Talk:The Boxmasters

Undue weight

Added tag due to the fact that the article now has two sentences about their music and a full paragraph about the current controversy. Section on music should be expanded to balance. Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I re-added the tag after it was removed. --Rob (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is now more or less balanced. I retained a NPOV tag, though, to let others have time to comment. The Squicks (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the issues with all three tags have been sufficiently dealt with for removal of the tags. --Rob (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Okay, so I feel that we need more positive reviews here. The portrayal here is essentially universally negative. The Squicks (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's better now. The Squicks (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Were there no positive reviews of the first two albums. Last night, I saw Bill Maher raving about the group - was that just sycophancy ? (Surely any group that includes two songs about prison on their Christmas album must be doing something right.) -- Beardo (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Boxmasters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Billy Bob Thornton, credited on the band's material as 'W. R. Thornton', has remarked that "I never intended to become a movie star... It happened accidentally. I appreciate it because I'm able to make a good living for my family, but other than that, it seems like a job to me. Music is what I love." The way that the quote fits in the text [has remarked that I ?], don't looks good; please rewrite.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead section don't summarize the article's contents.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   montrealgazette.com not worked.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   From 2008 to 2009, the group played in Canada and in the United States alongside musicians Bradley Davis on mandolin, guitar, and vocals, Teddy Andreadis on harmonica and organ, and Mike Bruce on drums. The source don't say about years and countries where the band played.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The group resumed touring in July 2008. The group resumed touring where?--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   File:BillyBobThornton.jpg needs an alternative text, see WP:ALT.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week.--Cannibaloki 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

   Passed.--Cannibaloki 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the Thornton quote. I also added more material to the lead. I also corrected the OR about touring.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I had to rearrange that paragraph per MOS:QUOTE. Okay, original research was removed.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, though, about the other issues that are cited. Why is it relevant when he played in those cover bands? The Squicks (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, I rewrote that paragraph.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when and where the touring took place is important and I found references for that. I also fixed the missing link. The Squicks (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Great.--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Touring and controversy" should not be "Controversy in the Canadian tour"?--Cannibaloki 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a few additional comments, the article appears mostly good, and could probably be promoted to GA with a little more work. However, there's a few concerns. First, there's quite a few citations in the lead section, which indicates that some material may be being introduced in the lead and not adequately covered in the article itself. While some citations are acceptable in the lead, the lead section should ideally serve as a summary of the article, and citations should preferably appear in the article text and subsections that are being summarized.

The 'Canadian touring and controversy' section seems a bit unweighted and I'm not really sure how much of a "controversy" it really is? Could be leaning towards violating WP:NPOV. And I'm not really getting the point of why it's being covered? Is it really that important in terms of the band overall?

While the article discusses several albums and live performances of the band, it doesn't really talk about any songs or singles that they've produced that might be notable. It might be nice to include some popular songs they've come out with. Have any specific songs made the top 40 or top 100 rankings? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I think that the lead does not need citations at all. Everything in there is already covered in the article itself as you can see. I can remove those citations.

Secondly, the controversy really is important in terms of the band overall. Not covering it would be like not covering, say, Eric Clapton's racial outburst in his article.

Thirdly... As far as I know, their singles have failed to chart. I don't think that this really means anything- they're specifically designed to be an album oriented band rather than a singles band. The Squicks (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the lead section. It looks much better. I'm ok with the rest -- if the band is a more album-oriented band, then that makes more sense. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

a little bit about the CBC controversy, a little bit about the music, and The Sadies

I too heard the interview and for disclosure, was a bit ticked: being a Jian fan. A day or so later, there were a few emails and letters read. One in regards to BBT's comment about how he's trying to make music that hasn't been made in 30 years, someone wrote that such music was being played--by Canada's own Sadies. My question: how does the Boxmasters compare with the Sadies. I'll be posting something similar in their talk page.Civic Cat (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me that a bunch of sore-footed Canadians didn't swoop in here to make the biggest deal of the century out of a little radio interview. Sure looks that way by the size of the CBC controversy section. Looks like a total knee-jerk reaction, whining over something a band member said. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Subtle dig in Members section?

The Members section has Thornton listed as "Actor and screenwriter Billy Bob Thornton." Is this a sly reference to the CBC incident, and a subtle dig at the fact that Thornton hates people focusing on his Hollywood career when promoting his band? If so, should "actor and screenwriter" be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoidzer0 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were unnecessary mentions of "actor screenwriter" throughout the article, which is definitely a dig but definitely not subtle. They've been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.15.44 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Verification needed

I re-added the "verification needed" because I need confirmation on the wording of the sources. The article says, "Thornton, who was visibly upset, then complained about Canadians in general to a national radio audience since they didn't get up and move or throw things at each other..."

What Thornton said was "Canadian audiences tend to be kind of reserved... We tend to play places where people throw things at each other. Here they just sort of sit there." He was then asked if they play theatres, to which he replied that they play in stadiums and it's like mashed potatoes with no gravy.

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it, but I don't think it's accurate to say he was complaining about Canadians because they don't throw things. Maybe it was a general comment. Of the two sources, TheTimes requires a login to read and The Rolling Stones link (which is broken, by the way, but I found another source I'll add) makes no mention of those comments.

Most likely, this section can and should be re-worded, but I wanted to at least verify what is being cited before I do that. Thanks. 68.96.52.9 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Boxmasters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108005121/http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/music/Billy_Bobs_band_is_all_about_modbilly.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/music/Billy_Bobs_band_is_all_about_modbilly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is against delisting the article from being a good article. An editor with a conflict of interest had removed substantial material from the article. This removal has now been reverted.

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) or Aircorn (talk · contribs), would you help me with any GAR paperwork needed after this close? Thank you.

Cunard (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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 discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This is clearly not even close to GA class.

1. Full of POV/informal terms like " brought chills down his spine."
2. Too many unsourced segments to bother with tagging.
3. Nearly the entire musical career section is just parroting quotes from reviews.
4. "Touring hiatus" is unsourced and only one sentence long.
5. "Return to album releases" section is just "In X, Y happened", "In X, Y happened" ad nauseam. Needs a major copy edit.
6. One citation was a personal blog on Blogspot, which I removed. There is also an external link in the body of the text, which is not allowed.
7. The article is extremely sparse. It contains no information on why band members changed; how Thornton chose to reunite, what kinds of songs were on the album, or even what style of music they play. There are overall only 13 sources, which is very sparse for a band that's been around this long.

I would say this is hardly even start-class, and I'm amazed that it was considered GA-class in even 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. I was notified of this by TenPoundHammer and I too am actually a little shocked a GA this subpar has escaped notice for this long. Really just further proof GAs are frequently approved as favours to editors and not always (as they should be) about the quality of the article and its sourcing. I'm sure more information could be found and it could be improved beyond the start-class it actually is, but a GA this is not and should not be. Ss112 22:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: Just a reminder that this is still open. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Aircorn: I didn't realize that at some point, an editor with an obvious COI removed a great deal of content from the article. I had initially closed this discussion, but decided to reopen upon this discovery. If you and @Ss112: would like to take another look at the article, that would be greatly appreciated. The pre-removal version still has faults, but I think this version is considerably more salvageable and deserves a second look before I close the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the Canadian controversy is a bit undue, but otherwise it seems fine. Easy fix if you agree. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Aircorn: @Ss112: could both of you look at this please? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise this either. I think the version with the restored information is quite a bit better. Of course an account named after the band (probably their management) had to remove a section about controversy—they always try to do things like that to make their acts look like they've never been involved in anything that might make them look bad. But yes, there's more to work with there now. Ss112 03:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.