randomly" The ellipsis is unnecessary

I removed it.

"Back to the Shack" was written by Rivers Cuomo and Jacob Kasher Hindlin." After this, add the line, production was helmed by Ric Ocasek

Done

"based on suggestions from fans, changed" based on fan suggestions changed

Done

"Producer Ric Ocasek was also said to have added a synth melody line to the song, with Cuomo stating "[he] tried to find different melodies and different beats and all these different things. I couldn't crack the code. So we had to go ahead and record it anyway[...]", during which Ocasek introduced the new melody." Regarding the composition of the song, Cuomo stated that he "tried...things." Further, he stated that as he "couldn't crack the code" they had to go ahead and record it anyway. Ocasek introduced a synth melody line to the song during this period.

Done

"Cuomo would also explain that the lyrics refer to how he feels bad for the direction the band has taken on some of their past material, with him admitting that he has sometimes "gone over the edge", and that he wanted to create "a classic alt-rock record"." Cuomo explained that the...material. He admitted that sometimes he "went over the edge". He explained his desire to create "a classic alt-rock record."

Done

"The word "shack" serves as a reference to Amherst House, a home where some of the original Weezer members lived, and had recorded some of their demos at." The word... house, a home where some of the original Weezer members had lived and recorded a few of their demos.

Done

Composition

Should be merged with background. A picture of any of the songwriters or producer would be nice, but not necessary.

They have been merged.

I'm adding a picture of Cuomo to the article

Release and live performances

Live performances should be a stand-alone section and should be put after critical reception.

Are you sure? There's not much to say about the live performances, so that's why I had it merged in with the release section.

The content in 'release' has already been mentioned in the lead. So I'm removing it as it is redundant.

Release has to be expanded, or put it in the background section.

Like what about it can be expanded?

Reception

Make it Critical reception and put it before live performances.

Done

"Carolyn Menyes at Music Times regards" regarded

Done

"...features hooks" the ellipsis is unnecessary

I removed them.

"it's simple," its simple

Done

"the song, as a whole," Remove the commas

Done

"At Billboard, Chris Payne" Chris Payne of Billboard

Done

"Hilary Hughes at Fuse" Hilary Hughes of Fuse

Done

"...a promising" Remove the ellipsis

Done

References

in all the references, the authors should be written as last name, first name and date should be in the format Month date, year

Example: Mapes, Jillian August 4, 2014

Done

Ref#1 cannot be accessed by people not logged in, so it should be replaced.

I can't find a replacement. I didn't even add this citation myself, and I'm not a member there.

Ref #1 is currently the only error in the article.

Ref#13 publisher is Prometheus Global Media

I changed it to that.

If you fix these errors within a week, I'll promote this article to GA status. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CyrockingSmiler: I have fixed most of these as noted. I asked a few questions though. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In my opinion, this article is adequate for GA classification. Well done! CyrockingSmiler (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to the Shack. 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) 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]