This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vaughan J.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Vaughan J., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
It seems you have taken an interest in band tours. Please see WP:NTOUR; the last version of some of the redirected tours did not have enough reliable third-party coverage to establish the criterion. Jalen Folf(talk)00:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shake (IShowSpeed song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello. The first thing I'm going to say is don't be surprised if another user comes along and redirects this article. Instead of merely creating articles for topics you're interested in, like the works of bands you're a fan of, Google search for good news sources before creating an article. If there isn't at least four news sources, it probably shouldn't have an article on it (yet), and/or you should wait until there is. (This doesn't include college newspapers, social media sources or Wordpress blogs.) I could barely scrape together another source on top of Dork you already cited for this article, and that is a regurgitation of a press release. Sources like Apple Music and a source for Anvil Cat do not contribute to the notability of a topic. Before creating any further articles in the topic area of music, please read WP:NSONGS if you haven't already. Even if the track ends up making the UK Singles Chart or some such next week, it's still not really in the realm of notability yet and I don't think it should have been made. Ss11214:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the part about the recording date has been removed, because it's not sourced. The bit about the EP's name isn't sourced. If you got this from social media speculation and Lovejoy haven't confirmed this themselves, please remove it. Also, a band can generally be considered a genre but to put that genre in the infobox on each of their song or album articles is not considered okay per WP:V, so indie rock and indie pop have been removed. Ss11214:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Do not stylise templates
Please do not change navboxes from the proper navbox intended for musical artists, Template:Navbox musical artist, to Template:Navbox for the sole intention of changing it red to "match the AC/DC logo" [1]. So what if their logo is red? We don't stylise templates. There's unification in these matters for a reason. Colours were stripped from Template:Infobox artist discography and other music templates because they were seen as both decorative and unnecessary, and there is a limited range of accessibility-compliant colours in the navbox for a reason, so your colours are purely decorative and not in line with WP:ACCESS. To try to get around standardisation by using a different template is inappropriate, so please do not make similar edits changing colours in other templates or on articles. Thank you. Ss11220:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What you should wait for instead is for news articles about the EP's impending release to be published. There was not one news source on the article about it—Lovejoy's main website might list the EP for pre-order but their website still isn't about the EP. You need to read WP:NALBUMS and avoid creating articles for releases until there is news coverage or a definite claim of notability about them. A top-40 single being included on it doesn't make it notable by proxy, because notability is not inherited. Thanks. Ss11209:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"A tweet from Billboard isn't a good source"
Before you repeat this line elsewhere, see WP:TWITTER: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so long as it's not an exceptional claim, it's made by themselves about themselves, and there's no doubt as to its authenticity. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been replaced with the chart page from their own website, but Billboard talking about their own charts on Twitter is still an acceptable source. Ss11209:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Please consider stopping the unuseful edits you're making on several of my recent GAs. These are almost completely useless edits that do not effect how the article looks to readers whatsoever; all they are doing is making the articles pop up on people's watchlists even though there's no new addition, and masking questionable edits IPs may have made before you. It feels like you are "correcting" my work like a school teacher. It is also throwing off the edit count and making you look like a bigger contributor to these articles than you are (which seems deliberate in the edits following this one for example). Kindly stop playing games as this seems a bit disruptive.--NØ08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you by making unuseful edits, I just felt like spaces next to the dot points, etc, would kinda make it I would say "neat" ig, but preview wise, it looks fine without the spaces next to the dot points, etc. Thanks for the warning though. — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)08:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It's fine. I wasn't offended and I wouldn't categorize the nature of my earlier message as a "warning". However, this type of thing is unnecessary.I am not sure what your issue with this particular article is and why you feel the need to keep making unnecessary experimental edits on it. If you are trying to get my attention for some reason please message me here or on my talk page directly. An article that has already been designated as a GA is not the appropriate place for you to experiment and you can expect to keep getting reverted.--NØ09:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I just searched it up, but I actually can't find a reliable source for it sadly :(. The only sources that I see was when they reunited in 2020. I just can't see any sources that actually say the hiatus length. — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)07:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The BlabberMouth.net source I cited was written in October 2020 and confirms that AC/DC had been working together in August 2018 (hiatus over). Their last public performance before that was in September 2016 per ref [113] (hiatus start). shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
