Talk:Conventional Weapons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Conventional Weapons is the main article of the "Conventional Weapons" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. |
 | Conventional Weapons 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. Review: February 1, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Adding genres
Hey everyone(who will see this)! I’m new to editing on wikipedia and i’ve recently been having an idea;
What if we added a genres tab to this article? Someone can start it and others can add to it, adding sources, adding/removing parts of it so it makes more sense. I started this(without sources) and it was deleted in around 1 minute. But right now I have a full code now WITH sources. Which I think could add more to the article. Should I? And how do you all feel about this idea? 2A00:1F:2105:2F01:D822:F9FB:38E0:55F9 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Conventional Weapons is a compilation album of songs that vary so differently from one another (and the article talks about this) that, to me at least, it would be impractical to try and summarize it with genres (I don't even think Wikipedia articles usually apply genres to compilation albums). Regardless though, you would need sources that specifically say the album itself is a respective genre by a source. Not specific songs in the album, but the whole album being characterized as a genre. Which, again, would be tough and possibly even wrong, as practically every song is different from each other with little to no shared themes. Furthermore, coverage from reliable sources regarding Conventional Weapons as a whole is already fairly limited. I wrote most of the article as it stands now and I'm pretty sure I used all of the sourcing available. Never found anything about the album being specific genres. λ NegativeMP1 22:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Conventional Weapons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: RedShellMomentum (talk · contribs) 01:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1: Here are my minor concerns below:
- Refs 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 27 should use {{cite magazine}}.
- Author and date information are missing for ref 9.
- website=www.sputnikmusic.com → publisher=Sputnikmusic for ref 16. Also, add the missing author and date information.
- Author and date information are missing for ref 17.
- SPIN → Spin for ref 20.
- Date is missing for ref 27.
- Remove "│ Exclaim!" from the titles of refs 9 and 17.
- Same for "| Sputnikmusic" and ref 16.
February Backlog! RedShellMomentum 01:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
| 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. | I boldly copyedited the article myself since it would be silly of me to make you do it, so this passes. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Passes. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Passes. |
|
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). | Cite Unseen shows 12 generally reliable sources, 2 Rolling Stone sources, and a Sputnikmusic staff review. Passes. |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Everything is cited to its respective source. Passes. |
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Eawig shows 16.0% similarity, which is in the green mark, so this passes. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Passes. |
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Passes. |
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article uses 100% neutral wording. Passes. |
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Page history shows no recent edit wars. Passes. |
| 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. | Album cover has a valid non-free use rationale, so this passes. |
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Album cover is obviously relevant to the topic, so this passes. |
|
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, the article looks good, but I have just one minor concern above. It shouldn't take long. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.