# Talk:The Colour and the Shape

If you're a fan of organization, which is really what online encyclopedias are all about (organizing/storing/supplying information) and consistency, I suggest whoever is doing it, to leave the article alone. 
There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever to change or tamper with information that is already sufficient. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't go out of your way to change something if it doesn't need to be done.
Capisce? Spooky873 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people around here have the intelligence of a pubic hair?
What is the point of changing something that is completely fine? Alternative rock suffices, there is NO POINT in going out of your way to CHANGE it whatsoever. There is NOTHING WRONG with the genre.
I don't understand why you keep doing it and doing it and doing it. Every time you change it it will be RESTORED to its ORIGINAL information.
The original genre listed is COMPLETELY FINE, and has been there since inception. There is no good reason to take Alternative rock OUT.
Spooky873 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It lists Goldsmith and what he does there. There is not one good reason whatsoever to put that information anywhere else in the article. Spooky873 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason that we can't expand on the information in the tracklisting.  Nowhere in any guideline does it say we have to restrict certain statements to the tracklisting.  Give me a specific reason that we can't expand on it, and I'll hear it out.
But Simon agreed that it should be included.  So that's one less reason that it should be removed.  (Sometimes, bringing people into a consensus discussion can have negative consequences.) -- ChrisB (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I thought Simon was me?
2) Wait a minute, now all the sudden to your advantage his vote counts for this but not pg discussion? Lets not all be hypocrites here.
3) He agrees to including Goldsmith's contributions in general, as do I. That specific discussion is about removing the information in 'parentheses'. I don't think there is one good reason to include it, because it is listed in the tracklisting, simple. You keep trying to point the finger at me as if I want Goldsmith out of the article. If that were the case, how come i'm not removing him from EVERYTHING? So, give me one good reason why it should be in the article twice. Chris, buddy, you're not on top of things. (sometimes, wikipedia editors are hypocrites) Spooky873 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I never accused you of being Simon.  In fact, I asked for his username to be removed from the list of suspected sockpuppets.
And, no, he didn't agree to the contributions only being listed in the tracklist.  Everything written in the statement that he agreed with specifically described the sentence that you keep removing.  If he wanted it removed, he wouldn't have supplied information supporting it.
So take your pick.  Either both of his "votes" don't count, or they both do count.
Regardless, "because it is listed in the tracklisting" is not a legitimate reason to delete a sentence.
You're big on "consistency".  If you want consistency, then remove this sentence, too: "The re-release includes six previously released B-sides, consisting of "Dear Lover", "The Colour and the Shape", and four covers, including "Baker Street"."  All of that is mentioned in the tracklisting, right?
And this one: "It was released May 20, 1997 through Roswell/Capitol Records."  It's all listed in the infobox, right?
And this: "The Colour and the Shape was produced by Gil Norton"  That information is listed in two other places in the article. -- ChrisB (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple, theres one thing that separates these you are listing and Goldsmith. Parentheses. Is there a specific reason why he's in one, and the rest aren't? If its such an essential piece of information, why is it in parentheses? Seems more like a secondary piece of information as opposed to the rest. I wonder what you'll come up with next, can't wait. Spooky873 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we'll put it back and remove the parentheses.  I have no problem with that. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, there's a reason why it was in parentheses. Care to explain why? Spooky873 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Open your English book.  The paragraph covers the specific events related to the recording of the album.  That Goldsmith still appears on the album is related to the recording of the album, but isn't a part of those events.  Therefore, it should be included, but belongs in parentheses.  It fully conforms to grammar rules and is used across Wikipedia.
Using parentheses doesn't make the sentence non-notable - otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for such a device in the English language.
But your arguments are disingenuous.  First, it was because Goldsmith's involvement wasn't notable.  Then it was because it was repeated twice.  Now, it's because it's in parentheses.  Basically, you don't want it in period, and you'll pull out every absurd excuse you can to "justify" it.  Anything else you feel like adding? -- ChrisB (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know there was a reason why it was put in parentheses before. Its obviously implying a sort of reluctance to include it in the original text. Spooky873 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by how the In Your Honor page looked, I organized this one the same. I think it is looking good. :-) Spooky873 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course its changed back for no reason whatsoever. Is there a specific reason In Your Honor's is like that but this one isn't? You guys really like consistency around here. Spooky873 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency?  How about waiting until the article is long enough to justify four section breaks?  And how about not making (and hiding) contested edits in amongst your effort at "consistency"? -- ChrisB (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, somehow, In Your Honor IS though, hmmmmmmm. That makes perfect sense. Spooky873 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If In Your Honor were a featured article, you might have a case for claiming it as an example to use to create consistency.  However, it isn't.  On the other hand, there are already guides for album articles: WP:ALBUM.  On that page, there is nothing that supports splitting the article into the four sections you described - particularly when the article is as short as this one.