That's fine if you complete the article later than expected. Just let me know when you're probably done with it, then I'll start another GAN. — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)11:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
You would have noticed how the article has many of its refs housed in the References section, leaving ref tabs in the main text. However, latter day refs (including those I've introduced recently) are still in the main text. I suggest moving all those ones into the References section, too. However, this will take time and I hope that Edit conflicts don't occur during that process.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I thank you for all of your sweeping up after my messes. Its been great working with you on this article but I'm moving on now. Re-read the GAR, check as many points as you can. Consider adding sound files. Otherwise have fun at your next GAN: I hope it flies high.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I applaud your recent work on this article, including the reference section's reformatting and article-wide copy editing. Sometimes that feels like the death by a thousand cuts but your good work is appreciated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey Vaughan, I've been meaning to respond to your message but got side-tracked IRL and some Wiki commitments. Unfortunately given the depth and size of the article, as well as it's popularity in mainstream music, I regret that I cannot commit to a detailed GA review. I am a bit inexperienced in the GA review space, especially in reviewing "high-importance"-rated BLPs. Anyway, good luck with the GA and all the best! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm finishing off some work on a jazz music awards article. Hopefully it will be done in two or three days. I'll be along to the disco as soon as.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid re-issues or later releases, e.g. DDDDC was not released in US until 1981 but Atlantic/WEA issued it in Europe (and elsewhere?) in '76. We might need a note within table about chart posi of 3 and multi-Pl in US.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Division of labour to avoid edit conflict: I'm working down the Studio albums subSectn; you can either work the Lead or any of the later Sectns, if you don't mind.
Yeah, my thoughts exact. BTW, I don't think we need a separate Refs col per table. Other recent FL discographies don't seem to have them. I suppose we'll find out at the review. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I've just noticed that there are no Aus chartings for any of these despite some being multi-Pl. Added
How do you feel about [offline] sources for these? ARIA used to store their ARIA Reports online at PANDORA/Trove from "Issue 566" (WC: 1st January 2001) to "Issue 1544" (WC: 7th October 2019) but promptly stopped with no real explanation. Afterwards archive copies were available until about last year or so. Now neither are accessible via internet. Amongst those reports various component charts existed e.g. ARIA Top 15 DVD or ARIA Top 40 DVD. Answer below
I'm not sure when the various DVD chart names changed but I've seen ARIA Audio Visual, ARIA Top 15 DVD, ARIA Top 40 Music DVD. For long charting DVD releases, they would pass through different named charts. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It first reached No. 2 on 17 December 2001.<ref name="ARIA Report 616">{{cite journal |date=17 December 2001 |title=Week Commencing ~ 17th December 2001 ~ Issue #616 |last1=Kellaghan |first=Ronan |journal=The ARIA Report |publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA) |issue=616 |page=20 }}</ref> Done
If you don't have a copy of ARIA Reports, you cannot verify these. You, and reviewers, will have to "assume good faith" for the DVD charting edits. Answer below
Live at Donington peaked at No. 1, it was on ARIA Top 40 Music DVD for at least 115 weeks.<ref name="ARIA Report 1076">{{cite journal |date=11 October 2010 |title=Week Commencing ~ 11th October 2010 ~ Issue #1076 |last1=Wallace |first=Ian |journal=The ARIA Report |publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA) |issue=1076 |page=23 }}</ref> Done
No Bull: Live at the Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas, Madrid also reached No. 1, charted for at least 147 weeks.<ref name="ARIA Report 1074">{{cite journal |date=27 September 2010 |title=Week Commencing ~ 27th September 2010 ~ Issue #1074 |last1=Wallace |first=Ian |journal=The ARIA Report |publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA) |issue=1074 |page=23 }}</ref> Done
Live at River Plate No.1 on ARIA Top 40 Audiovisual, on chart for at least 137 weeks.<ref name="ARIA Report 1483">{{cite journal |date=30 July 2018 |title=Week Commencing ~ 30th July 2018 ~ Issue #1483 |last1=Wallace |first=Ian |journal=The ARIA Report |publisher=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]] (ARIA) |issue=1483 |page=24 }}</ref> Done BtW, I saw you caught Plug Me In, and some of these from the albums' articles, well done. Maybe you could download them for your own cache?
