# Talk:Enema of the State

Article discussion (Talk) pages are for discussing the article, not for fan cruft, which has a place on fan forums, not here.  Postings on article talk pages should be appended with four tildes for automatic time-date stamp and user IP/ID. Hu 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Replaced stricken "article" with talk in the above. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21 1  October 2006 (GMT).

"Mutt was recorded by Scott Raynor"....I am whole-heartedly deleting the shit out of that sentence. Not only is it unfounded and unsourced, it is ridiculous. I play the drums. I am a hardcore Travis fan. I cant stress enough how ludicrous that is.--Atticus2020 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually... while the version of "Mutt" on Enema quite obviously features Barker on drums, there is (or at least, was once) a version of "Mutt" floating around the Web that does feature Scott Raynor on drums (as evidenced by the much more rudimentary drumming and raw, pre-Enema sound of the track.)  The existence of this version, the claims elsewhere on the Web that "Mutt" features Scott, and the suggestion in this article that a video may have been shot for the song at some point between 1997 and 1999, suggest to me that "Mutt" may very well have been one of, if not the, first track written for Enema, and that it was written early enough that it was originally recorded with Raynor on drums prior to his departure.  Unfortunately, I presently can't seem to find a site hosting this version.  I believe b182.com MAY have it, but the site seems to be down as I'm writing this. Josh, March 31, 2007

Regardless of how popular the album was at colleges, all the emotions they put down are not unique to college e.g. love, depression, missing loved ones, rebellion - I don't see how it's anything unique for college students.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.155.224 (talk • contribs) 

Am I the only one that noticed that M+M's is from dude ranch I think, or one of the earlier albums, and should not be talked about as a single in this article...
No. I noticed it to, its beeing used as a example.
Used as an example or not, it's misleading. - Josh, March 31, 2007

I remember seeing Travis on TRL mention that the band was either going to make a video for Aliens Exist or release it and I figured it was going to be the 4th single. Anyone remember this or was a video made for this song? 12.73.239.53 09:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
well, mostly there appears to be just live versions, but i found this on myspace http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2020171866. however, be warned--it's shot like a music video, but sounds like a live performance. tom's off-key and sounds nothing like the album track, and --sad!--if it was a live performance he would've done that cool line about "i got an injection of love from the erection/my best friend thinks i'm just humping guys" that he does in live shows....so yeah, i dunno what this is. but it's something! Bouncehoper 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
this is just live performance, they played Adam's Dong too for MTV there.
what about mention of the Enema demo in 1998, with Raynor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.128.52 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7z7tk6sxekrk
--CactusBot (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "The nurse uniform was found in a dumpster which was briefly used as shelter by iconic music producer Timbaland when he was a struggling homeless jaggoff." for obvious reasons.--72.24.207.77 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enema of the State/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 01:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I'll be reviewing this article. Let it be known that although I have contributed to in-progress GANs that I have had no prior involvement in before and have experience contributing to Featured Article Candidates and Featured Article Review, this is my first solo GAN review.
Let's go through the basics first:

Well-written - Some grammatical errors. Right in the second paragraph, the word "The" is capitalized in a spot where it shouldn't be. Please give the prose another once-over. Also, try not to use "the band" so much: also use "group", "trio", "ensemble", or the band name itself to add variety and avoid repetitiveness. Reduce colloquialisms ("MCA gave the band their first serious recording budget") as much as possible. Also, in American English "the band" is singular, so you would say "MCA gave the band its first . . ." Commas go outside quotation marks, not inside. Aside from those nits the prose is looking very good for a GA nominee.
Verifiable - Some dead links (Blender.com), as well as refs considered unreliable by Wiki (acclaimedmusic.net). This link gave me just a page with the band's picture on it and some script. Avoid citing primary sources like the liner notes as much as possible--my personal rule of thumb is that if a third-party source doesn't remark on a fact, it's most likely not worth noting in an article. There's a sentence in the second paragraph of Recording and Production that has three cites to back it up--can you restructure the sentences to clarify what reference is referencing which facts? The sentence "The band chose 'never to work with anyone else again,' and Finn would produce their next three releases." is cited to a book that came out in 2001, surely before even Take Off Your Pants and Jacket came out? Avoid citing reviews for factual information (a common mistake becoming more and more pervasive with GA album articles), as they are opinion pieces citable only for the opinions expressed. Compare the musical sections of In Utero, Loveless, and Is This It and the sort of references they use to this one (note that as those are all Featured Articles, this article does not have to be as thorough as those ones). You don't need to explain every song in-depth; what's more important is providing a broad overview of the album as a whole. As such, move the summary at the end of the "Composition and Lyrics" section to the top of that section. One of the few original research bits I see is the sentence "The title is a humorous pun on the term enemy of the state" in the lead. I'm sure that's likely, but no sources cited in the article say as much. The bit about the Red Cross cap is uncited. Find a ref for it or remove it. Many of the chart positions are not cited either in the prose or in the charts table, which is troubling. The sentence "Many commentators stated that the band's polished pop sound only remotely resembled punk music. Although the video for "All the Small Things" was filmed as a mockery of boy bands and teen pop, fame did not discriminate on origin: soon, the band was as famous as those they spoofed." doesn't quite correlate with what's said in the NYT article being cited.
Broadness - All major points covered. Good job. The Singles section is about the only area where you go into unnecessary detail. As all those singles have their own articles, make the best use you can of Wikipedia:Summary style. Note how much detail In Utero affords its singles.
Neutrality - Some wording could be trimmed to make it more neutral. "Iconic", "Highly successful", "massive commercial success", "unabashed success", "In perhaps the ultimate insult", etc. stick out. Let the facts speak for themselves. For example, rephrase "Released in the summer of 1999, Enema of the State proved to be a massive commercial success. It has sold over 15 million copies worldwide, making it the trio's highest selling album" to say Released in the summer of 1999, Enema of the State has sold over 15 million copies worldwide, making it the trio's highest selling album". The same point is conveyed in a more neutral fashion. Follow suit in the rest of the article.
Stability - No sign of edit-warring
Illustrations - Non-free cover image has a sufficient rationale. Use of soundclips should be strengthened--the captions must tell use something about the sound of the actual music. See In Utero (album) for an example. I'd also cut it down to one soundclip for the time being.
Other comments:
As you may have noticed in the album FAs I linked here, the review template box is not mandatory. I personally refrain from using it as I feel it can grossly distort and misrepresent actual critical consensus, and doesn't really tell readers anything worthwhile aside from scores with varying metrics that are on occasion assigned by editors and not the authors (Rolling Stone is notorious for this). But as it's an optional feature, I'll leave it up to you whether or not you wish to retain it. Keeping or removing it will not count against you either here at GAN or down the line at Featured Article Candidates.
On a related note, the tracklist template is not mandatory. However, unlike the review template, the guidelines say such tracklist template should only be used for complicated tracklists. Convert it to a simple list, and remove the hidden text menus.
Standardize your reference formatting. I see vary date formats (1998-09-17 vs. October 12, 2012) and varying amounts of info for the same type of review (for example, magazine refs lists a page number, while other magazine articles don't; page numbers aren't required for magazine articles if you opt not to include them, by the way). Ref. 79 is just a bare URL with no formatting whatsoever, and Ref 50 only has a title and no other information.
"summer of 1999" is unclear, as seasons are different in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Make more specific using the sources you cite, if possible.
"Composition" is a misnomer for an album article--the word refers to song structure. Better titles would be "Content" or simply "Music".
I'm putting the article on hold for seven days. If you have any questions or need a little extra time, get in touch with me and I'll respond as soon as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this article. The article's been on hold for seven days and editing by the nominator has trailed off, yet outstanding issues with citations (chiefly the retained use of Acclaimed Music and the uncited facts about the album title, the Red Cross cap, and the chart positions) and too much detail in spots remain. This article honestly isn't too far off from meeting the GA criteria, so please review my comments and when you address the remaining issues I have raised, then by all means renominate the article at GAN. I wish you the best of luck. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enema of the State/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I will place this on hold to be worked on --Guerillero | My Talk 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


