This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Smeezingtons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The Smeezingtons 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the article creator-
I think this article is really well written. You've got some nice references and links, and the tone is nice too. It could just do with a few more references, though.
Just what I think of the article :) Chevymontecarlo. 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly features content that is subjective and non-balanced. Take "They are currently one of the most sought-after production and writing team"; says who? By what measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.148.197 ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. "In 2008, Lawrence was an under-appreciated Los Angeles artist" and "sitting in the car with no money in their pockets"...again, subtle but unacceptable abuse of a neutral medium for opinions and marketing talk...this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please someone place that tag "this page reads like an ad" or at least put quotation marks around the phrases above. Once again, those phrases make it sound like someone was hired to write this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.115.13 ( talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel that it is superfluous to have a separate article for the production discography, when it could easily go in this article. If the objection is that it would take away from the "flow" or "structure" of the main article, then I would suggest collapsing the structure on the page (but, if possible, I'd like to avoid doing that). The production discography is short enough to include in this main article, especially compared to similar articles about other producers such as Polow da Don. Only producers with long credit histories tend to have separate discography pages (e.g. RedOne and Just Blaze). Thoughts? Amit ► 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been adding information in order to improve this page. How about creating a production discography page? I have a lot more info to add.
Small point, but there are a large number of punctuation and grammatical errors in the article. I'm working from my iPad which makes it difficult to do the switching back and forth thing to cite specific instances. I like the content overall and arrived here because I think Bruno et al will be an important force in music moving forward. As a reader i found myself having to re-read several sections due to structure and grammar.
ScoobyLives ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Ted M. ScoobyLives ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
---I know I'm trying to fix that. It's really hard working you could help if you want
The article says 1980, but Italian wikipedia says 1976. The source provided only provides a citation for the birthday, not the year. Bobby Martnen ( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Smeezingtons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Mariosoultruthfan, you said that I made a mess. I'm assuming you are referring to my December 10th edits, since a few days before that, you sent me a Thank you note. What is the problem with my December 10th edits? Is it: Inaccurate? Poorly written? Inadequately supported with citations?
I thought that I added good information about wavin Flags and bang bang. The support for the wavin Flags info is in the Wikipedia article for wavin Flags. I checked all Wavin flags info carefully regarding the chronology.
I Tried to show when the name changed . The Troubadour 2/2009 cover notes do not say Smeezingtons, but the 8/2009 cover notes for Get Sexy do say Smeezingtons. So that narrows down the date of the name change.
If my edits lack citations, I can restore them with more citations. Thanks. Robinesque ( talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Mariosoultruthfan, and for letting me know the problems so I can fix them. I added date info but I didn't change any key dates. I'd love to know which dates you're referring to. Bruno Mars considered Bang Bang significant as an early work that already displays their mature sound, including their skill with live instrumentation. The citation makes this clear. Maybe Bang Bang would fit better in the section on influences and style. Robinesque ( talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Smeezingtons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The Smeezingtons 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the article creator-
I think this article is really well written. You've got some nice references and links, and the tone is nice too. It could just do with a few more references, though.
Just what I think of the article :) Chevymontecarlo. 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The article clearly features content that is subjective and non-balanced. Take "They are currently one of the most sought-after production and writing team"; says who? By what measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.148.197 ( talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. "In 2008, Lawrence was an under-appreciated Los Angeles artist" and "sitting in the car with no money in their pockets"...again, subtle but unacceptable abuse of a neutral medium for opinions and marketing talk...this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please someone place that tag "this page reads like an ad" or at least put quotation marks around the phrases above. Once again, those phrases make it sound like someone was hired to write this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.115.13 ( talk) 01:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel that it is superfluous to have a separate article for the production discography, when it could easily go in this article. If the objection is that it would take away from the "flow" or "structure" of the main article, then I would suggest collapsing the structure on the page (but, if possible, I'd like to avoid doing that). The production discography is short enough to include in this main article, especially compared to similar articles about other producers such as Polow da Don. Only producers with long credit histories tend to have separate discography pages (e.g. RedOne and Just Blaze). Thoughts? Amit ► 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been adding information in order to improve this page. How about creating a production discography page? I have a lot more info to add.
Small point, but there are a large number of punctuation and grammatical errors in the article. I'm working from my iPad which makes it difficult to do the switching back and forth thing to cite specific instances. I like the content overall and arrived here because I think Bruno et al will be an important force in music moving forward. As a reader i found myself having to re-read several sections due to structure and grammar.
ScoobyLives ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Ted M. ScoobyLives ( talk) 14:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
---I know I'm trying to fix that. It's really hard working you could help if you want
The article says 1980, but Italian wikipedia says 1976. The source provided only provides a citation for the birthday, not the year. Bobby Martnen ( talk) 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Smeezingtons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Mariosoultruthfan, you said that I made a mess. I'm assuming you are referring to my December 10th edits, since a few days before that, you sent me a Thank you note. What is the problem with my December 10th edits? Is it: Inaccurate? Poorly written? Inadequately supported with citations?
I thought that I added good information about wavin Flags and bang bang. The support for the wavin Flags info is in the Wikipedia article for wavin Flags. I checked all Wavin flags info carefully regarding the chronology.
I Tried to show when the name changed . The Troubadour 2/2009 cover notes do not say Smeezingtons, but the 8/2009 cover notes for Get Sexy do say Smeezingtons. So that narrows down the date of the name change.
If my edits lack citations, I can restore them with more citations. Thanks. Robinesque ( talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Mariosoultruthfan, and for letting me know the problems so I can fix them. I added date info but I didn't change any key dates. I'd love to know which dates you're referring to. Bruno Mars considered Bang Bang significant as an early work that already displays their mature sound, including their skill with live instrumentation. The citation makes this clear. Maybe Bang Bang would fit better in the section on influences and style. Robinesque ( talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)