ARIA still shows their accreditations per here download the whole lot. We will have to check all the ARIA values, I've already seen an album accreditation used for a single of same name.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Query: Are there any more New Zealand certifications? The article has archive copy of Radioscope from 2011 for Iron Man 2 and Black Ice and a Top 40 charting for Rock or Bust. What about:
DVDsLive at River Plate gold, Live At Donnington platinum, No Bull platinum, Plug Me In 2× platinum. Fixed
Query: Do we supply certification information for markets, which are not shown in adjacent charting columns? e.g. T.N.T. was certified Platinum+Gold in Mexico and Back in Black article has 14 certificates.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm still checking its wording. I'd link to avoid long, awkward sentences. While I'm going through, I check refs. So just given me a day or so longer.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Canadian charts require updating. Latter day album articles use Billboard Canadian charts. Earlier ones use RPM. According to WP article on RPM they stopped publishing in Nov 2000. The ref link in discography tables was archived in 2012 and only provides a list of search results, which are then to be opened and searched per date. This is difficult and tiresome. Obviously it cannot give charting after 2000. Fixed
Related problem: Live albs ref for Can goes to French charting! Fixed
Nah RPM archive charts still problematic. Click on next three times and it spirals out. Fixed
UK Albs archived link goes to Singles list. Fixed
Certifications cols: Show certifying organisation e.g. SNEP not FRA. ARIA is correct. Fixed
I've changed Nor chart col for Ger col in both Studio albums and Soundtrack albums. The German market is much bigger, AC/DC had greater certifications in Germany and generally higher charting for most albums. I hope you're okay with this.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I am Don Ienner's son helping my dad out with his Wikipedia article. Not too long ago I posted a few suggestions to add important information to the article. I saw that you have an interest in music and thought you might like to help with editing this page, since my understanding is that because of my conflict of interest I should not make any edits myself. Here is a link to my suggestions. Thanks so much. GarrettEye (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The article AC/DC you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:AC/DC for comments about the article, and Talk:AC/DC/GA4 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RetroCosmos -- RetroCosmos (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You'll need to address any left over items from GAR4 and GAR3 as well as the last FAR. I'm not able to commit to this journey any longer but I wish you all the best on your progress. Have a good new year, too. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hahahaha, they sure did, didn't they! I guess that counts as a present for an AC/DC fan like me: getting a teaser from AC/DC themselves lol. I'm excited for what's coming though! Thanks mate. P.S. I forgot to say, that pretty much sums up my night on my birthday. — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)05:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, Vaughan J.! The list you nominated, AC/DC discography, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Carlinal has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Heyo VJ, I'm sorry the current FAC didn't work out. You should have this. I wanna say congratulations and thanks not just for your efforts on said FAC but also for the achievements you already accomplished this past week. I see that AC⚡️DC's discography page is now FL, and the main page at GA is a hard-earned enough accomplishment. Hopefully you can nail this harder next time, I know it's possible. You're a real rock-n-roller, man. Cheers!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Article is well-sourced, formatted correctly for an upcoming tour, and is already attached to the AC/DC template.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Trainsskyscrapers}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Added some material and refs there but you'll need to copy edit the stuff. I have the band formed in London in 1972. They were a studio-only/sessions musicians band. That version recorded at least two singles (maybe three but cannot be sure). The Sydney-version were reformed in mid-1973 and recorded the album to give Angus and Malcolm a taste of what it was like to perform in a studio. Some of the refs contradict each other and content at the album's wp article but I'll leave that all for you to sort out. Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Even though the album has its own article a brief description/review of it in the band's article would help. Done
Given the scrutiny of AC/DC over the last 40+ years, is it generally accepted that this album is Angus & Malcolm's earliest recordings? Did either get recorded separately?
