Talk:Joy Division/Archive 2

I am reviewing this article. I will have to a) read the article, b) think about it and c) make a decision. This could take a couple of days. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. I enjoyed reading the article. The stumbling block are about three spots where citations are needed or very desirable.

My review comments are these:

Lead. Citations in the lead is a source of endless Wiki quibbling at both GA and FA. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations in the lead section.

"Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

• I would move the citation for Bernard Sumner out of the Lead and into the body of the text. The citation makes it seem as if there is some controversy over Sumner’s membership in the band.
  • It's more a footnote really. It merely explains that Sumner went by a number of different names during the tenure of the band. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Revise. “…who replaced three short-lived drummers in late 1977.” because it reads as if three drummers died young.
  • Fixed. WesleyDodds 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

• Revise. “Sumner and Hook attended a Sex Pistols show at the Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall on 4 June 1976. While only 35 to 40 people were in attendance, …” Those who don’t know the history of the Sex Pistons would assume that this concert was a wipe-out when in reality it was a very early concert (wasn’t it the second Manchester concert?). Revise the sentences to give a feeling of being on the cutting edge. (Tangential: wasn’t there also a David Bowie concert in Manchester around the time of the Sex Pistols that was influential?)
  • Part of the gig's legend was that not many people showed up, and there's some speculation as to who actually showed up in the audience. The film 24 Hour Party People plays this up, for one. Bowie was popular among many youths in Manchester at the time, but those who were part of the emerging music scene cite that Sex Pistols show as their main inspiration.
• Comment.”Sumner bought a guitar, Hook a bass and Mason a drum kit.” Any musical background at all? Lessons? School band?
  • None. They went out and bought instruments and learned how to play. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Between 4 June 1976 and 29 May 1977 is almost a year, there isn’t a sense of time. Should probably include one date such as when Curtis joined.
• Citation. ” The band fired Brotherdale soon after the demo sessions, unable to work with his aggressive personality.” Needs citation.
  • The nearest footnote afterwards verifies this information. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early releases

• Revise. “…studio for their compliance.” Poor word choice.
• More info.” The band made their recorded debut in June 1978 when a track of theirs was featured” (What song?)
• More info.” In September Joy Division made their television debut performing on the local news show Granada Reports, hosted by Tony Wilson.” What song (was it Transmission or was that later?)

I don't think the specific song is important to mention in the article (it was "Shadowplay", by the way, despite what Control would have you believe). WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the early releases, the name of the song would be interesting.

Please clarify what you mean here. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Pleasures

• Question. “They supported the Buzzcocks in a 24-venue UK tour that began that October, which allowed the band to quit their regular jobs” In Touching from a Distance, Curtis suggests that the tour “forced” the band to quit their day jobs rather than “allowed”.

Closer and Curtis' suicide

Revise.” On April 8, Joy Division was set to play a gig at the Derby Hall in Bury. Curtis had attempted suicide the previous night by overdosing on phenobarbitone.[4], prescribed for his epilepsy” Mid-sentence citations are disliked. Place at end of sentence.

The last part of that sentence was added by someone along the line. Will remove (by the way, citations in the middle of sentences are fine as long as they follow punctuation). WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation. ” Following a one-off gig in Birmingham on May 2, the band took a two-week rest in anticipation of their scheduled American tour.” Needs a citation.

Aftermath

• Comment. ”… the group later recruited Morris' girlfriend Gillian Gilbert to round out the lineup as keyboardist.” Could mention that Gilbert was a Joy Division groupie very early on which would tie this mention in with Joy Division, otherwise it is tangential to Joy Division.

Musical style

• Citation. Quote without citation” As Warsaw, the band played "fairly undistinguished punk-inflected hard-rock".” Needs citation.
  • Nearest citation provides quote (it's by Reynolds). WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote. The long Sumner quote should be blocked off.
  • I feel block quotes are unsightly, and muck up the formatting of articles. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

• Quote. The long Morris quote should also be blocked off.
  • Per above. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy No problem.

Picture Seems OK. Fair use.

Sound samples Seem OK. Fair use.