You do not have the authority to unilaterally dictate how to establish "consistency", particularly when this article is already consistent with countless other album pages (and with WP:ALBUM).
If we had three paragraphs about Production, then it would warrant a section split.  (Regardless, "Information" is not a suitable section heading for any article.  The entire article is "Information" - that doesn't differentiate the content in any way.)  But more content needs to be written for that to happen. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2008
(UTC)

There is no difference in the articles whatsoever to constitute anything like this. Spooky873 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This album has always been listed under Alternative rock, leave it that way. It is not anything else, ESPECIALLY post-grunge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.13.60 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Asked and answered, your continuing opinion on the matter is irrelevant. That's how easy THAT is.  Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT move this page to the American spelling; it is correct as-is. Kingoomieiii 07:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True or false: this is a UK album as opposed to a US album (hence the colour spelling.) 66.245.77.90 01:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
False. Adam Bishop 09:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is not written in the style of an encyclopedia. E.G "Dave didn't think he was good enough". Speedboy Salesman 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why include a recording session that ultimately was not used. They scrapped those sessions with the exception of two drum tracks. Two drum tracks out of six weeks doesn't really qualify for much of a recording, let alone a significant one, especially considering not a single song track was used. The scrapped sessions they recorded started in October and November of 1996 but actual recording that was used didn't take place until January and February of 1997, and to my knowledge we're only talking of actual recording on the front page. If you bother including October and November because of scrapped sessions you might as well track Dave down for when he wrote the songs (most are on tour anyway). Its too much unnecessary information. You don't see Cigarettes and Valentines material on American Idiot for Green Day's wiki.
via fooarchive: 
"EVERLONG
A lot of people regard this as your best song. Where were you when you wrote it'?
"We started working on our second album, 'The Color And The Shape' in October and November of '96. We recorded at a studio just outside Seattle that was a converted barn and you could stay in the house. Behind it there was this creek that had salmon jumping in it. It was beautiful but you were really isolated, outside town by about 45 minutes. So I was staying out there and while I was there my ex-wife and I split up."
So Everlong' came together at that point?
"Not quite. We took a break for Christmas, so I went back to Virginia by myself. I took the rough tracks of what we'd done and it didn't seem right. The album had something missing. But I had this one riff that I originally thought was a Sonic Youth rip off, but I decided it might be good to turn it into a song. When I brought it to our producer Gil Norton, he said, 'That's greatl Let's put it on the album!'"
131.125.115.15 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Where in that paragraph does it say that they entirely scrapped the Seattle recordings?  THEY DIDN'T.  THEY KEPT ALL OF "DOLL" AND THE SLOW VERSION OF "UP IN ARMS".  What you hear of those on the album is ENTIRELY from the Seattle sessions.  AND IT SAYS SO IN THE LINER NOTES. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
No it does not. What does the slow version of Up In Arms have to do with anything? Thats a completely different recording that was a b-side. The only part you should be talking about is the slow part (the build up by Will) that was used in the actual version. Lets go over where they went and when. Seattle from October to December 1996, then to Washington, DC in December 1996 and finally to Los Angeles in January - February 1997. The band re-recorded the album in Los Angeles following that break, using two drum tracks (one full track, the other half track) from the original session. The one actual song they included from the Christmas break was Walking After You, which is the December 1996 track. That is it. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Doll", as it appears on the album, was entirely recorded in Seattle.  The b-side version of "Up in Arms" is the exact same recording that was used for the slow section of the version on the album - they just edited it down.  That's what it says in the liner notes. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
From the liner notes of the 1997 release of TCATS:
"RECORDED AT GRAND MASTER RECORDERS, LTD., HOLLYWOOD, CA; EXCEPT "DOLL" AND "UP IN ARMS (SLOW)" RECORDED AT BEAR CREEK STUDIOS, WOODINVILLE, WA, AND "WALKING AFTER YOU" RECORDED BY JEFF TURNER AT WGNS STUDIOS, WASHINGTON, D.C."