Cover versions of the band's tracks by other artists.
I believe the AC/DC article should be changed to reflect the junior Young brothers joining this band. AC/DC article has "The Young brothers had joined the Marcus Hook Roll Band in 1972, which provided..." Since MRHB formed in London and they were still in Sydney this is problematic. Furthermore MHRB has "The second version of Marcus Hook Roll Band were formed in Sydney in mid-1973 with... George's younger brothers Angus Young on guitar and Malcolm Young on guitar..."
I'll leave you to change this.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for removing my template on the talk page. I was about to nominate to FAC, but changed my mind last minute, as first-time nominators are asked to recieve mentoring before nominating. JML1148(talk | contribs)23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
No worries. If you feel like you now want to open it up for FAC, let me know. That way I'll open it up for you. I'll even make a few copyedits before I open it for you. — VAUGHANJ. (t·c) 01:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just querying the addition of Sheffzick to the AC/DC members page. I haven't reverted you but I think saying he was a member of AC/DC is a real stretch. The band hadn't been named, and never played a gig with him in the lineup. He really just knocked about in some pre-band rehearsals. Engleheart's book doesn't actually talk about him being a member of AC/DC, and I don't think any other source mentions him at all. It's more accurate to say he was recruited with what would become AC/DC in mind, but was offloaded before the band was properly formed. He might be better suited to a footnote somewhere. It's also worth pointing out that if we decide Sheffzick was part of some original lineup of the band, then neither Dave Evans nor Angus were original members, as their arrival came after Sheffzick had left. If we take Engleheart's word exactly as he's written it, that "lineup" appeared to be Malcolm, Sheffzick and Burgess, which doesn't look like a full band to me – it doesn't appear to have had a vocalist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I've tidied up the "firings" of members, trying to provide online refs and reasons where known. Also I decided to add refs for deaths of former members. Some of these deaths are not mentioned in the main text. Do you believe George Young's death should be acknowledged in the main text? I'm okay with whatever you decide.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Source check: consider diff, which added Wall of Sound article written by brownypaul. User name: Brownypaul87 is almost same as writer (and editor-in-chief) of website. See also my discussion with this user at Talk:Amy Shark. I've just raised the website at WP:RSN. You should consider replacing it where possible.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As requested I've started a paragraph on early 1970s Australian pop scene. I've concentrated on Australian pub rock. You may need to add info on glam rock (as that's their early style). You will also have to check formatting of refs and latter wikilinks which should be de-linked now. Enjoy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have now merged two sentences to the top, mentioning the glam rock style then the change to be glam to pub. Does that sound fine? — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)00:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that first ¶'s content should be more general and address the Australian contemporary music scene. Its confusing to mention AC/DC band members in this ¶ thereby preempting the later ¶¶ in the section. Try something like, "Other pub rock pioneers were Blackfeather and Buffalo. Amongst the popular newer Australian artists were mainstream pop bands Sherbet and Skyhooks, with the latter adopting a glam rock approach." shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)09:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you want to mention context for AC/DC's ambitions to succeed in UK and US? If so, consider Ayers Rock Australian music scene ¶2, you could add the Easybeats to list of Australian artists which had "little commercial success" in UK. If so, probably insert 1960s in the sentence starting with "Many artists..." and reduce the number of examples to three in total.