Sources

• The sources are good but there are others such as Middles, Mick. From Joy Divison to New Order : the Factory story. London : Virgin Books, 1996.
  • I haven't been able to find that so far, and definitely hope to track it down before I move to FAC. However, with access to the Curtis book, contemporary magazine articles, and very informative documentaries, I do wonder if it does contain anything not present in other sources that have been used here. WesleyDodds 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, good but needs to have a couple of things looked at. Please provide the citations. I'm putting this in GA Hold for 7 days, to give the contributing editors a chance to make the necessary edits. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: Unlike print sources, in-line citations have to be a bit more specific because a future editor can insert a new sentence and orphan a quote from its source. So, although, the quotes are near citations, they need to be attached to the sentence. It is also why block quotes are better to use even if it looks ugly to you. It reduces the problem of splitting a quote and orphaning a fragment. You might want to use {{cquote}}, although some editors don't like it; WP:MoS seems ambivalent but does say it should be blocked. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a new editor inserts new information, then a footnote is added for that information. In either case it's a reasonable to assume that everything preceeding the citation is covered by the footnote at the end of the referenced material. WesleyDodds 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you assume too much about an editor inserting new info and carefully footnoting old info. Really, don't think of Wikipedia as a print article. I've argued on the citation and verifiability talk pages that I think Wikipedia has too many citations and have been told that Wikipedia is not like a print article. Everything has to be cited. Yes, it is irritating but I don't see why you are against adding a cite at the end of a quote. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail: There is a problem with the lead. The lead should be a summary of the whole article; it shouldn't have info unique to the article. Please see WP:LEAD. Citations and comments about living people must be explicitly cited. See WP:BIO and WP:CITE. Does not conform to WP:MoS. The band members section should be prose, not a list. "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation." Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. The article also doesn't use enough available sources. There is actually quite a bit still to do that is going to take more than a few days so I'm revoking the seven day GA Hold and GA failing Joy Division. Sorry. Wassupwestcoast 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just correct a relatively recent erroneous change. This was the removal of Macclesfield in "origin." I don't know why this had been changed but it should be remembered both Ian and Steve hailed from there, and the same school ... and the same as myself! ... and the same as myself! Oh, and Ian lived in Macclesfiled before the band was formed, and right the way through its existence.

They certainly came from there, but the band itself formed in Salford, before Ian Curtis or Stephen Morris joined. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well following that line of logic then the origin is Manchester and not Salford as they formed after the SP gig at Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall and the advert at Manchester's Virgin store. Also, if you are going to be pedantic, that is the origin of Warsaw and not Joy Division.

Salford seems like the most logical option, because when reading Touching from a Distance Deborah Curtis wasn't all that specific about where the band originally formed aside from the first three members all being from Salford. And yes, Warsaw is the same band as Joy Division, just with a different name. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including both Salford and Macclesfield would not only be more accurate but would in no way damage the article. It would also be consistent with your logic, i.e. where the members were from (Salford & Macclesfield) rather than where the band was first formed (Manchester). As noted earlier both Stephen and Ian were from Macclesfield, and Ian remained there right through his Joy Division days. The two locations are important as the city and town are very distinctly different, including histotrically & socio-economically, and there is very little interconnection between them or the respective populations (I know that would be classed as opinion but I'm saying that on the discussion pages and not in the article, and it's true!). I am aware about the name change but added it to follow your logic of identifying the origin from the very nucleus of the band, as it could be argued that Warsaw became Joy Division and but were not the same.

I've always thought they came from Manchester. In the tv documentaries i've seen (all of them) they are always referred to as a Manchester band. They weren't formed in Macclesfield at all and to many Salford is Manchester...you step out of one into the other without noticing and it has little separate identity (except to those who live there and care). Oh and Salford is in Greater Manchester, so i'd say Manchester and leave it at that. Operating (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salford and Manchester are two separate cities. Greater Manchester is a different entity to Manchester. And I didn't suggest JD were formed in Macclesfield, just that the origins are partly from there.

Tony Wilson describes them as a Manchester band on Granada Reports, except the guitarist who comes from Salford. You can watch that here Operating (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Mandy Rice Davies ""Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Although himself from Salford his businesses were not just based in Manchester but were delibrately branded as being from Manchester. It was in his interest for him to have JD identified as being "a Manchester band", just as Factory was a Manchester label and The Hacienda was a Manchester club. But the discussion is about the origin of JD, rather than the perception of their home (which I agree is Manchester.) I simply believe that town from where 1/2 the band came, and did not leave, constitutes a partial origin. And for the record there is no anti-Manchester prejudice on my part: not only did I spend alot of my youth in its dingier clubs but some of my family were born there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.252.123 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who argue that Joy Division are a Manchester band, and I personally would not overly dispute this due to the place of inspiration (LFTH) to advertising for members (Virgin in Piccadilly) to the sites of Factory to where most the public identify them as being from. However if Salford is to be listed as their origin then Macclesfield has equal rights to be listed: half the members came from Salford and half came from Macclesfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.73 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on the IP's talk page, the band formed in Salford, regardless of where the bandmembers came from. Curtis and Morris came from Macclesfield, but they joined the group when it was already in progress (in Morris' case, he was the fourth drummer). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't join Joy Division, they joined a precursor. And the please refer to the above about why many, including Tony Wilson, describe them as being from Manchester.

