Talk:Three Days Grace

Former good articleThree Days Grace was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 25, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 15, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Three Days Grace. 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://www.webcitation.org/65iam7ka6?url=http://music.ign.com/articles/442/442689p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/442/442689p1.html
  • Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65ias4zoS?url=http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=&artist=Three%20Days%20Grace&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25
  • Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20071109103622/local/news/p.g.-to-get-three-days-grace.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115195428/http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2008/03/three_days_grace_bounds_toward.html to http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/index.ssf/2008/03/three_days_grace_bounds_toward.html
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131031512/http://pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/12/07/700685.aspx to http://www.pollstar.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/12/07/700685.aspx
  • Added {{dead link}} tag to http://3dgfanclub.com/content/new-tour-and-presale
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305201411/http://www.musicpublishercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MPCwinter2014.pdf to http://www.musicpublishercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MPCwinter2014.pdf
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205091634/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/three_days_grace/transit_of_venus to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/three_days_grace/transit_of_venus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 17:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate-guitar.com is not archived. The rest are OK though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified and flawed edit session revert by User:Walter Görlitz

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Hello @Walter Görlitz:, you recently reverted several edits I made on the Three Days Grace page, and even though they were not all of the same nature, the only explanation you provided was "We're repeating the band's name too often. Use prepositions instead." Can you please provide justification for reverts not involving the use of the band's name, as well as explaining how you determined that the band's name had been used excessively? I have tried to alternate the terms "Three Days Grace", "the band", and "they" on the page in order to provide variety, and I found the use of "the band" repetitive, especially in close succession, this is why I changed it to "Three Days Grace" in several places. I am open to reverts if they are reasonable, and I am certainly not set on my edits remaining if they are inappropriate. Additionally, and please believe that I do not mention this out of spite or vindictiveness, but neither "the band" nor "they" are prepositions or preposition phrases, so your reason for reverting my edits doesn't make grammatical sense. Your confusion on this point should be taken into consideration both by yourself and any other editor who will review this issue should it devolve into a disagreement. werewolf (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted one of your sessions. Can you please provide justification for any of your changes as they were all unexplained? And this discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I can see that you reverted one of my sessions, but you haven't justified doing so. Your only explanation was grammatically flawed, which potentially disqualifies it. I am happy to move this discussion to the article's talk page, but I'm curious to know, do you intend to justify your revert in any coherent manner? werewolf (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this conversation here, again, in a flawed way. You didn't explain any of your edits either. Care to explain why any of the set that I reverted were needed? Also, putting this all on my is flawed logic, so knock it off. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, if the issue is the fact that I didn't explain my edits, I can certainly go back and do that, but this in no way justifies you reverting an entire session of my work without proper explanation. I do believe this is on you, as you have mishandled the issue. You should have sent me a message requesting that I explain my edits rather than single-handedly reverting an entire session, using an improper grammatical justification, and being rude about it. I have not received a satisfactory response from you as to why you decided to revert my edits, and unless you make an attempt to do so, I will escalate this dispute further. werewolf (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is that the changes were not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that we don not repeat the subject in headings, we don't repeat the subject's name incessantly through the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, when I fully explain the revert, you simply knee-jerk revert it. Time to stop friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:, I have gone ahead and replaced each of my edits, adding a brief description of my reasoning for each one. Your response was to change each edit back without providing any adequate reason. The sole explanation you offered was the onerous exhortation not to use the band's name over and over and over...(ad nauseam). This is not only an inaccurate description of the edits I have been attempting to make, it is also a rude and immature approach to editing on your part. Currently, the article, as any reader can see, uses "the band" repetitively and consecutively, making for awkward reading. This, according to you, is preferable to the varied use of the band's name, "the band", and an appropriate pronoun, which I have tried to put implement. Your intransigence on this issue makes it clear that you are uninterested in either resolving this in a professional manner, or at least achieving some kind of compromise. If you continue in this manner, I will request a third opinion and proceed with further means of dispute resolution, as necessary.
I have gone ahead and reverted again. I have provided the rationale here and in my initial summary. We do not need to list the subject's name each time. It goes against other guidelines, most notably MOS:HEADING. Your lack of understanding on this issue makes it clear that you are uninterested in either resolving this in a professional manner. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the 3O posting. Seemed at first like an edit war with some party not understanding WP:BRD, but it's more complicated than that, and I wonder how much the edit summaries might've caused some miscommunication. In this month's flurry of edits:

