User talk:NSR77/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Anthony Kiedis

Anthony Kiedis is the current Wikiproject Alternative Music collaboration. You have Scar Tissue, right? If so, can you cite the specific page numbers aleady cited in the article, and possibly add more material to the article? I can personally take care of cleaning up and arranging everything if you can provide the citations. WesleyDodds 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an early (negative) RHCP show review by The New York Times from 1985 that you might be able to use for the Chili Peppers article [1]. WesleyDodds 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Your improvements to Californication (album) are really awesome :) I really wanted to expand it before, but I don't have a copy of Scar Tissue, so I just had to make do with online sources. Thanks a lot for your hard work there. Kamryn Matika 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Red Hot Chili Peppers

Hey I saw you redid that thing about "the", and thats fine, but by chance have you seen Funky Monks? You probably have, but Flea in an interview says that "funk is something you need to have in order to be a Red Hot Chili Pepper". He talks about it from a view of them each being a Red Hot Chili Pepper, so wouldn't "the" make sense? Im sure the clip is on youtube if you want to see it. I may be mistaken and if so sorry. thanks! Cdylan13 22:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RHCP Collaboration

Oops.. I went ahead and set it up for this week before I realised that the newsletter said it would be starting May 30th. Oh well. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers#Collaboration_of_the_Week. Kamryn Matika 14:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Chili's article need protection?

It seems like the thing is being vandalized by unknown users everyday. Should we do the thing like the Flea and block all users who aren't signed up to Wikipedia from vandalizing the article? Just a suggestion. Thanks Cdylan13 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


blablabla

if noone answer on talk page... Zagozagozago

I talked about it on "talk" page but nobody answer to me..
but at what edit on genre u talk? i not change the genres, only change the intro...i'm not the one (71.157.169.109) that edited the genre before u make a Genre revert and BTW edit..
sorry not "talk" page but on "discussion" page of red hot chili peppers under "genres on intro"

Dani California

The article failed GA again, because it contains uses of the {{fact}} template. Comments left on talk page. G1ggy! 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to review it now. I know this sucks, but you'll have to submit it to GA noms again. Sorry. G1ggy! 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I nominated RHCP because it looked "good" to me...I knew it had been nominated before, but not recently, so I figured I could give it a shot during the backlog drive. G1ggy! 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination of Dani California

Passed

Well done! See the talk page for more information. Centy 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

Good start :) Hopefully this will provide us with some useful statistics that we can monitor our progress by. Kamryn Matika 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC_

WRT the article counter, yes, it updates automatically. A bot runs once a day, from what I gathered from WP:1. Kamryn Matika 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, you can tell the bot to update the statistics via this page. CloudNine 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative music WikiProject newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 2 - May 2007
"I will most certainly not be wearing black and lipstick in 2011. That’s a guarantee." - Robert Smith
Project news
New members

Burnedthru, TommyStardust, Grovermj, KamrynMatika, Merzbow and Cbing01 all joined the alternative music fold during May.

Editors

User:CloudNine

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by CloudNine 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dani California Review

The lead is still not up to standards. (See WP:LEAD.)

  • It's supposed to be a summary of the article. The entire first paragraph contains information not expanded upon in the body.
  • In the second paragraph, the last sentence has chart positions written out while the rest of the article has it in numeric format, which is preferred. Additionally, none of this information is expanded upon in the article either.
  • The last paragraph, concerning the awards, is also not in the body. I recommend creating an Awards heading.

As for the body:

  • It could use some copy-editing. For example, under the 'Writing and creation' heading, "Kiedis finally finishes his story in "Dani California" unlike in "By the Way" in which he left the ending open for listeners to suggest what happens next." Comma before unlike and after closing quotation. Along with that, how do you know that he left the ending open for listeners to suggest what happens next? Is that included with ref 4?
  • Additional wikification would also be nice. The musical chords, Rock music and UK Classic Rock Magazine, for example.
  • The 'Criticism and Reception' section should be changed so that the R in reception is not capitalized, per WP:MOS#headings. Also, 'They stated that the chord progression, key, tempo, and the lyrical theme of the songs (both produced by Rick Rubin) showed "startling similarities" and urged listeners to "decide for themselves".' needs a reference.
  • For the Spin magazine paragraph, I don't really see the point in including the fan poll data.
  • "Petty also went on to say..." - Remove "also".
  • Music Critics and Magazine Editors should not be capitalized, per WP:MOS#titles.
  • "The album saw exceptional popularity, and became the best selling album of 2006." - I don't see where the reference supports this claim (although I don't know what "Parcours" means). This paragraph also seems to be mis-arranged in relation to the following paragraph. I recommend merging the two and rewording what is now the first sentence to that following paragraph to read "The review also stated..." or something like that.
  • "number 2" should be "#2", for consistency.
  • Under the 'Music video' heading, "For a while, speculation as to which bands and artists were portrayed was common." - Really? This needs to be referenced.
  • There is a quote from Flea, "We mainly did eras, not actual people: rockabilly, British Invasion, psychedelia, funk, glam, punk, goth, hair metal, grunge, and ourselves being the sum of all those parts". First, the period needs to be moved inside of the closing quotation mark, as this is a complete quote. Additionally, all quotes must cite a reliable source.