These ambitions were fuelled by George and Vanda's efforts to enter the UK market as members of the Easys (and later groups) as well as Burgess with the Masters and even Scott's attempt with Fraternity.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I have added a peer review due to one of the reviewers requesting to do that. Hopefully after that, we might have a chance to get in FA then. Thanks mate. — VAUGHANJ. (TALK)08:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"bassist" > "bass guitarist" (double bass players are also bassists) Done
"blues rock, and" > "blues rock and" (Australian English rarely has a comma before "and") May need removal elsewhere. Done
"exclusively in Australia"? I thought it was issued in New Zealand, too. Done
"at the request of Scott's parents, they continued together and recruited English singer Johnson as their new front man" implies Scott's parents wanted Johnson as front man? Done
hard space for ordinals? first album > first album Done
second-best-selling > second best-selling Done
"Prior to the release of Flick of the Switch (1983), Rudd left AC/DC" contradicts main text "Rudd was fired partway through the Flick of the Switch sessions". The former implies Rudd decided to leave voluntarily rather than being fired for drug and alcohol issues. Done
"Rudd was involved in legal troubles" cf. "Rudd was charged with threatening to kill, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of cannabis" The former seems rather light-weight summary of the latter. Done
"Axl Rose stepped in as the band's front man" I'd change "front man" to "interim lead singer" or similar, surely by that time Angus is their front man? Or is "front man" always the lead vocalist? Done
Delink previously linked terms: the Easybeats, the Masters Apprentices both linked twice in this sectn; Done
Consider WP:UNDUE per prominence of "Mick Sheffzick". Does he need to mentioned at all?
This was before the band was formed, so I believe he needs to be mentioned.
If you believe he does, "recruited" and "eventually replaced" implies Sheffzick joined AC/DC. Fixed
"In their early days" is a vague, hackneyed phrase. Try, "For about 18 months" or similar. I see Angus as Zorro in website photo, dated December 1974. So he was still trying different outfits, well after school boy. Done
"Malcolm and Angus developed the idea for the band's name" > "Upon formation Malcolm and Angus had developed the band's name". I assume they were named back in November 1973? Current wording suggests that they were named after April 1974 (last mentioned date, from previous paragraph). Done
Fix "firstvsingle" Done
The timeline between AC/DC supporting Lou Reed in August 1974 to Scott joining them in September 1974 needs further work:
Clarification needed: "received a call weeks after the gig" and "Following the gig, they hired" Is this the same gig?
Nope. Fixed.
Is "they were stuck in Adelaide" the same time referred to by "during their stopover in Adelaide"?
Now that I'm looking at it, not really. Bon first saw the band in Adelaide probably before or during the Lou Reed tour. After the Lou Reed tour and their residency at Perth's Beethoven Disco, they got back to Adelaide, Loughlin then quit managing, then Malcolm called Browning for help.
"first concert as AC/DC's lead vocalist was on" > "first concert for AC/DC was on" being lead vocalist has already been established. Done
Adjust sentence starting with "They released the second single..." when? Also that sentance is over-long. Once it's split shift "It reached the top ten in Australia." so it refers to the single not the music video. Done
"was cancelled following the death" > "was cancelled due to the death" or similar. Currently implies that Kossoff died in April after AC/DC arrived – he had died in mid-March. Done
"until their label organised" Any indication when that tour started? Done
"in the same year" 2005? (Most recently referred to year) Done
"in both Australian and European versions, like its predecessor" I'm not sure which predecessor is being referred to here. I'd get rid of the final phrase. Done
Possible problem: "two years before they played their first US concert". Consider: "US" (United States) is used here as an adjective, which grammatically should be "American"? But the word "American" is already used in the sentence. Rewrite it to make it sound better. Done
"experienced the US stadium circuit" > "experienced the country's stadium circuit" (See previous) Done
"Scott's parents advised the members that he would have wanted them to carry on, so they decided to continue and sought a new vocalist." > "Scott's parents advised the members that he would have wanted them to continue, hence they sought a new vocalist." Done
"At the advice of Lange" Seems contradicted by Angus later "[Johnson] was the first name". The former implies Lange introduced Johnson as a possible candidate. The latter has the Young brothers already decided to include Johnson as a candidate before any auditions. Done
"On 29 March, Malcolm offered" Probably needs the year in there, rather than later in the same paragraph. Done
Shift ref tab to after punctuation: "top five in Australia[30] and Finland.[111]" > "top five in Australia and Finland.[30][111]" Check similar elsewhere.