It was always the same band. They just changed names. Sources are unanimous on this. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a band with a different name, a different drumer, a different vocalist / lyricist. Anyway it is impossible to say that a precursor that didn't include Ian Curtis were the same band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.73 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The band was formed with no name and no vocalist in 1976. Then Ian Curtis joined. Then the band named itself Warsaw. Then Stephen Morris joined. Then the band changed its name to Joy Division. That's the history of the band; there were no "precursor groups". WesleyDodds (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument means that New Order is the same group as Warsaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.73 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. WesleyDodds (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How do you differentiate between Stiff Kittens, Warsaw, Joy Division & New Order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.101.239 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Joy Division is considered by sources to have started in 1976 and ended in 1980. New Order started in 1980. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your are right in respect of the chronology of New Order, however Joy Division started after Stiff Kittens and Warsaw. Are you really suggesting that Joy Division existed without Ian Curtis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.28.17 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the band that became Joy Division existed before Ian Curtis joined. This is not disputed by reliable sources. Also, Warsaw is considered to be the same group as Joy Division; they just changed their name. Any other stance would be in contradiction to all documentation of the group's history. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I may be getting confused here but: Ian Curtis was an integral part of Joy Division. The band did not exist without him - either before he joined or after his death. Would you agree or disagree with that? Also what are these "reliable sources" to which you keep refering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.145 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saying repeatedly, I've been referring to Touching from a Distance, which is the definitive source on Joy Division. In that book Ian Curtis is described as joining the band in progress. You're basing your argument on some very faulty logic. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that Joy Division were formed in Salford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.79 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) That's part of the problem; it doesn't explicitly say where the band formed. But it does say that is was formed by Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, and Terry Mason (all of whom were from Salford, despite Tony Wilson's ill-informed commentary on TV that only Sumner was from Salford) and that Ian Curtis joined the group after it had been together for a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't actually know. Nor can you provide a reference. It is your opinion. And your opinion isn't any more valid than anybody elses. Operating (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's established that it's definitely not Macclesfield, because the group had started before either Curtis or Morris joined, and none of the people in the band at the time were from that town. The only viable options are Salford or Manchester. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band formed in Salford, according to my sources (e.g. Martin Strong's books). Where individual members were born isn't the issue here.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description for the "origin" field of the Template:Infobox Musical artist states that the field is for "where the group was founded". --JD554 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be Manchester —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.73 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider:

All three Where were Joy Division from?

Ian PCurtis, Old Trafford, Manchester

Peter Hook, Salford

Stepehn Morris, Macclesfield

Bernard Sumner, Lower Broughton, Salford

ref. http://www.iancurtis.org/faq/103.html

To include Macclesfield Ian Curtis lived most of his life in Macclesfield http://www.iancurtis.org/biography/IanCurtis.html

The principal members were Ian Curtis (b. July 15, 1956, Macclesfield, Cheshire, ref. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105680/Joy-DivisionNew-Order

Manchester the idea of creating the band came on Tuesday 20 July 1976, after a Sex Pistols concert held at The Free Trade Hall in Manchester. ref. http://www.iancurtis.org/faq/105.html

Joy Division were a UK band based in Manchester ref. http://www.iancurtis.org/faq/100.html

This story begins on July 20th 1976, when the Sex Pistols played at the Lesser Free Trade Hall in Manchester, supported by local bands Slaughter and the Dogs and the Buzzcocks (making their debut). According to legend, this gig inspired Joy Division to buy guitars and form a band. ref. http://www.joydiv.org/hist2.htm

Joy Division was a rock music band formed in 1977 in Manchester. ref. http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joy+division/

Formed in the industrial city of Manchester, Joy Division marked a unique turning point in popular music ref. http://www.cinematical.com/2007/09/09/tiff-review-joy-division/

On June 4 1976, four young men from ruined, post-industrial Manchester, England went to see a Sex Pistols show at the Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall. Inspired by the gig that is now credited with igniting the Manchester music scene, they formed what was to become one of the world's most influential bands, Joy Division. ref. http://www.joydivisionmovie.co.uk/

... Mancunian rock band Joy Division ... ref. http://www.factoryrecords.net/

when London’s foremost punk rock band The Sex Pistols played the Manchester Free Trade Hall.

... The Sex Pistols played the Manchester Free Trade Hall. Peter decided to attend,inviting Bernard and mutual friend Terry Mason along for the night ... They decided to form a band of their own, simply to liven up their spare time. ref. http://www.prideofmanchester.com/music/joydivision-biography.htm

Joy Division fans have been spoilt for cinematic choice over the past six months. Despite the fact that the seminal Manchester outfit ref. http://www.rte.ie/arts/2008/0501/joydivision.html Joy Division were a post-punk band formed in 1976 in Manchester, UK. ref. http://www.last.fm/music/Joy+Division —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.105.145 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of websites that say Salford as well - see here.