  1. Werewolf changed 7 instances of "the band". Four to "they", one to "TDG", and two to "Three Days Grace". Aside from the album title (which should be treated as distinct from the band title, even if the same name), there were no other changes to "Three Days Grace".
  2. Walter's first revert did not revert all of these changes. He changed two instance of "Three Days Grace" to "the band", changed their to "the band", "they" to "the band", and once instance of "band" to change "the second single" "the band's second single." In other words, this was not a wholesale revert at this point, but a partial pushback.
  3. In Werewolf's next edits, two instances of "the band" changed back to "Three Days Grace" and one other instance of "the band" was removed, changing the sentence to say that [album] "included a few" rather than "On [album] the band included a few".
  4. Walter's next revert wasn't really much of a revert. It changed many instances of "Three Days Grace" that Werewolf did not add: 11 changes of "Three Days Grace" to "the band" and 8 changes of "Three Days Grace" to they/them/their.
  5. Then Werewolf reverted that edit in entirety and Walter restored.

Then here we are. Please let me know if I'm misreading. To read the edit summaries, I would've assumed that Werewolf added a whole bunch of instances of "Three Days Grace" that Walter kept reverting. It looks like Werewolf made a few of those changes, and Walter responded by undoing them and changing many more instances of the band name at the same time. The result is that there are far fewer, not more, instances of "Three Days Grace" than when we began, and more instances of "the band." None of this is to say that anyone acted in bad faith, necessarily. Communication seems more likely to blame. In addition to edits being labeled as edit summaries and partial reverts characterized as full reverts, I'm unclear what MOS:HEADING has to do with text outside of headings and outside of heading-like material; also unclear why we would use prepositions, as mentioned in an edit summary. I presume these are typos, or perhaps refer to specific instances I didn't notice? Fundamentally, the issue seems like less of a black and white MOS issue and more of a good writing issue.

Question: do sources support common use of the acronym "TDG"? There is a single instance of that in the article. If not regularly used, it should be removed. If it is, it should be explained via parenthetical early on and then used with more frequently. Part of the issue with repeating the band's name is that, especially because it's three words, it hurts the writing of the article to have it repeated often. That said, too many instances of "the band" can also hurt. Reverting back to the starting point in terms of that particular issue may be a good idea, and then request the WP:GUILD take a pass. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about consistent use of the initialism, but it's not good writing style.
As for MOS:HEADING, the specific concern is "section headings should ... "Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.}}" The idea is that repeating the subject's name is not needed throughout the article as we know who the subject is since we've landed on the page.
If the GUILD wants to take a stab at copy edits, I'd be happy with a full revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether use of the initialism makes sense depends on its usage in the sources. Many, many articles are better off for using common acronyms, like typical government agencies, companies, etc. Pop Will Eat Itself comes to mind as an example of a band. I disagree it's always going to be poorer writing, though could see many instances when it would indeed hurt rather than help. I don't know that this is one of them, but again, I think it would depend on the sources.
I understand the guideline about the heading, but it doesn't seem like the major disagreement above is about the headings, and MOS:HEADING doesn't apply to other text beyond heading-like text, which likewise doesn't seem to be the major point of contention here, unless I've misread something.
Werewolf, would you be fine restoring the older version, too, and deferring to the judgment of the guild on this particular issue? That would be a pretty good assurance that whoever comes in has a good grasp of wiki guidelines and has the quality of writing as first priority. As an aside, I must say it feels strange to refer to "the judgment of the guild" -- sounds like they wear black robes and have the king's ear. Hmm.... :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell again

The article already discusses Groundswell in the early years sub-section, but there is no consensus that this was the same band. Updating the lede and infobox with this information is not appropriate. There are similar examples with other bands where previous bands are not included in ledes or infoboxes but the facts are discussed in the articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the only one who opposes this again? Because I support it. dannymusiceditor oops 05:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see that there is a consensus in the archives. So let's make one. What are your similar examples? dannymusiceditor oops 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are reliable sources that state they are the same band, feel free to add it. Without RSes, it's WP:OR, and as we know, WP:NOR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. For some reason, I thought that Sanderson, Gontier, and Brad Walst were the only official members of Groundswell, I did not see the others. I'm sleep deprived, Rockstar runs through my veins, and I am supposed to be doing work due this morning, but I have an addiction to this website. The bands are not the same. dannymusiceditor oops 06:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in infobox

