# Talk:Who We Are (Lifehouse album)

For one, we're about to his the 3 reverts rule, so please don't revert this again. This piece of information abotu the jars of clay album is a notable one as Ron Aniello, a crucial part of Lifehouse's past, was a participant in the JoC album and is rumoured to also be involved in  this album too (I can't find a reliable source, but have read this in a few places, but that's why it's not on the page). If you revert again, you'll break the 3R rule and the page will be locked, so please leave it there.
--lincalinca 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lifehouse-WhoWeAre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who We Are (Lifehouse album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


### GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria.  If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.


### GA Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
I would like to see more images, perhaps from the tour if they exist.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
My concerns have been addressed and I will pass it to GA.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


### Lead
The first paragraph alternates between past and present tense.  I think past tense is more appropriate and should be consistent throughout.  Done


### Background
The quote from Woolstenhulme is prefaced with him being asked about the album, yet the quote is about a song.  This should be reconciled.  Done
More tense discrepencies in the first paragraph of this section.  Done
"It also charted on several other charts including on the Billboard Pop Songs, Radio Songs, Digital Songs, and Adult Contemporary charts."  "Chart", and "charted" used three times in one sentence, consider other words.  The next sentence has "charted" and "chart".  It's better to avoid repeating the same word in consecutive sentences.  Last sentence in the section - "charted" and "charts" again.  I'll leave it alone I think you get the picture.  Done


### Release and reception
The release section is two sentences long.  Is there any more that can be added?  When was it release in Europe?  What about Asia and Australia?  Have there been subsequent releases of deluxe editions or remixes of popular songs?   Done
I moved this subsection into the section "Release history" and put it in a table. I found three more sources of releases in the UK and Worldwide for bonus track versions. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Similar questions for Chart performance.  How did it do in Canada, the UK, Australia etc.?  Not sure
I have looked for this information and I could not find any international charting for this album. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


### Charts
Charts are only US charts, what about position on international charts?  Not sure
See above comment. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


### References
Look good, sources are credible, formatting is consistent and accurate, links are good.  Done


### Overall
You have a nice little article here.  I've listed some concerns with the writing above.
My other issue is comprehensiveness.  I put down some questions in the Release and reception section but there are other areas where the article could be expanded:
Was there a tour connected to this album?  Is there a DVD or live version of the album?  Done
What were the inspirations for the songs?  It says the album focuses on love, bliss, struggles, and pain, but were those the inspirations and if so are there specifics about how those things inspired the writing of the songs?  Done
What is the significance of the album's title?  Done
Did it win or was it nominated for any awards?  Done
I'd like to see more information to make it more complete.  One good idea to consider when determining if the article is comprehensive is to look at other articles about albums that are GA.  In doing this review I looked at 11 (Bryan Adams album).  This article is about an album done by an established artist with a track record of success, similar to Lifehouse.  I think it could be a good model for how to improve and expand this article.  Another example is Emotions (album).  I'll put this article on hold pending work.  If you have specific questions you can contact me on my talk page.  Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, I see you've employed many of my suggestions but were unsure on a couple of my questions.  I think you may want to do some more research.  Here is the portion of the Lifehouse WP article that discusses this album.  It says there was a tour with the Goo Goo Dolls and Colbie Caillat.  It goes on to talk about some of the singles appearing in TV shows, a music video of Whatever It Takes, a contest for the video for Make Me Over, etc.  You should probably do a little more digging and of course any assertions should be properly referenced.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I also found a site that says one of the album's songs was nominated for a Teen Choice Award, [1].  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok things are looking better.  Thank you for addressing these concerns and I will pass the article to GA.  Well done.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)