PS. Can you please correctly sign your additions to talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) after what you've typed. --JD554 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Using this technique:

• +"joy division" +formed +manchester returns 50,900 hits. [1]
• +"joy division" +formed +macclesfield returns 2,680 hits. [2]
• +"joy division" +formed +salford returns 662 hits. [3]

So It's Manchester!

Hi guys - please see that I'm just trying to correctly reflect the facts. These may seem quiet subtle to outsiders, for example there is a huge difference between Salford, Greater Manchester and Manchester. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm not looking to win any kind of contest. I speak of someone from the area, someone who grew up with the influence of Joy Division. I'm not claiming to know any of the band myself, although I can do much better than Six degrees of separation ... a couple of one degree of separation but quite a number of two degrees of separation. My youth was the Hacienda; The Banshee; Affleck's Palace. It was accepted that Joy Division were a Manchester band, despite the individuals coming from Salford (rough as a bear's arse) and Macclesfield (up its own arse) Please do not try to re-write history. Enforcing a simplistic view is a disservice to Wikipedia, its readers and more importantly Joy Division. Let's go for a modification that covers the relatively complicated facts rather than try to enfore the over simplication, and erroneous, insistence of just Salford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.79 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links count as reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion only. And I would say www.iancurtis.org, for example, is more reliable than Wikipedia. Also RTE is the national broadcaster of Ireland; that is to be respected.

No, this is not opinion. According to Wikipedia guidelines, these cannot be considered reliable sources. As for the RTE link, just because it says they are from Manchester doesn't mean they are. I for one used to think of them exclusively as a Manchester band until I started researching he band's history in-depth and discovered that Salford and Macclesfield aren't part of Manchester. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the problem: discovered that Salford and Macclesfield aren't part of Manchester. To too many people "Salford, Greater Manchester" means "Manchester". It's laziness on their part, but it's stuck. When sources/people say "Manchester" they really mean "Greater Manchester". It's an old bone of contention that people from Trafford, Altrincham, Salford etc hate. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per guidelines, the status quo version of the page remains until a new consensus is reached. So stop reverting or you will be reported. Also, you're just changing the infobox but not article itself, which just makes the article inconsistent. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Division were never Goth Rock. They were Post-Punk and a HUGE influence on Goth Rock. I don't know a single goth fan who does not enjoy them, but that does not make them Goth Rock. Then again, the person who labeled them goth rock is the same person who did that to Skinny Puppy, so I'm not sure he knows what he is talking about. 72.94.149.141 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was just editing based on what I saw in the Gothic rock article, the articles should be consistent with each other. I've found it's incredibly difficult to define just what goth rock is, even moreso than the other music genres. But that's a discussion for the Gothic rock talk page, not here. Stylistically, Joy Division sounds goth to me, even though they didn't dress up like idiots. But I'm not going to argue over it if others disagree. And please don't vandalize my user page. Ash Loomis (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • According to Goth rock, exponents of the genre include Bauhaus, The Cure, Siouxsie, etc., but not JD, so whoever is maintaining it is clear that JD aren't Goth. And as someone who was able to see all of those bands while Ian Curtis was still alive (and before those bands became whatever they went on to become), I can vouch that JD certainly were not of the same ilk. JD had an intensity that none of the others could match. Listening to recorded versions of their music may allow one to think that it feels similar, has some similar riffs, whatever, but the live version made it plain that it wasn't. If you're in any doubt, see Anton Corbijn's film 'Control'. Or ... have a look at the Cure's trajectory - see what they started with, where they went, and then where they've ended up. And compare that with JD. Robert Smith is an entertainer, Ian Curtis was something else.Eyedubya (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Goth rock indicates that Joy Division was a notable example of Goth Rock. In terms of musical style most of the traditional hallmarks are there, and Bauhaus was almost exactly contemporary. To claim Joy Division was not producing a form of Goth Rock is revisionism pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.47.97 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Additionally note Michael Bibby's excellent article "Atrocity Exhibitions: Joy Division, Factory Records, and Goth" for a thorough explanation of contemporary views of Joy Division as a Goth band (originally published in "Goth: Undead Subculture" by Duke University Press 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.47.97 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Can you point to evidence that Joy Division said they were a goth rock band or were part of the goth rock movement? Your article says that self-identified goths like Joy Division, not that they were a goth rock band. I think the prevailing consensus is that Bauhaus is the first goth rock band. If you want to say in the article that JD is a goth rock band, you MUST at least put a link in the article. Just typing "Goth rock" is not enough. Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • The article also indicates that media sources described them as a Goth Rock band, and that they were linked to Goth in the public consciousness. Bauhaus was the first Goth Rock band, but Bauhaus's breakthrough single was almost exactly contemporaneous with Unknown Pleasures. My wiki editing skills aren't up to fighting this one out, so I'll have to leave this as my registered protest.