### Discussion
Hey there! You recently reviewed my good article nomination for Enema of the State. You placed the article on hold for some further revision, which has been implemented in areas. I will however address several points in your review, such as the inclusion of images and sources deemed unreliable:

2b: Acclaimed Music is employed as a reliable source on current good articles (Me Against the World) and featured articles (Dookie). About.com is used as a source in the featured article Punk rock, as is Discogs. Discogs is also in use in the good articles on previous Blink-182 albums Cheshire Cat and Dude Ranch. I have replaced the AbsolutePunk link with a book reference, as the original interview (no longer online, apparently) is cited in the book.
I will accept your use of acclaimed music because you use it as a starting point. Discogs is user generates content and therefore does not pass WP:RS. For about.com you need to show that the writer has some expertise on the subject. The use in other pieces of audited content, as they stand right now, shouldn't be an argument for the use of a source. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The Discogs and About.com links have been removed. Thardin12 (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The Indonesia and Philippines chart references do not come from those chart’s respective sites, as those countries do not (to my knowledge) have a certification site, or at least one that would include an album released in 1999. For those certifications, an additional reference (found in the 'Sales/shipments' section of the box) is included, citing the band’s biography, in which they give the stats on the album’s sales worldwide (of course, the book was released in 2001… many of these are long outdated, but I feel it necessary to include them regardless). I’ve also removed Germany’s certification, as they did not achieve one there.
I don't fully know how I feel about this but I see that you are trying to use the best sources out there --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
3b: The Reading photo was included because I found the image long ago and, as Reading is a famous festival and this was the band’s first performance at it (and the photo in question is FROM that particular year), I felt it notable to include. Reading wasn’t a particularly important moment in determining the band’s stature in the pop world and industry, of course, and the image is only there to spruce up the article a tad… when I find a better image representing the touring cycle, such as a photo from that tour, the Reading image will be replaced. For now, I’ve left it there, as numerous good articles (Animals, Emotions) and even featured articles (Mother's Milk) include images from tours not necessarily discussed in detail in the text.
You make your point. I remove this objection --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
4: Only one review discussed in the text (NME) is fairly negative, and that respective review doesn’t give a score (I suppose one could include (negative) in the review box, but I’ve always disliked review boxes anyway [I feel they often give undue weight to the critical reception of an album] and including a (negative) looks out of place beside stars). I’ve left it as it stands, and have removed two reviews that seem more like blog posts than reliable sources (Punknews and Sputnikmusic).
Sounds good and I agree with you that the review boxes are horrible. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
6a: The image in question of the album cover does feature a slight difference in the capitalization of the band’s name; I nominated the article long ago and this image has since been added. I agree with your rationale; it has been removed.
Sounds good --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I am open to more changes if need be. Thank you for the review! Thardin12 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This article passes the GA criteria --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Enema of the State. 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/20141018041721/http://www.wonderingsound.com/feature/tom-delonge-blink-182-enema-of-the-state-interview/ to http://www.wonderingsound.com/feature/tom-delonge-blink-182-enema-of-the-state-interview/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,275495,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,275495,00.html
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) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)