(Written here in all-caps to match the liner notes.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you still aren't clear, here are the entries for "Doll" and "Up in Arms" on the official site (emphasis mine):
"Doll: First track on The Colour and The Shape. William Goldsmith plays drums on this track. Recorded at Bear Creek Studios in Woodinville, WA. Produced by Gil Norton. Written by Dave Grohl/Foo Fighters."
"Up In Arms: Track number 6 on The Colour and The Shape. William Goldsmith plays drums on the slow part. Written by Dave Grohl and produced by Gil Norton. The full slow version was released on various singles. There also was a version recorded at the 1995 BBC Session which is at a medium pace:) Also the band once played a "country fried" version on 11/5/97 (Very Interesting)."
http://www.foofighters.com/dictionary -- ChrisB (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As i said in the general Foo Fighters discussion page, i am in agreeance that all three sessions need to be listed and should well be, as parts from all three sessions were used on the record.
I would again like to point you to the recording history section of the website i am webmaster of. http://foofighterslive.com/recordinghistory/?id=studio. If you look over the three sessions at that time, you can see which parts of the sessions were used for the final record, which are pretty clearly pointed out above. The only sketchy part that can't be confirmed is which parts of My Poor Brain were taken from which sessions. The general thought is that it is a large cut and paste job, with parts of the song being Goldsmith's drumming, and part Grohl's.
If there is anything not clear on there please let me know. Thanks Skilmore (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This album is STILL only certified as platinum.  It may have sold over 2 million units, but is NOT certified 2x platinum. BGC (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. The albums 2x platinum, period. Its sold over 2 million units in the US, therefore, it is 2x platinum. End of issue. 67.242.58.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense if you look up platinum certification. That second word, "Certification", means it has to be "Certified"- in this case, by the RIAA, at the request of the music label that owns the rights to the album. According to this Page, The Colour and the Shape is only certified SINGLE platinum, as of 2/26/1998, regardless of the actual sales figures reported by the label- and will remain single platinum until the RIAA re-evaluates it (not any time soon).
Please don't rely on your own assumptions when tersely 'correcting' other editors. You're sitting in front of a computer, there's absolutely no excuse to not look things up.  --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"While Rock Band is indeed a popular video game its inclusion of TCATS is not pertinent. There are dozens of compilation albums that use songs from TCATS, but we are not at liberty to include them all; for example, those ubiquitous "Best of the 90s". Rock Band is, furthermore, a pretty recent occurrence. I can guarantee you it's a trendy, decade-relative fad that will probably die out just as every other one has.
The information regarding which songs are featured on Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and the like is more relevant to the game articles (there's some featured lists about which songs are on the games, I believe), than it is to the song/album pages themselves. In regards to song and album pages, it's about as notable as saying a certain song appeared in a movie trailer, which really isn't that notable unless a secondary source comments on it." 
I guess it shouldn't be included. 67.242.58.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most flash-in-the-pan fads don't constitute a $2,000,000,000 industry all by themselves (music games), but I tend to agree with the above. Where is the quote above from? Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Red Hot Chili Pepper's page for Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Yes, i'm the one who added it. Your alternative rock pal, and way back in September (obviously). 67.242.56.62 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the detailed track commentaries I wrote for this page have been removed. If I was reading this page I'd be happy to have the extra information available if I wanted it. Whoever did this has some explaining to do, as those commentaries took a long time and were all completely true, describing the music of each song in detail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 

All that needs to be stated in the bonus track information is that the songs were b-sides to the album's singles. mjgm84 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. It's useless, pointless information that'd belong on pages for the individual songs, if they had them anyway. It's also completely unsourced. So there. I went and removed what would prove to be a problem later on. It looks close to a Good Article - if we reorganize the "track information" section I'd nominate it, but this kind of gross section just gets in the way, so I removed it. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Colour and the Shape. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/reviews/album/reviews-foo-fighters-8844
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/foo-fighters/colour-and-the-shape.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121123242/http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.html to http://blog.rock.inmusic.ca/2011/12/foo-fighters-surpass-10-million-mark-so-yeah-theyre-loaded-.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) 07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Colour and the Shape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Howdy, I'm gonna give this article a review. I'll be making copyedits directly to the article, some of which I may explain here in greater depth if I think it's warranted. If you disagree with any of the changes I make, feel free to bring it up here; I'll explain my reasoning if necessary and we can hash it out, or I may see that the original was right in the first place.