Joy Division wasn't a goth band. They were one of the primary influences on the creation of the genre, but they weren't of the genre, as established by the sources cited in this article. They were described as "gothic" (an adjective), but were not associated with "goth" (the noun) (which didn't formulate as a concept until the early 1980s, after Joy Division had broken up). Not to mention they were not associated with the developing goth subculture and they didn't adopt the standard goth image. Also, gothic rock uses the same sources as this article, and in fact the gothic rock article only mentions Joy Division as a predecessor of the genre.WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the band has indeed "cult status", as mentioned in the legacy section of the article, there should be plenty of sources that support this. The source for the paragraph with these words does not directly support it. The logic of the sentence "Despite their short career and cult status, Joy Division have exerted a wide-reaching influence." seems flawed. If the band has cult status, it is more plausible that it is influential because of this. I suggest to simply remove the words "cult status", as was reverted by User:WesleyDodds on May 24, 2008. – Ilse@ 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the phrase "cult status" is to emphasize that the band wasn't very successful during its lifespan. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain FA status, I believe the discography section should be expanded. It should at least contain the band's singles. Because the article Joy Division discography is not very long, it could possibly be merged into this article in its entirety. – Ilse@ 09:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a separate discography article, only studio albums are required. The article's around 30 kb, so a merge is not warranted. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that needs to be resolved in order to maintain FA status is the use of non-free music samples of songs that are scarcely or not at all discussed in the article. These songs should either be critically discussed in the article, where the sound clips can be used as illustration of the particular song and by that used to illustrate the musical style of the band in general, or they should be removed, because they fail WP:NFCC policy #8 without their discussion. – Ilse@ 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to expand the soundclip box descpritions for a while. I'll take care of that tomorrow. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could punk rock be a genre? Their debut EP (An Ideal for Living), and their demo (The Warsaw Demo) were more punk than post-punk. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 13:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-punk is sufficient. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is also mentioned in the section "Musical Style". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the infobox show them as "former members"? I believe the general policy is to list members of no longer active bands as just "members". I would change but perhaps some consensus was reached previously. CAVincent (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for Past members section of the infobox say: If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field. --JD554 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines now say (and this may have changed in the last 18 months) "In some exceptional cases (e.g. The Beatles), and only with a clear consensus, members at the time of dissolution may be listed in the "Current_members" field." In this case, there are no doubts as to who the members of Joy Division were. I'm changing and hoping some new consensus will emerge. Not a huge deal, as there aren't any other "former members", but this only points to the fact that membership is not in any doubt. Also, it just looks weird. --CAVincent (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has changed. I've no objections to your suggestion. --JD554 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be anything in the legacy section about the song Let's Dance to Joy Divison by the Wombats? It was quite a hit after all, and it uses the depressive sound of the bands as a metaphore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's needed, the Wombats aren't that well known and the song was only a minor hit. --JD554 (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His importance is not in dispute. However, although he took the photograph that appeared on the 13 January 1979 issue of NME, it was Paul Morley who was persistent in getting the picture on the cover, as stated in Deborah Curtis's biography of Ian Curtis. None of the sources added by User:Nicestuff2003 have shown that this sentence is wrong and that it was Paul Morley and Kevin Cummins together who were persistent and managed to get the picture on the cover. I will re-word the sentence so that is states it was Kevin Cummins' photograph, but not that he was persistent in getting it on the cover. --JD554 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1976, the members of Joy Division formed a band, but in 1977 they became Joy Division. Joy Division began in 1977, not in 1976, when the group began as The Stiff Kittens, and later Warsaw.Francodamned (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same band. They just changed their name. The article is now wrong.--Michig (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was simply a change (or two) of name, not a new band. --JD554 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Warsaw's stuff was punk rock. Some of Joy Division's was, just listen to substance. Somewhere on this page it says that post-punk is sufficient, but i don't think so. They are two completely different genres and should both be noted. I also feel as though Joy Division should be on the list of punk rock bands. Any reason they shouldn't? Filthy little weasel (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could be properly described as punk would be An Ideal for Living, after that it's post-punk all the way. One release doesn't define a band's genre. Neither Rolling Stone or NME even mention punk, and even Allmusic, who attribute as many genres as possible to bands, only mentions it for "the group's raw initial sides" (ie, An Ideal for Living). --JD554 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key statements to go by are the Jon Savage and Simon Reynolds quotes about the band's sound in the article. While the band started out pretty punky, when they actually got around to releasing material, it was all in the post-punk vein. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ALREADY HAD A SUBHEADING FILTHY LITTLE WEASEL. Also, all of this is already mentioned in the article in the section "Musical Style". That is sufficient. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All caps really? that seems to me like it implies anger, which there is no need for. I just think that because the list of punk bands says that its for bands that have played punk at some point in there career, Joy Division deserves to be on it. An Ideal for Living was punk and they did play it, correct? Does that not mean that they played punk? If they played punk, does that not mean punk was one of their genres? Sorry to be so blunt, but I won't give until I get my way on this one. I am a huge Joy Division fan, and I am very firm on this. All the genres they played should be acknowledged. Filthy little weasel (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out to you, it is acknowledged in the article. I would be careful about saying things like "I won't give until I get my way on this one". Wikipedia works by editors collaboratively and, when there are disagreements, by consensus. If you edit against consensus it can be seen as disruptive editing and could lead to being blocked. --JD554 (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All caps implies speaking loudly, to try to get your attention. Please do not repeat a previous talk heading just to draw attention to yourself. Getting Joy Division connected to the punk rock pages is not as important as you seem to think. Accuracy is more important than linking to a more popular page. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to draw attention to myself, I just think that they played punk at first and that makes it one of their genres. Does it not? The beginning is just as important as the end. If its already in the article whats the reason it can't be on the list? Filthy little weasel (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies that Joy Division was punk rock generally. They did not make a significant contribution to punk rock. Their significance was really from the release of Unknown Pleasures onward.Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats debatable I think they did. Can you prove they didnt? Filthy little weasel (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a negative that can't be proven. Can you prove they did? --JD554 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite sources? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the stupid edit war! British English is fine. The explanatory note was a good idea. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, but where is the proof that the grammar is correct? Both Joy Division and rock band are singular, and so should a verb be that equates the two.