I'd be cool with moving it to the body of the article for the appropriate time period, but I think an active band should have a leading photograph more recent than 13 years ago. Anyone got one? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former band member Error

Under the list of former members it shows the following; Adam Gontier – lead vocals, rhythm guitar (1997–2013); lead guitar (1997–2003)

Adam quit the band in 2013, not 2003. I do not seem to be able to edit the article, so I'm leaving this info hear hoping someone can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.94.122 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did he play lead until 2013 as well or did he stop a decade earlier, like when Barry Stock joined? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Adam has never played lead guitar Barry has been lead since 2003 and has never played rhythm guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:B01A:23CB:6FD:8AA2 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam was the guitarist until Barry joined in late 2003, after the release of their debut album

Explosions

Their seventh studio album has been released 86.178.206.188 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Days Grace/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Ah, yes. Middle school. High school. This band brings back great memories, and it pleases me to see it back here at GAN. I'm on the fence as to whether I can hold this - the sourcing is generally pretty good, which was a big concern at the time of delisting. But there are some details missing which I think would probably be warranted to include in it. Like almost all GANs, this will depend on the participation of the nominator or a main contributor to the article - though maybe more heavily in this case. Full review coming soon. Preliminary results return some overlinks, please double check those.

dannymusiceditor oops 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was starting this right away, but I had a lengthy start and my power blinked and thus I lost the edit and my motivation for a bit. I will definitely have something up tonight. dannymusiceditor oops 03:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Early years

  • You'll notice I put a single heading here as opposed to what this article currently has. I understand that this is not the place to be arguing whether Groundswell and Three Days Grace are the same band or not, but that doesn't change the fact that there is not enough content here as it stands to have two separate sections. They should be one section, perhaps with separate paragraphs retained.
    • Not to mention the way the headings are written suggests the two were the same band with a couple members who didn't stay with Three Days Grace. The wording on the Allmusic biography suggests they were the same band, just saying...
  • Neither of Phil Crowe nor Joe Grant are named in either of the sources provided nearest to their mentions.
  • The Groundswell album and singles are not supported in the nearest citation.

(break for ease of access into the other mini-section I'd like merged)

  • Florida Entertainment Scene is not my preferred choice of references if I'm trying to make a GA. Good news, though: it's only used there, and the Rolling Stone reference in the previous paragraph supports that same statement. Use that instead.
  • You should name the then-president of Jive the article is talking about (Barry Weiss).
  • Not the best start, but doable.

Three Days Grace (2003–2005)

Oh, dear.

  • Specify that half of the album was completed at Long View (per source given), while the rest was done at Bearsville Studios.
  • There's a lot of quotation in here talking about the album. I get that that's what the section is about, but we need a tighter focus on the band than what's given here.
  • There is little to no value in the quote chosen from Dave Doray. Why does he think that? The one provided at the album's article is a better start, but I'd prefer something straightforward while still having substance. This is straightforward, but no substance.
  • On the contrary, Heather Phares' comments are long-winded and strays too far from the focus of the band. We have an article for this album, don't over-analyze. You could talk about something like how she praised the songwriting and strong choruses to make Three Days Grace a standout among their alternative metal peers, despite its simplicity.
    • To recap on those two points, what I'd like to see most is something that multiple reviewers agree on.
  • Bring some objectivity to the table. Spin gave it a D and called it "generic Canadian gripe rock", though I'm not necessarily saying you need to add that literal quote.
  • Talk about some of the more notable tours the band went on to promote this record. You say they went on tour for two years - so, like what? You have a well-cited tour section. Bring 'em up.
  • Mention that Hate was released in May 2003 - the easiest way to attribute that would be the source I just added in I Hate Everything About You.
    • It was the band's first number one hit on the Canadian rock charts, and I would expect that to be important enough to mention.
  • No mention of the other singles after Hate? I'd recommend using the source above for the same.