The references are still incorrectly formatted. Although you reported in GA/R that these issues have been corrected, I don't see that they have.

  • Ref 1 should not include Billboard.com. The link for their official fan page should be included, instead.
  • Ref 6 leads to a story titled "Man arrested in Dover for attempted robbery". The link is either wrong or has been changed since retrieved.
  • Reference titles in citation should match those of the link, for example, ref 2 should be titled "Red Hot Chili Peppers: Artist Chart History", ref 7 should be titled "Latest News: Petty vs. Chili Peppers, Townshend Explains Song and More", and ref 8 should be "Audio sample: Petty vs Peppers". Those are just some examples, there are more references needing this attention.
  • References should also cite the work. For example, ref 3 should cite Grammy.com, and ref 5 should cite YouTube.com. These should also be italicized and wikified (when an article exists for it). Rolling Stone, for example.
  • References should also include the date written or posted, when available. Ref 7, for example.
  • References citing articles should include author name, when available. Ref 9, for example.
  • References also benefit from a retrieved date in case the link goes dead. There are programs that can find the archived page and the link can be replaced. (See Wp:cite#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22.) Currently, there is only one ref with a retrieved date.
  • Because this is the English Wikipedia, it is preferred that all references be in English. If an English alternative is available for ref 11, that is preferred. Additionally, the cited work is inaccurate.

There is still much to be done to bring this article up to standards. I am glad that you are working address issues, and I hope you will use this informal review to continue to improve the article. Let me know if you have any questions by dropping a line on my talk page. LaraLoveT/C 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't Stop

I just did a quick overview of the article again, and I don't believe it is ready for GA promotion. The article is not bad, it just needs refining, and a really good copyediting. Before reintroducing it to the GA committee, I would recommend that you put it before a peer review. There are some excellent reviewers there who will be able to go into detail about the issues this article has. Best wishes!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Red Hot Chili Peppers}}

I'll respond at the talk page. ShadowHalo 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers videography

Hi. You might want to take a look at this. I'm not too familiar with Fair use rationales, and all the images are being adressed for not having one, and will be deleted unless one is added. What kind of fair use rationale will fit for these images? Yours sincerely Tooga - BØRK! 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tooga - BØRK! 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User Page

I like the way you worded things, want credit? Xihix 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just that... I know other people will say no. All you hardcore Wikipedians are alike, and they'll just say no too. It's just really sad, but I spent all night looking for the right font, the making of the asterisk... :( Xihix 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just made it 70 px from 100 px, and it's just about the same size as the Sex Pistol's name info box. Can it stay now? Xihix 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate you. Seriously, worst Wikipedian ever. Xihix 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I think it's fine and it makes it nicer! Just the normal text is so boring, but any person that just comes for information on the Red Hot Chili Peppers won't care about the space, they would like the nice little design, and they would know what the logo is. The logo is largely used and is largely recognized as the band. You see an asterisk in that shape anywhere, you know they're talking about the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So, it's useful and it's pretty. And I spent all that time making it. I want it to stay! Stop making a fuss about the littlest things!!! Xihix 23:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Three out of all the featured bands have them. Red Hot Chili Peppers should, too. Xihix 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if a really good article (the featured article) has one, I don't see why this one shouldn't, either. Xihix 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job!

Sorry I haven't been able to participate as much recently - I've got exams. Just wanted to drop by and say, wow, nice job on By the Way! It's way more thorough now than the unreferenced mess that it was before. WP:RHCP is starting to get a nice list of GA articles :) I really do think we can take Californication (album) to FA, too. I'm planning to take a look at it sometime next week. Kamryn Matika 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers

Could you give a third (or fourth) opinion on the amount of images in the Red Hot Chili Peppers articles? It seems to be a bone of contention over there at the moment, with Xihix claiming that the fair use images are sufficiently criticised. CloudNine 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)