WriterHound (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The names of bands (and football teams ...) are normally considered to be plural. Consider "The Beatles is one of the popular rock groups of the 20th century". Does that sound right to you? Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds fine to me, except that I would write "was", not "is". But it's a misleading example, "Beatles", unlike "Joy Division", is obviously a plural noun. How about "Oasis was a popular group", "Chelsea is the current winner of the Premier League", or "parliament is in session"? Maproom (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Beatles was one of the most popular rock groups ..." sounds like a barbarism to me, but your comment "The Beatles is obviously a plural noun" reveals the source of your confusion. "The Beatles" is the name of a pop group, as is "Joy Division", and both should be treated the same. Unless of course you believe that "The Beatles" is a collective noun for one of the most successful insects on the planet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that a singular noun should be treated the same as a plural noun. I note that you choose to concentrate on the confusing example, and ignore the three straightforward ones I gave. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of discussion makes my head spin. In these circumstances I defer to those better informed than I, who have developed a [...http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/b style guide] to deal with such situations. "Joy Division were..." would appear to be just fine. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US rule is very simple and easy to understand. British English does not follow it. Use Joy Division were ... Mr Stephen (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, you seem to have ignored the links I provided you with earlier and below[4] (one of which is repeated above by Nev1). We use plural verb forms for band names in British English. --JD554 (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in AmEng it should be 'the Beatles were', according to American and British English differences#Grammar So the AmEng useage depends on the name of the band in UkEng it doesn't. Bevo74 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles is a bad example because the band name itself is a plural noun. It muddies the issue. The correct way to handle the verb/noun agreement with a band is as follows:

1) If the band name itself is not a plural noun (U2, as opposed to "the Beatles"), then it is treated as a single entity, the same way you would treat any noun that refers to a group (like a herd, swarm, etc.). U2 is an Irish band. U2 is playing a concert. The herd is large. The herd is roaming the plains.

2) Any band name that itself is a plural noun (The Beatles, the White Stripes, the Walkmen), is treated as a plural noun. Therefore, The Hives are really great. The Walkmen play brilliantly.

Band names are no different than any other noun that refers to a collective group. So the gods of rock have written, so shall it be:)Jbower47 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band names are quite different, as they are not collective nouns, any more than a company name is a collective noun. Even given your example, "The Walkman [name of a band] plays brilliantly" would be patently ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBower47 Are you talking about AmEng or BrEng? From the link I posted above you seem to be following AmEng rules, but not British which is pertinent for Joy Division. I used the Beatles as the that sample is on the link and showing that AmEng is not consistant depending on the band's name. Bevo74 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia:Book about them is now available (see Book:Joy Division.)
This article has not a See also or an External links sections which are the right places to add the templates Template:Wikipedia-Books or Template:Wikipedia-Books link to the article. {{Wikipedia-Books|Joy Division}} produces the box showed here in the upper right corner of this section, and {{Wikipedia-Books link|Joy Division}} appears as:
Joy Division