Lead
"Although the music press generally speculated the band's sophomore record would showcase grunge-inspired garage rock, the band's intention was to make a proper rock record." — There's also a sentence in the lead about this, but this one is from the "Background" section. I looked up a reprint of the cited source and found this. I don't really see anything about music press expectations of a grungey sound (the word "grunge" doesn't appear) or the Foo desire to make a "proper" rock record. I suppose it's possible I found an incomplete reprint, or that you mixed up which source the info came from, but either way I think more clarity is needed here. I get what the sentences mean about a distinction between "more grunge" or "proper rock", but I think a general/unfamiliar reader could fail to understand the distinction—for one thing, it could be a little confusing in light of the fact that the album is nevertheless considered to be "post-grunge".
"Critics found the album a significant American rock release of the era" — I reworded "found" to "deemed"; there are other words that could work, but "found" isn't quite right. A critic can "find" innate/textual aspects of an album—they can find that the lyrics are more introspective than earlier efforts, for instance—but they cannot "find" contextual/metatextual aspects, like its broader significance within the rock music of its time. That significance wasn't an innate quality to be discovered, it was a judgment rendered.
"The album's track listing was designed to resemble a therapy session, splitting the album between uptempo tracks and ballads, reflecting conflicting emotions." — no follow-up on the "therapy" part in the article body, as far as I can tell. The article body contradicts the statement that it's "split" between uptempo tracks and ballads, because the text later says there are three types of tracks: uptempo tracks, ballads, and mixes of both songforms.
"The singles "Monkey Wrench", "Everlong" and "My Hero" peaked within the top ten of US rock radio charts, and the album charted at number three in the United Kingdom." — It seems arbitrary to mix aspects of the US and UK commercial performance into one sentence while omitting other aspects, considering the album also reached the top ten of the Billboard 200—a noteworthy feat. I've expanded this to: "The singles "Monkey Wrench", "Everlong", and "My Hero" peaked within the top ten of US rock radio charts, and the album charted at number ten on the Billboard 200. The album was also an international commercial success, peaking at number three in the United Kingdom." Feel free to reword the second sentence.
Given the significance of this album as the Foos' first "full band" effort, the full band roster should be introduced by name—if not in the lead, than in the "Background" section. In some cases it could be helpful to introduce other biological info—for example, it's probably worth mentioning that Pat Smear had previously played together with Grohl as a touring member of Nirvana.
This is a preliminary thought since I haven't read the full article body yet, but I think the structure/sequencing of the lead could be improved. It's a bit odd that the text starts talking about the recording sessions, then goes into the contents (lyrical and musical) of the album, then returns to wrap up the sessions. It interrupts the "making of" component; it would make more sense to talk about aborted sessions before you've brought up the finalized contents of the album. That said, I still want to read thru everything first before making any concrete recommendations about this because I'll have a better sense of how well the article is summarized.
Random thought: I see that there's some explanation for the choice of title a little further on, but there's one thing I just wondered about: Why "colour" with a "u" from an American band? Is there anything in any sources about why they chose that spelling? Not an essential tidbit, especially if it's unexplained in sources, just makes me curious. —BLZ · talk 22:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comment: Don't want to step on your toes Danny if you already had the answer to BLZ's last question at your fingertips, but I remembered reading about this before and a quick Google search found a reliable ref, so I'm including it here (the info is in the 1995–1998 section of the ref): [[1]]. I'm a fan of this album, btw, and glad to see someone bringing it to GA. Incidentally, my Japanese release has one bonus track: "Dear Lover". I'll try to add it to the article when I get a chance in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate any and all drive-by comments in an earnest effort to help.  dannymusiceditor  oops  04:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Question, however. Which section would this go in? I could guess, but I'd like to make sure. dannymusiceditor  oops  18:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I would put it right where your talking about the naming of the album (third paragraph of Recording and production, possibly right after "The group found it arbitrary and hilarious and decided on that title, rather than base the title on the theme or mood of the music.").