This is hefty stuff. Not sure this is going to pass without a lot of dedicated hard work. I'm going to stop for the night and continue in the afternoon. dannymusiceditor oops 06:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your GA review of this article thus far and I understand a lot of the points you've made. I will take into account of your improvement suggestions and will make these changes within the days to come. I started slow and added a source to the other members of Groundswell. My question right now is if this is a reliable source to add for Groundswell's Wave of Popular Feeling album, https://archive.org/details/groundswell_202104 Shout4Serenity (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept it per WP:ABOUTSELF, but I doubt it will fly at FA. This is a user-published source, so I'm afraid that won't work. dannymusiceditor oops 18:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One-X and Stock's arrival (2006–2008)

  • Why is Stock's arrival necessary in the heading here? If you have to have it, put it in the previous section.
  • "About this time" should be "Around this time"
  • For the closing sentence of the first paragraph, I presume This year's follow-up, One-X, is a document of Gontier's addiction battle. is the portion of the source that is supposed to attribute that information. However, that is not sufficient. Nothing in this source from The Toronto Star addresses lyrics for songs, or when they were written. It sources everything else pretty well though.
  • Gontier successfully completed treatment at CAMH... after one month (cite the Star again)
  • The Revolver source in the second paragraph has been dead for 12 years.
  • Today.com should say Today.
  • The second paragraph is too long to just dump those refs there at the end. I'd prefer you put those two before the last sentence, then repeat the Today interview after the last sentence because that's the one the text is talking about, whereas it's mixed subject matter ahead of that one.
  • Barry Stock shouldn't be linked here. He also should just be mentioned by last name after his mention in the previous paragraph.
  • Should start the second sentence with "Instead of participating in Narcotics Anonymous, Gontier also performed..." per the source provided.
  • There is a lot of stretching what this source actually says.
    • "as a "thank you" to the people who had helped him get through his addiction, and..." is a stretch of the source provided, remove it or cite it
    • No songs are directly mentioned in this source in the context of performing them at these shows, so you'll have to remove that.
    • Nothing said these shows were acoustic.
    • "The audience of about 250 people included patients, radio contest winners, family and friends of the band, and representatives from the band's label." not in the source
      • However, it does offer this: He then fielded questions from the audience, comprised of addicts and those in recovery. Use that information to describe how Gontier would interact with audience members after each of these shows, not just CAMH.
  • Reception of One-X is aptly succinct, but I would recommend fewer quotations.
  • Canadian certification should come before the American one.

Life Starts Now (2009–2011)

  • I see "again with Howard Benson", but it's the first time he's mentioned in the article. You should change the way this sentence is written or bring him up beforehand; the way it's currently written won't do. As it turns out, he produced One-X; I would encourage you to work that in somewhere in its respective section.
  • Preferably, the lyrical tone should be referenced to more than one opinion, but it's a good one to start with.
  • comma after "published statement"
  • No need to get specific with reviewer names on a band article. Save that for the album page.
  • For the Toronto Sun review, a quote is not necessary; simply say they criticized the album for a lack of sonic identity which drew too many parallels to those bands. Or something like that. I trust you.
  • You can cut the long-winded last quote of Allmusic down to saying it served "a competent flurry of fist-bump anthems and world-weary, mid-tempo rockers."
  • What about the rest of the singles from this album? At least name them. The first three of the four singles were all number-one Mainstream Rock hits in the US.
  • No reference in the article at all for the Canadian shows. The nearest reference supports only who they played with in the US. The one you've given in the tour section only talks about American stops.
  • The last reference in the section appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the text in the article.
  • In addition to the rock album Juno nomination from 2010, it should be mentioned that they were nominated for Group of the Year in 2011.
  • Nothing on the certifications for this album?

Transit of Venus and Gontier's departure (2012–2013)

I apologize for stepping away from this for so long, been dealing with some stuff and haven't been able to motivate myself to finish the review. I will be doing so today. Now in progress. dannymusiceditor oops 17:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no talk about the background of the album's creation. A good place to start would be taking some of the material from Transit of Venus.
  • There's not always necessarily a problem with citing the band's official website, but primary sources aren't preferred if there are secondary sources available, and I'd rather you replaced them and not fill an entire paragraph with them.
  • As long as the links are accessible, access dated, and not bare, this is not a GA criterion, but the reference formatting needs work and I would recommend you give it some attention anyway.
  • Mention something about how Adam stayed out of the spotlight until he re-emerged with Saint Asonia in 2015.
  • Last sentence unsourced.
  • No talk of the singles at all? At minimum, it should be mentioned that Transit of Venus was the band's first album where all of the singles it spawned were number-one Mainstream Rock hits.
    • Afterwards, note that by the time promotion ended for Transit of Venus, Three Days Grace had amassed ten (!) number-one Mainstream Rock hits.
  • Certification awards?

