# Talk:Black Country Communion

An anonimous user tried to include an image in this article (http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages2010/black-country-communion_BCC2.jpg), but images don't work this way. I did not try to upload the image myself because I don't know how to check if it is fair use, though it looks like an image that might be used in places like Wikipedia. If someone knows more about this, it would be a nice addition to the article.--Gorpik (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone saw the sub-headlines (check it) but they were then removed... does anyone have any thoughts on it? I've written quite a lot for each paragraph, so I thought it might be useful for navigation... Andre666 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The sections as they stand now are not so long, I don't think we need additional subdivisions. On the other hand, why did you remove the Band Members section?--Gorpik (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I removed the band members section per WP convention – it provides no additional information from the main article... as there are only the current four members, no past or anything. No need for it. Andre666 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I did not know that convention. OK then.--Gorpik (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Country Communion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments

First album, our own article claims it to be called Black Country Communion.  Not directly related to this GA, but worth resolving.  Ah, but the album is then referred to as Black Country Communion later as well... needs resolving, as does the band template.
The inconsistencies have now been resolved in the article and in the template.
Might be worth clarifying explicitly somewhere which bands this supergroup's members were drawn from.
I have added this to the first sub-section under history, as I think it's more appropriate here than it might be in the lead.
"later in the year" seems a popular phrase here, twice in the lead, perhaps a rephrase for more engaging prose.
I have changed the second usage of this in the lead, but please let me know if there are other occurrences you think should be changed.
WP:DATERANGE all over the place suggests you don't need to repeat the century in a range if the century is still the same, e.g. "2009–2013" -> "2009–13".
I have changed this for the history sub-sections, but not for the infobox as we are using the end date template. If this is not an issue, I will happily change.
"The foundation of Black Country Communion can be traced back to 2006..." a little bit tabloid, not reading encyclopaedically to me.
I have simply removed this piece of text, as the sentence works fine without it.
Do we not have an article for Planet Rock?
Yep, it has been linked there at its first occurrence (1st sub-section of history, 3rd paragraph, about halfway down).
"The album's title, release date, track listing, and artwork were revealed in March" did you name it in the prose?!
Do you mean the album title should be placed where it is mentioned? If so, it is now added. If not, please explain.
Could link some of those charts.
You must be looking at the second sub-section of history, as the charts are linked in the first sub-section already. Do they need to be linked again?
You suddenly use BCC as an abbreviation for the band name, although not consistently.
I have now defined the abbreviation in the lead, and also used it in an earlier sub-section. Is this sufficient?
"Kevin Shirley offered..." (etc) no need to suddenly start using first names again.
Agreed, removed.
Now then, the big issue.  I see no good reason for the discography to be forked out into a separate page.  This band article isn't large, and three albums isn't exactly a Madonna back catalogue, so suggest the discography is merged back into this article.
I see what you're saying, but surely this should have no impact on whether the main article becomes GA? I'm happy for the discography article to be nominated for merge into the main article, and if it is voted that way I will see to it that the article is redirected accordingly and the info consolidated on individual album articles, but for now should the nomination for GA continue regardless?
Well, it might not have a direct impact, but the point is that if the discog is soon to be merged into the main article (and I think we both agree it probably ought to be), then it will be a moderate change to the existing article.  It would be worthwhile reviewing the discog info in the context of GAN rather than promoting this to GA now, only to find it changed significantly later... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ref 60 is blank.
Looks like someone had messed with the ref code, weird... fixed now.
Ref 29, it's Official Charts Company.
Ah, fixed.
A few issues, one more significant than all the others, so I'll put the article on hold for a week while we try to resolve them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have addressed your points in turn, with replies for each above. Hopefully this is up to standard now, but please let me know if there are any other concerns you'd like me to look at. Andre666 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess when the discog gets re-added to the main article, I'll put this back up for GA review, but in the meantime, no reason to stop it being promoted to GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than have an edit war, let's settle the issue here. Is it reasonable to add 2017 to the Years active section in the info box, when we are still in 2016? OK, there may have been an official announcement, but we have no way yet to know whether this will effectively come to fruition or not. We can mention the announcement in the article, but that's it, in my opinion.--Gorpik (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. How about what I've just changed it to now though, then it's factually accurate both ways? Andre666 (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know what the guidelines say, but your new wording is informative. At first glance, the reader knows that, even though the band is no longer active, there are plans for the future. That's fine for me.--Gorpik (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)