I have one other suggestion. About the "I don't know if I'm finished playing the drums yet", did you mention that he used to play the drums in Nirvana (it's possible you did and I missed it)? Some readers may not know. That's all from me (I'll let BLZ finish his review!). I enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Background
Other than my note above about introducing the full band by name, this section is solid. One issue: "eventually leading bassist Nate Mendel to enhance his musical formation." I don't understand what that means. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, but I don't know what I would replace it with. Do you have any suggestions? I tried "effort", "skill", both of those, but those all seem also wrong. dannymusiceditor  oops  17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! Sorry for the long absence. As chance would have it, I ended up being busy IRL over virtually the same period that you were. I am back now and will be continuing the review soon. —BLZ · talk 21:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Recording and production
I copyedited this section a little while ago but I have no further "big picture"-type comments and I think it was very well done. A good and compelling history.
Composition
I haven't done a line-by-line through this section yet, other than the first paragraph, which I think is good. But I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. It seems redundant, in both purpose and content, to what follows in the track-by-track description. For example:
From the second paragraph: "The album's opener, 'Doll', involves the fear of entering into situations unprepared."
Then from the third paragraph/first paragraph of the "Track information" subsection: "Grohl stated that 'Doll' was 'basically a song about being afraid to enter into something you're not prepared for.'"
This strikes me as substantially the same information. I'll go through this section in greater depth later, but for now I think you should try to reorganize to cut down on some of these redundancies.
Done. dannymusiceditor  oops  15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Release
"just before the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards" – what is the significance of this? I'm assuming they performed at it, and if that's the case you should say so.
What about the other two singles?
Speaking of "Everlong", what about the band's performance on Letterman (or other TV appearances, if any)? These kinds of appearances are noteworthy in and of themselves, but the Letterman performance seems especially worth mentioning given that Letterman was famously wowed by the Foo Fighters and later described "Everlong" as his all-time favorite song.
I did mention this, but it's in track information. I thought it flowed better in there considering the whole Letterman thing happened in 2000 rather than around the album's release. dannymusiceditor  oops  15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
What about the album's commercial performance/sales? I don't think there has to be too much, but there should be some prose description of the album's chart performance in the US and UK at the least, plus major certifications. The info's already on the page in tables, but some of it should also be written out.
Done as requested, but it is pretty short. dannymusiceditor  oops  16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Critical reception
The last paragraph about the reissue would probably fit better in the "Release" section.
But speaking of the reissue, it would be good to include some retrospective reviews. Your coverage of contemporary reviews is good, but plenty of music publications reviewed the reissue; here's Pitchfork's reassessment.
Did the Pitchfork review you provided and added an additional PopMatters anniversary review. If you want another, I have a 20-year anniversary article from Spin on queue. dannymusiceditor  oops  16:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Accolades
Not sure about this section; Acclaimed Music-style lists of an album or song's appearances on "best" lists have generally fallen out of favor, but even beyond it's unsourced. Plus, the section only includes two Kerrang! lists. The Colour and the Shape's page on Acclaimed Music lists more than that. I'd find a way to work this into the "Critical reception" section in prose form.
Agreed. Working on this. dannymusiceditor  oops  15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of my earlier comments still need addressing as well. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: Hi Danny! Just checking in. The article somehow dropped off my watchlist, so it's been out of mind for a little while. How is this coming? I'm not sure which of my earlier review comments/questions you've responded to. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
ohhhhh boy... This one slipped me too to be honest and I'm honestly surprised you haven't failed it yet, but I can finish it tomorrow if you'd like. I can commit to  at least getting a good chunk of it done tomorrow. dannymusiceditor  oops  02:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah no worries! Mutual mistake lol. I'm more interested in improving the article and getting it to the level it needs to be. I can probably fully get back to it on the 5th, so if you can get a good chunk done tomorrow that should work. —BLZ · talk 02:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: A reminder to take another look at this. I believe I did everything you asked to the best of my ability? dannymusiceditor  oops  14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Looked over the most recent changes one more time and I'm gonna pass it, I believe this meets all the GA criteria. Many of my comments were more in the spirit of a peer review than a GA review, anyway, so it's a little over the GA hurdle at this point. I'm still a little concerned about the apparent mismatch between the source and the text for the statements about the press expecting "grunge" and the Foo Fighters intending "rock", but it's not so severe that it bars it from GA status. Great job! And thank you for your patience. —BLZ · talk 00:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)