It is also possible to add it to the Related section in the {{Joy Division}} template simply ny using the Wikipedia:Wikilink syntax (code: [[Book:Joy Division|Book]]; result: Book) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Book:Joy Division & Category:Joy Division to the {{Joy Division}} navbox. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a site that gather archives of the british press for Joy Division. [link removed]

It includes the complete article of Melody Maker's Jon Savage in 1980: [link removed]

You cited it as a source. I'd like to know if we could add the link (url) in the notes in this Joy Division biography or if we can't due to copyright ? Your point of view about this issue would help me a lot. As a user of the Siouxsie and the banshees article, I face the points of view of other members who want to let url to this kind of site, reproducing without permission material of the british press.Carliertwo (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we can't due to copyright. The copyright for the original articles will belong with the magazines in question and/or the author of the articles. The site doesn't show that it has permission to reproduce the articles and therefore it shouldn't be used as a link per WP:COPYLINK. I've removed the links you provided as they could be considered to be contributory infringement. --JD554 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know precisely what stops (cities and/or venues) the American tour was to have included? Given that the tour was to have begun within weeks of Curtis' suicide, all of the venues would have been already decided and some list must exist somewhere. Zengakuren (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tour was to have begun the next day (travel) for dates only a few days after Curtis opted out. NYC was slated, but only sources are Rob Gretton's notebooks. Looks like things were going to be flexible, as you would expect with traveling with a depressed/epileptic singer who was having difficulty making shows at home. http://www.joydiv.org/cancel.htm is a start for info on tour. Cookiehead (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the rather shocking origin of the group's name, I'm surprised there is not a discussion as to why they chose it and whether it has led to any controversy. That seems to be a gap that needs attention. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is mentioned under Formation and Early Releases. Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does kind of go into it, but I think a bit more discussion of the matter would be enlightening. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Back in the day much ado was made about them being Nazi sympathizers: the Warsaw name, the Joy Division name, "Walked in a Line", "Leaders of Men", "You all forgot Rudolph Hess!", poster/cover of Ideal... w/ Hitler Youth as well as German solider pointing a gun at the Jewish boy, how they dressed, Barney using "Albrecht" as a surname.... then, of course, "New Order". Might be a few other things I've forgotten. Unrelated, there is a ton that could be said about the relationship with Factory. Easterhouse (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...they started as punk rock, right? Shouldn't it be mentioned on the genres? Or it was just for a brief period of time than no one cares cos it's enough with their mention in the canons of post-punk? --186.87.18.30 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think that something like "Punk rock (early)" would work... --186.87.18.30 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look further up this very page, you can see that this has been debated to death already. Basically it is addressed in the article. Listing it in the genre section is unnecessary since JD's contributions to punk rock were minimal. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the sections, my bad! I guess that just with mentioning it on the An Ideal for Living page is enough... (although, I wouldn't necessarily say that JD made minimal contributions to the punk rock genre, they, as many post-punk bands, helped punk evolve from its roots, but I guess we all can sort it out for ourselves) --186.87.18.30 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know the argument--Mongreilf (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English is fine. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"British English is fine" - that may convince Americans, but it does not convince Brits. "Oasis are a band" is wrong even in British English. Maproom (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to The Guardian's style guide, which says "bands take a plural verb"[5], or the The Times's style guide, which says "prefer plural use for [...] music groups and bands"[6]. --JD554 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait for this band to split up so we can put them in the past tense. --FormerIP (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol--Mongreilf (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the proper use is based on whether the band name itself is a plural noun (like "The Beatles"). Those names are treated like a plural noun. Single noun names (U2, REM) are treated as single nouns, the same way other collective group words (herd, etc) are treated as singular nouns. The herd crosses the river, not the herd cross the river.Jbower47 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a mistaken notion that band names are collective nouns, which they are not, but your distinction between singular and plural band names doesn't hold water either. For instance, suppose there was a band called The Sheep; is it singular or plural? Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English are not fine. Imperi (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone think punk should be added to the genre list, because joy division's ideal for a living was punk, the scrapped Warsaw album was mostly punk, discuss.188.222.41.105 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one thinks punk should be added to the genre list except you. JD did not make significant contributions to punk rock. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the earliest demos, Joy Division's worst material, fits into the punk genre. An Ideal For Living is and should be considered post-punk; Leaders of Men and No Love Lost in particular mark the decisive move away from conventional punk. The Warsaw compilation has nothing to do with punk other than the inclusion of the aforementioned early demos. JonasEB (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead reads '''Joy Division''' were<!--'were' is correct in British English grammar, please do not change this to 'was'--> an English [[Rock music|rock]] band... That's complete nonsense. Casting this as a WP:ENGVAR issue is grossly misleading. Having grown up in England I know British English almost as well as American (and lived in Canada, so I'm reasonably familiar with that dialect as well). This hasn't a thing to do with geography, just with basic logic. Use of "were" here implies that the members of the band are all dead. The band was a discrete, singular entity, which has ceased to exist as such, ergo "was". An argument can be made that "were" is appropriate in referring to actions of or reactions to the band, especially when considering them as human beings rather than a unit, e.g. "they were excited about touring Germany", but such pluralisation is generally used in a more blanket manner only for bands with plural names (The Ramones, etc.), and in any event should not be used when it is directly misleading to reader, as it is in the lead here. The editors of The Times may "prefer" plural use, but I'd bet good money they'd bend that preference to avoid misleading constructions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing British English almost as well as American is probably not enough then. "Joy Division were..." is correct British English, as the not says. It doesn't suggest they/it are dead, just that they/it no longer exist as a band. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with FormerIP. The essential difference between BRIT and AM english with 'musical bands' is in either assuming the singular or the collective, which is fine, each is weird to the opposing sides. But to think that "were" implies that "the members of the band are all dead", are you sure? I personally find statement like "Joy Division decided", as apposed to "the members decided" hard to take (they were not the Borg), so I know where you are coming from in finding phrasing jarring. Anyway, thats what I think. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting into this - what you think is right. I had almost the same conversation elsewhere earlier in the week. I'm American, but use both English variations. "Joy Division were" is correct for British English - sounds very weird to Americans, but there you go. It's a collective noun and treated differently in Am & Br English. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prob I'll never really know whay that eg sounds weird to you, and you'll never really know why the other phrasing sounds wierd to me, which is all fine. The general rule seems to be that we stick to the home version of english for the band. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Were" sounds more natural to my ears. English has an interesting and somewhat idiosyncratic habit of pluralising some otherwise singular group nouns at times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousand types of English for example: American English, British English, Indian English, Australian English, South African English, Nigerian English and so on. Here's reason why. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote "very happy" all over the article and a bunch of other stuff. Please correct. Informed Person (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should dig out and add that Shane Macgowan comment about seeing JD at the Electric Ballroom in Camden 1979 - it went along the lines of: 'You couldn't take your eyes off the stage, It was like watching a horror movie, you didn't want to even go to the bathroom in case you missed something'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.150.76 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of gothic rock should be reassessed. Some sources suggest that the band were gothic rock ( [7][8]), some other sources indicate that Joy Division was a "proto-goth" band. ([9][10]) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I hate gothic rock, but this is my POV and is encyclop(a)edically worthless. However that article refers to the same sources. Mauro Lanari. --95.252.136.123 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: you're right for the reassessment. But be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Mauro. --95.252.136.123 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added sources. 46.227.191.109 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not play with rules! Do not delete information confirmed with sources! BellKnah (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC

