Talk:King James Version (album)

King James Version (album) (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 25 November 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Voorts, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 June 2023.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Reference ideas for King James Version (album)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingjamesversion.jpg[edit]

Image:Kingjamesversion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been replaced by a new fair use version. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE CE June 2023[edit]

I think perhaps some of the background and legacy section might be better in the main band article, and those can be cut down a bit. I left {{primary source inline}} tags throughout the article where claims were only substantiated by citation to the band's website. Finally, I think it's odd that an article on an American band uses British English, but I went with it per MOS:RETAIN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi!

thank you SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS LOL :)))
Yeah, good point, legacy is clutter. and background can be cut to the substantial bits
there's definitely in line citations i can deal with (omit); others, not so much? i.e. the press bio, but yes thanks for pointing it out
british english was most likely a mistake that i will deal with

overall! thank you very much! Chchcheckit (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN says, An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another, absent consensus to the contrary. I think you'll have to get consensus for making that change, but given that you've been pretty much the only active editor for several months, maybe we should ask Help:Desk? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]