Jump to content

Talk:Toil (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleToil (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
April 23, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 18, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the title track of the celtic punk album Toil has been compared to the Bruce Springsteen album Wrecking Ball?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

On first pass, this looks strong. It's brief, but there's presumably not a lot of content and analysis out there on this. It's well-organized and appears to cover main aspects. Again, thanks for your work on it.

Quibbles to address:

Note that I also made some copyedits for grammar and style as I went, including adding one inline citation that got omitted. Please take a look at my edits to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See note above about lead section. Also, a sentence on the album's blue-collar/Christian themes would be a useful addition to the lead, to better summarize the "Writing/Composition" section.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. See small points about this above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass

Requested move 20 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: Not Moved - Not much to toil over here Mike Cline (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Wikipedia already has an article on manual labour which toil should really redirect to. A non-charting 2012 punk album is not the absolute majority meaning of "toil" in reliable sources. Alternatively move the dab to baseline, which is a quick flick for mobile phone users. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a good article, lovingly crafted by a fan of Chicago Celtic punk band Flatfoot 56, that's great. But that doesn't earn loss of (album). Wikipedia cannot distinguish initial capitals: and in the real world "toil" is clearly the primary topic for "toil" small t. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation page should be a base location; being a good article has nothing to do with being at the base location -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and comment. This is the primary, and only, topic of this title. I just deleted the dab page per WP:G6, as it was a dab page with only one link, this one. There are no other articles titled Toil, or that cover anything called "Toil". Further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so it doesn't need to cover the dictionary definition of the word "toil". I can undelete the dab page if there are objections, but it seems unlikely any topics will be identified to be listed on it. Dab pages are for directing readers to information they're seeking by listing out ambiguous titles, not related concepts.--Cúchullain t/c 21:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted the dab page until the discussion wraps up.--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the discussion closes as not moved, the new stub Toil (concept) can be linked from a hat note; the dab page is still not needed. It's also worth looking at whether the "concept" should be a standalone article or if the content should be merged somewhere appropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cuchullain what has whether a topic covered in Wikipedia is standalone or not got to do with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. What percentage of the Google Books hits for "toil" refer to a non-charting album by a Chicago Celtic punk band? In what way is this album of more encyclopaedic importance than the idea or toil itself? In what way are fans of Celtic punk music disadvantaged by (album) being on an album article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a COATRACK to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and a WP:PERMASTUB as well unless it's merged.
In ictu oculi: the answer is the same as usual. When there's only one real article with that title, or covering a subject of that title, we shouldn't throw obstacles in our readers' way. The goal is to get readers to the content they want in the quickest fashion, and here there are no other real ambiguous articles causing confusion. I'm sorry, but your Toil (concept) article is a stretch.--Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But how exactly do we know that everyone who inputs "toil" and ends up at Guerillero's excellent article contribution were looking for a non-2012 punk album? Is it not possible that some of this non-charting 2012 punk album's hits include people who weren't looking for it? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moot point if there are no other articles to direct them to anyway. If they want a dictionary definition of the word "toil", a link to Wiktionary is included. This proposal would throw an obstacle in the way of readers for the benefit of no one.--Cúchullain t/c 14:15, 30 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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Toil (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]