Joy Division were never gothic rock. The band were a major influence in the early stages of the genre. That I do agree on. However, they didn't really associate themselves with "goth". In one of the sources, even Peter Hook hated the idea of the band being compared to goth. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Division helped spawn the gothic rock genre. The "gothic" adjective was used in the late 70s and early 80s to describe the dark music of several post-punk bands. Joy Division was one of them. The first time that the "gothic rock" genre appeared in an article about a post-punk band, was in 1980 in an review of Closer published in Sounds magazine. JD was a post-punk band with gothic overtones. See the gothic rock article and the goth subculture article: all the wp: reliable sources are there. wp:STICKTOSOURCE is the rule, no wp:original research.

There's often a confusion between "gothic" and "goth" which is not the same thing. "goth" is another adjective that surfaced in the press in 1983: so that doesn't concern JD. Woovee (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for unthinking majority ( [11][12] ) Can you read? Nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.227.184.65 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources actually says Joy Division was a gothic rock band. The one says their album has goth sounds. The other says they are godfathers of goth, along with Siouxsie and The Banshees et al. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Joy Division Wiki page relies too heavily on Bernard Sumner's point of view. Peter Hook has written an informative book about Joy Division, and I think that this Wiki page would greatly benefit by adding his point of view. For example, Hook wrote the lyrics to several JD songs, such as Novelty, so Ian Curtis was not the sole lyricist. I haven't read anywhere else that Sumner was the "musical director", so I can't help but think this information came straight from Sumner like the many other quotes dispersed throughout the JD Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8400:118A:4D93:EFDA:BBD4:DA3D (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The band seem to have had an unusually high level of success in NZ - two number ones and a number two within three months of 1981. The refs back it up, but does anyone know if there's any reason (since they didn't achieve a top 10 hit anywhere else)?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a FA since 2007, but I don't think it's up to the standards of today's FA criteria. I think it would easily pass as a Good Article. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at WP:FAR. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joy Division/archive1 is on hold: no actionable issues to be addressed have been identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts:, per this, you still need to explain what specific deficiencies you would like to see addressed, relative to WP:WIAFA and with specifics and examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]