Why no mention of Simon Wright's background? Typically the article describes entering members better than this.
"and popular songs such as" suggests you'll describe two or more of them. I'd go for "and the popular" or similar.
"it reached number two on the Billboard 200" Why is this charting separtaed from listing of top three spots earlier in ¶?
"Several shows on the Razors Edge World Tour were" Probably needs "1991" before shows. The tour lasted from November 1990 to November 1991 but the album appeared in October 1992. The current sentence implies the shows were recorded in 1992.
"of the '90s by" full year for WP, even if source has "'90s"
"was rehired to replace Slade." What did Slade do, next?
"was issued as a single" When? Same for other singles.
"AC/DC were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2003.[164]" Consider moving to next ¶ and provide more detail of this momentous event, here. e.g. which members and presenter. Try not to cover same material as mentioned later: Awards and achievements ¶3.
"Verizon Wireless gained the rights" Chronologically out of place.
"comprehensive Blu-ray and DVD of" Wikilink both video formats? First mention in article, remember to delink subsequent ones.
"supporting the new album," Given the tour's name, this is redundant.
"; it plays" > ", which plays"
"along with interviews with band members" > "along with band member interviews" (too much "with").
"3×CD/2×DVD/LP box set" Generally the "/" symbol suggests either/or whereas the Deluxe Edition had 3×CD, 2×DVD and 1×LP; while the Standard Edition had 2×CD and 1×DVD. In any case, the summary description here is misleading.
"issued on Record Store Day." I'm not sure whether typical non-Americans know about these annual events, but a qualifier like "April" or "November" (which ever pertains) would help.
Consider reordering "On 19 November 2012, AC/DC released Live at River Plate on CD, their first live album in 20 years" to "AC/DC issued their first live album in 20 years, Live at River Plate, on CD on 19 November 2012" or similar. This varies the "on/in {date} blah blah happened..." format from previous sentence (very common in this article).
"Due to Malcolm's illness," Insert "severe" or similar.
Some of the "2014"s in this section can be deleted as implicit.
"but all its compositions" > "nevertheless all its compositions" or similar.
"supporting world tour to promote it," delete redundancy.
"photographed together with former drummer Chris Slade." > "photographed with Slade."
"denied a discharge without conviction" Should the article explicitly state that due to Rudd's criminal convictions he is banned from touring some territories?
Sorry to interrupt, but consider "due to Slade quitting due to a poorly timed conversation between him and Malcolm." Too many "due", it also leaves an average reader hanging about the meaning of "poorly timed conversation". From what Slade says he quit because Malcolm revealed he was already considering Rudd's return but wanted to have Slade available if Rudd was unable or unwilling to resume. All up, this needs to be worded better.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for being MIA, recently. Real life (tm). Sorry all your fantastic effort has not been rewarded with a FA. Don't be discouraged, just take a breather from accadacca. Then grab your comb (fine-toothed) and sift out the nits (=poorly supported content or ref not doing their job). All the best.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @shaidar cuebiyar. I have added new images for you to add alt text on the first section mentioning the founding members of AC/DC. Hopefully you'll be free to add some. — VAUGHANJ. (t·c) 05:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Vaughan J. I'm just posting to let you know that AC/DC discography – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey there Vaughan J.! I just thought I would drop you a message in regards to the tables on the concert tour articles for AC/DC. My edits for them were based on a now-closed discussion in Talk:Hackney Diamonds Tour, which the discussion can be found at the discussion called "Tour date table change". Although, now thinking about it, I probably should have opened a discussion for the changes in Talk:AC/DC and waited for consensus before making the edits as it would be covered all of the tour articles. So, in short, my apologies for not discussing it first. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
In regards to opening a discussion in the talk page, that would have been a good idea. Thanks for letting me know why you made those changes though, mate. — VAUGHANJ. (t·c) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
