This review is transcluded from Talk:Conspiracy No. 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Darth Stabro (talk · contribs) 16:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

• Done! Toa Nidhiki05 19:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. a (references): Could you look into clipping your newspapers.com sources so they're accessible to those without a subscription? See Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   done ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
   b (citations to reliable sources):

Spot checks:

[9a] I'm not seeing anything in this source that stated their first album was self-titled or that it was released in 1995. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine this is very much a "the sky is blue" situation? Their first album was self-titled and released in 1995. I could use this source from their website to back that up, but is that really necessary? Toa Nidhiki05 19:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: sorry for the delay, I was in the wilderness without internet for a week. That their album was self-titled would be a self-evident "sky is blue" if the source stated the album title and the year of release, but as-is nothing in the source states they released an album in 1995, or what its name was. A non-primary source would be preferable if you could find one. Also, I hate to be nit-picky, but the cited article states that it was a departure from their hit song, not from the first album in general. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A few more sources here: a Beliefnet interview with the band's guitarist ("I’m not sure of the exact date, but I do know it was 1995. I was working at a Mardel Christian Bookstore in Tulsa, Okla., at the time and we had a special guest dropping by that afternoon. It was a couple of guys from a new Atlanta-based band promoting their independent self-titled release on Gray Dot Records.") Cross Rhythms ("With a southern fried rock sound and influences from acts like Hootie & The Blowfish and Pearl Jam the band recorded an album in 1995 for the tiny Georgia independent Gray Dot. Within a year the band's national debut 'Third Day' was pulling in the sales for Reunion Records"), New Release Today ("From their first year until 1995, they self-financed three albums as an independent band. Their self-titled third album would be repackaged a year later as their first-length record label studio release."). Citation 10, the HM article, also talks about this - quote from the band's guitarist: ("We had done a demo, and then it was on Graydot, and then it was on Reunion. So, we had recorded this set of songs several times, so they weren’t really... it was almost like a collection of demos, or something like that, really.")
• I recognize the chronology here is somewhat confusing because the albums for Gray Dot and Reunion have the same name, but what these sources all agree on is that Gray Dot released an album titled "Third Day" in 1995, and Reunion Records reissued it in 1996. The Wikipedia page for the two albums is the same article for both for good reason. I'm open to a way to word it that might be less confusing if these sources don't sufficiently back up the quote? @Darth Stabro: Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If that chronology and information is covered in the offline HM source, then we should be good to go. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[9b]

[19ab] While I do not have access to this offline source, I am guessing that it states Gomer is the wife of the minor prophet Hosea and talks about Gomer's infidelity. However, the sentences are also making statements about the song, which I'm guessing do not come from the source. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me try and access it again - the source itself specifically mentioned the song, primarily to point out how strange it is there's a song about Gomer. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The full segment in question:

Gomer has found her way into contemporary music as well, when the album called Conspiracy No. 5 by the band called Third Day included “Gomer’s Song.” The album was nominated for the Grammy Award in the Rock Gospel category, so it became well-known. The song is a useful modern expression of the problematic elements of the Gomer story in Hosea. Despite the title, the perspective of the lyrics comes entirely from Hosea and God, expressing a sense of betrayal. The song primarily chastises Gomer for her unfaithfulness and when it reaches the chorus threatens her with abandonment—“there will come a time when she will find that he’s not there to give her love.” The husband in the biblical story, Hosea, seems to some readers to be committed to the relationship at all costs, refusing to abandon Gomer. The song’s threat of abandonment seems out of place, but at the same time it masks the violent abuse that goes with staying in the biblical story.

• Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, interesting! Very cool. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[29a]

[29b]

[29c]

[29d] I'm not sure if this is the same edition, but it says "universally recognized" rather than "uniformly recognized" on page 943. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; fixed this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[45] "peaked at" implies #2 is the highest the song got, which cannot be derived from the source; you could say "reached", perhaps, if you can't find a source that states #2 is the highest it got. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea; fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[50] offline source; please make sure it does not make a similar mistake as source [45]. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also adjusted this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

c (OR): See note about source [19ab] above.
d (copyvio and plagiarism): Passes Earwig. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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: Looking pretty good overall; a promising start. A few reference things to look into and cleanup for the moment. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Response and comment above @Darth Stabro: Toa Nidhiki05 19:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Fail: