# Talk:Alice in Chains (album)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alice in Chains (album). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123193521/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=51361 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=51361
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924155106/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Alice%20in%20Chains&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Alice%20in%20Chains&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=50
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The infobox says the album was released on November 7, 1995, but some sources say it was released on November 21, 1995.
Allmusic:
Release Date: November 21, 1995
[1]
Ultimate Guitar:
Released: Nov 21, 1995
[2]
Amazon:
Original Release Date: November 7, 1995
[3]
Billboard:
The album debuted at #1 on the Billboard 200 on the week of November 25, 1995.
[4]
[5]
So which one is the correct date? --Zoolver (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Like previous releases the subject matter focuses on some loners life who wrote this page and self protects himself into the music? What about “Heaven Beside You” which is about relationships and women? “Sludge Factory” is about record labels and corporate America.  “Rooster” is about the Vietnam war. 
Where are all the songs about isolation, drug use, and depression?  How about “over now” which is about the bands break up.  Hmm still not seems ANY songs about those emo topics. Sure they had a few songs about those things but not every song!
This article is trash and dishonest. 2600:1012:B1BE:C270:E024:A589:30F5:78FF (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
"God Am" is about religion.  "Nothin' Song" is a light-hearted song with humorous lyrics.  "Grind" is reflections on how the members are perceived in the media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.96.212 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC) 

this is nowhere Doom Metal WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While we as Wikipedians couldn't care any less about the editor's opinion of what subgenre applies to an album, since the reliable sources are the experts and we are not, I did not think the context offered by the source's writing was sufficiently ascribed to this album and I've removed it. mftp dan  oops  23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I get why the context for the Keith Maurer review is included, but its too long and needs trimming. Very much enjoying reading the article  by the way. Its really nice work but needs polish here and there for the next FAC. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with immediate FAC anymore, I'm gonna go GA first. The whole point of rushing FA was to get it on the front page on October 31 or November 7, and there is not a snowball's chance in the desert sun of that happening at this point. Not to say the feedback wasn't useful, though. mftp dan  oops  01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
@Ceoil: How about now? Is this better? mftp dan  oops  02:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Much better thanks. Am reading over but slowly...might start a list of comments/demands here in prep for the GA nom. I think the main issues to be worked through are mainly prose and polish; the sourcing and coverage are very impressive. As a disclaimer was a metal fan throughout the 80s and 90s but never really got into AIC; never saw them as grunge either. This is to say...neither a fan-boy nor biased. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Following this article's archival at FAC, I'm going to continue my source review. I'll assume good faith for [104] and review an easily accessible source.

[4]: it should be Starr's addiction problems were the main factor for his ejection, considering other factors were (ostensibly?) invovled.
Fixed this. mftp dan  oops  02:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
[6]: good, but I think it's a bit risky on the OR side of things. Dirt isn't mentioned in the book, and it may very well have fallen off the chart before Alice in Chains was released
You misunderstand, that wasn't my intention. I don't have it fully written out, but Dirt peaked at number six, and Jar was a number-one (a few chapters earlier it most likely verifies Dirt peaked there). We established that it was a top-ten, but not a number-one, earlier in the section. mftp dan  oops  02:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah yes, silly me. Icepinner  05:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
[12] good
[16] good
[21] good
[34] good
[39] good
[91] good
[107] good
That's all for now, I'll review [22] later. Icepinner  02:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)


### Alice in Chains (album)
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to make a featured article out of it and I need to know what else to do with it. GA was a breeze on this article, but I've had some struggles on anything higher. 
Thanks, mftp dan  oops  15:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Octave
A few comments on referencing:

Make sure your p.s and pp.s aren't muddled in sfns. p. is for single pages, pp. is for multiple.
Fixed. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Also check for hyphens for page ranges; these should be dashes
Unrelated to fixing the article, but you wouldn't happen to know an easy way to type those when using the citation toolbar, would you? This would make it so I don't do that to my magazine cites anymore and solve a lot more headache in the future. mftp dan  oops  01:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it depends what editor you use. I use the 2010 wikitext editor with CharInsert, which I find extremely helpful. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Use of archive links is not consistent, suggest running IA Bot or taking a trip to the Wayback Machine
Fixed. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Inconsistent use of publisher parameter for magazine sources
Is it just one, or multiple? If it's only a couple, would you mind pointing out which ones? Maybe they were here before I started expanding the article. I usually don't go that far. mftp dan  oops  00:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it's just ref 27. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Inconsistent reference title casing, suggest standardising to title or sentence per WP:CITESTYLE
Fixed. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
What makes Vice (Noisey) a "high-quality reliable source?"
How do we know ref 53 is not copyright infringement?
ISSN use inconsistent
UpTheOctave!, can you be more specific with what I need to do with these? Alice in Chains is my first foray into using this many print sources. mftp dan  oops  01:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
At FAC, reviewers often see consistently segmenting ISBNs as a WP:CITESTYLE requirement. For example, 978-1-56619-909-4 and  9780306406157 are both ISBNs, but are not formatted consistently: the position of hyphens should be constant across all identifiers (this is usually done by using either the ISBN recommended formatting [ex1] or no hyphens [ex2]). Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 07:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
So am I fixing ISSNs or ISBNs? I think it's the latter and you're talking about the Kitts interview, but I don't know what to change it to... every reference I've checked use none. mftp dan  oops  02:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
UpTheOctave!, may I have a little assistance here? I think you are talking about ref 77, but I don't know what to do with it. I was hoping to nominate this as soon as possible. mftp dan  oops  23:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, for some reason I don't remember getting a ping here – I might have missed it. Yes, I'm referring to ref 77, as compared to the books in "sources" and "further reading". The ISBN should be formatted in the same way for ref 77, so 978-1-476-85119-8. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! I didn't originally give a ping, since I knew you had been active with this nomination, but wondered if maybe it slipped past you without one. Happens to all of us. mftp dan  oops  23:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you UpTheOctave! I will address these tonight once I am home from work. Regarding the Mohr interview, it entirely could be copyvio without me being aware of it, I took it at the suggestion of the Russian Wikipedia's example. Admittedly, I was not sure how to format that one, hence the extra instructions, though I am sure it is reliable. As for Noisey, it was an online music imprint of Vice, a print magazine with editorial oversight. If the latter is the case, I find it unlikely the case should be any different with Noisey. I understand it's part of Vice, but the only place it appears is in an interview with Jerry Cantrell. In fact, its only purpose is to quote him. Wouldn't that be acceptable as an account of the artist's own work? I don't believe it is absolutely dire that we keep the quote, but I'd prefer to. mftp dan  oops  13:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. I was just commenting on the usual sort of culture articles Vice produces, which can certainly vary in quality. I've replied above (I think one of my replies got messed up in indenting). Two more comments as well: there's a couple of errors showing in the sfns, and I think ref 74 is a cite journal instead of a cite magazine by mistake? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)