# Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)

I say expand the article, if not merge.  LAPD is notable, because it turned into Korn, but it should have more to the article.  There's tons of info about LAPD in Got the Life, and there's probably a good amount in Save Me From Myself.  I know Kornspace has a bunch of LAPD stuff. TheWeakWilled 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge - Yeah, no one knows who they were. I say merge it with KoRn. -- R32GTR (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no point in merging it when they were an actual band, and have put out an ep, a full length album, then a compliation in like 97 which was just the album and the ep together in one. They were their own band, not Korn, and deserve to have their own page. (Drugyourlove (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
If Sexart isnt merged to Korn then neither should L.A.P.D. 
and plus if L.A.P.D. was merged to Korn it would just eventually get deleted for beign irrelevant, the band excisted, put out an album and an ep. They should keep their page. (Drugyourlove (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC))
Keep - I am working on the article and it will probably B-class. CrowzRSA 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

they're back together 71.115.27.191 (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, CrowzRSA. After reviewing this article, I have decided to fail it for a good article at this time, because it has many issues that cannot be fixed in a week. If it had issues that could be fixed in a week, I would put the article on hold, while the issues are fixed. I suggest you fix all of the issues listed below, and once they are fixed, you are more than welcome to reapply this article for another good article nomination. Rp0211 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Major Issues

Most of the article sources are not reliable, and link to somewhere on the Wikipedia article.
The "References", "Discography", and "Members" sections are not properly formatted.
There are several points where better wording is needed.
There are only two images in the article.
Many points in the article where details are not specific enough.
Issues

"...band hired a man named Arthur as their manager..." (what is his last name?)
"...have formed solo project..." (project needs to be plural)
"The group asked Pete Capra to perform vocals for their band, and he joined." (needs detail on how he joined)
"In order to leave Bakersfield, Silveria had to drop out of high school, and did." (bad grammar and needs reliable source)
"L.A.P.D. was performing at several gigs in Hollywood..." (needs better wording)
"...a local man known as Arthur..." (last name?)
"The company offered them a contract after seeing them in concert." (needs reliable source)
"Although it was a "pitiful" contract, L.A.P.D. still signed and began recording their album." (needs neutral point-of-view and reliable source)
"The album was not distributed properly by the record company, which left the group broke." (needs better wording)
"...left the band a was replaced..." (check wording)
"After the show, the remaining band members..." (what show?)
"...two of which, peaking number one..." (better wording needed)
"...released a solo album entitled Rock'n Roll Gangster on January 22, 2002." (reliable source needed)
"...and their full–length studio album, Who Laughing Now." (plural needed)
"In 2010, now based in Denver, Richard Morrill..." (better word arrangement needed)
..."with a whole new lineup and a completely different sound." (not neutral point-of-view)
"Leaving the funk influences behind, the band now focuses on rap metal." (needs reliable source)
"Bradley Torreano noted that the band was..." (name company; ex: what magazine, what newspaper, etc.)
"Arvizu describes L.A.P.D.'s music..." (say who he is; ex: lead singer, etc.)