Human (2014–2017)

  • Link KISW
  • The nearest source to said radio station bears a different frequency than the text; I cannot confirm if this is the same station from the source given, and the corresponding article doesn't seem to say anything about it. Fix this.
  • "titled", not "entitled"
  • It's good information that "Painkiller" was a number-one, but it's disorganized in presentation. With how many Three Days Grace have to their name, you don't need to be that specific with when it made it on the band's page; maybe the song page, but not here. It would be good to note the number-ones as a group in this section like you did the others.
  • There's a comma where there should be a period after "September 30, 2014".
  • You should probably link "You Don't Get Me High Anymore" to Three (Phantogram album).
  • Again with the primary sources.
  • Certification awards?

Outsider (2017–2020)

  • Small section, missing background details. Take some from Outsider (Three Days Grace album) and add it, sourced properly, to this section.
  • 13th number-one (should be written like that, by the way, not no. 1) isn't normally a significant number to hit, but given that they tied a record here, I'll allow it. This same kind of writing occurs around "Infra-Red", change that accordingly.
  • Only need to link Van Halen once.
  • "November 13, 2018" needs a comma after it.
  • No mention of any tours here.

Explosions (2021–present)

  • Same thing with lacking background details, yada yada
  • A lyric video isn't that big of news if a song was released, you don't have to have that there.
  • Reference 77 (at time of writing) has no access-date, this is required for GA. As long as the reference works, add that at minimum, preferably the name of the article's writer as well.
  • "the third single from the album," should come after the song's title, I think
  • Link EF4 to the Enhanced Fujita scale
  • Insufficient tour coverage.

Awards and nominations

  • I barely even know how to review this section, actually. If I was the one writing this, I'd have included and highlighted a few of their biggest nominations and wins throughout the history of the article instead of this when they have a history this extensive. But I'm going to try anyway.
  • First, it's far too split up, you should group them together into a couple different eras of the band. Not this proseline.
  • As of writing this, reference 94 has no access date. Recommend completing entirely.
  • The 2019 iHeart is already mentioned in the History section. Choose one place.
    • Actually, no. We need to nuke this section. The first paragraph, which dates from the original GA, was good, but it's so disorganized and inconsistent after that that it's easier to re-write it entirely or integrate portions of it into History. I would normally consider this egregious enough to fail given the other problems it had, but stay tuned. I'm not going to be that tough yet.

Musical style

Far too short. References are plentiful, but it should be fleshed out to include specific portions of the band's musical style other than genre. In my work on The Promise Ring, I integrated different observations about individual albums; I see a little of that is present here on a smaller scale. Most of all, it just needs updated. I will admit having more developed album articles respective to what I used in the Promise Ring helps, but I think some tools to work with.

Legacy

I guess it's fine? I don't usually see much more than this kind of thing for a band GA, sure it could be better but it's passable.

Everything else afterward

...is fine.


Conclusion

This article is in worse shape than it looked when I first glanced at it. @Shout4Serenity: I'm sorry for taking so long to finish this, but this is normally something a reviewer should close as unsuccessful. However, it's not fair for me to just dump all this here and slam the door after waiting nearly 3 weeks for me to finish. So, with that in mind, I will offer you a deal. I will leave this open for 4 days for you to respond to this comment, if you're interested and/or think you can fix these problems adequately. If you confirm your interest, I will grant you an additional 14 days from point of agreement to improve the article to GA standards; if you decline or do not answer, I will close the nomination as unsuccessful. Regardless of outcome, I plan for this nomination to be closed no later than March 19. dannymusiceditor oops 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DannyMusicEditor. Firstly, I appreciate that you took the time to review the article. Secondly, no need to apologize for your absence, I've been keeping up with your review and read why you left for a while. I completely understand and I hope all is well. Lastly, I've been doing my best to fix these issues you've addressed and will continue to do my best to meet the GA standards within the additional 14 days granted from you. Thank you. Shout4Serenity (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your efforts thus far, but it is clear that this still needs a substantial amount of work. I will close this now in hopes that we can use this to bring it back to GA again soon. dannymusiceditor oops 17:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Days_Grace&oldid=1208240709"