### Comment
This superficial and inaccurate review is extremely flawed.  i recommend immediate renomination at GAN so that an experienced reviewer can look at this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have concluded my review, this article looks pretty close to good on the surface, but it does have some problems related to the use of primary sources. I believe these issues can be fixed, so I will hold this article for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Several updates have resolved most of the issues. There is only one issue with a primary sourced claim in the article left to resolve. Aaron north (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Y Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
This article extensively uses a primary source. (The book written by Reginald Arvizu) WP:PRIMARY Per WP policy, this source can only be used for facts and data. It can not be used for analysis. This is probably going to be the most challenging aspect of this review: to verify that primary sources were not misused.
If the "Use of Primary Source" section is the only problem here, then  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Couple problems with this sentence: (After a short time of the group's presence there, Shaffer decided to return to the band, leaving Bakersfield, and Brian Welch would eventually "check out the [band's] music scene.") The bolded part is awkward, and the whole sentence is long with lots of commas, should probably be broken up somehow. Also, what is "a short time"? Maybe this could be reworded as "later that year, Shaffer decided..." or whatever the time frame was. Finally, who is Brian Welch? At this point of the article he is just some random dude who appeared without an introduction. Was he Shaffer's friend from Bakersfield who decided to tag along, or what?
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This sentence: (The group, known as Korn, has released nine studio albums, two of which, peaking number one on the Billboard 200, and all of their albums have been certified an award.) is just awkwardly-worded all the way around. I'm not sure if it needs to be broken up into shorter sentences or not, but it definitely should be reworded.
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This sentence: (Pete Capra left the band due to his drug abuse.) looks odd just thrown in at the end like that. I assume he left before Korn was formed, so it should probably go into one of the earlier sections. (also possible source issue, see below)
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above, primary sources should only be used for statements of fact and data, not analysis. Also, they should be used only when a secondary source is not really available. That is probably going to be the case for a lot of the article, but not all of it, see below.
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a dead link for the citation of Stillwell. I do not believe this violates the GA criteria because it is not a major aspect or claim in the article, and I believe if the source was good at the time you can still keep it until a new source can be found. I'd assume you can probably find a new source to replace this one, though.
 Done CrowzRSA 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


### Use of Primary Source
The following are judgments made by me regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of primary sources. The interesting sentences which I decided that I was fine with are also listed here just in case a future reviewer (who may agree or disagree) is interested in what I looked at. Aaron north (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Y This sentence (and another similar sentence near the end) was cited by a primary source: (The group was inspired by the bands that Capra had shown them, and committed to head into those band's genres and style.) I decided this was a statement of fact from a band member. An outside observer can not decide who a band was influenced by (at least not well) without input from the band. Generally when a band tells the world who influenced their music, we accept it at their word as fact. This band was also not likely famous enough to give their influences to a biographer or reporter, so a primary source may be unavoidable.
Y This sentence (In 1990, their manager introduced them to Triple X Records, an independent Los Angeles based record company that has signed bands such as Dr. Dre, Social Distortion, Jane's Addiction, and the The Vandals.) was referenced by primary source. It is probably fine to use it to say their band manager introduced them to triple X. I wondered about relying on it for describing what other bands were signed by triple x, but oddly enough I don't think it is a primary source for the end of the sentence. This isn't triple x saying this, it is someone else reporting on who triple x has signed. So, I think this sentence is fine.
N This sentence (The album was not distributed properly by the record company, which left the group out of money.) is referenced by a primary source, but this probably qualifies as analysis. This reason for lack of success should either be removed here and elsewhere, or replaced with a direct quote like "this person from the band said this regarding the album" rather than "the album failed because of this, and I believe it because the band told me so"
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
N Not quite. The sentence now reads (The album was not distributed properly by the record company.). The fact that the band ran out of money isn't really the issue here, the band complained that the record company did not distribute their album properly. The record company might disagree with this analysis. This is a primary source from the band's POV, so we either need to remove the claim that the album was not distributed correctly, or we need to replace that sentence with a direct quote so that the reader knows it is the opinion of soandso that the album was not distributed correctly, rather than some verified fact. Something similar to how you fixed the drug abuse claim would work here. Aside from this, (and following a couple minor updates I made to improve the prose) I see no other issues remaining in the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done CrowzRSA 01:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
N This sentence (Pete Capra left the band due to his drug abuse.) is referenced by a primary source. I assume there is not a secondary source for this because Capra is not exactly well-known, but it should probably be changed to a quote from someone explaining why they believed he left, if possible.
 Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really feel that we should add Sexart to the associated acts field. Jonathan Davis used to be in Sexart and brought 2 Sexart songs ("Blind" and "Daddy") onto Korn's debut album. Also, L.A.P.D. pretty much are Korn before Korn. Statik N (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on L.A.P.D. (band). 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/20110710233028/http://www.fearandthenervoussystem.com/ to http://fearandthenervoussystem.com/
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) 06:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)