Revision as of 05:33, 30 April 2014 editTeflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →Your GA nomination of New York Dolls (album)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:23, 2 May 2014 edit undoTeflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers140,333 edits →Late response toNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{nowrap|{{Statustop|offset=450}}}} | {{nowrap|{{Statustop|offset=450}}}} | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
⚫ | == Late response to {{u|Grapple X}} == | ||
⚫ | In response to on March 26, {{u|Grapple X}}, the editor who opposed the article's last and second to last FACs required of me an independent editor to go through all of the sources (which he said explicitly at the ]). That's clearly not practical, even though another editor concurred in the last one that there needs to be a "concerted effort" to address the former editor's points. I don't have or own any print source, I used Google Book's preview/search engine for all of them. I can transcribe some of them in their entirety, as I was able to do with for the ''Detroit Metro Times'' review by Kofi Natambu. I successfully went through a source check of print sources at my last FAC (for ]), so I don't feel there shouldn't be more good faith afforded to me this time around. ] (]) 04: |
||
== FA congratulations == | == FA congratulations == | ||
Line 30: | Line 26: | ||
:::::: Done, in "Legacy..." so it flows with the prose better. ] (]) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | :::::: Done, in "Legacy..." so it flows with the prose better. ] (]) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | == Late response to {{u|Grapple X}} == | ||
== ABB genres == | |||
⚫ | In response to on March 26, {{u|Grapple X}}, the editor who opposed the article's last and second to last FACs required of me an independent editor to go through all of the sources (which he said explicitly at the ]). That's clearly not practical, even though another editor concurred in the last one that there needs to be a "concerted effort" to address the former editor's points. I don't have or own any print source, I used Google Book's preview/search engine for all of them. I can transcribe some of them in their entirety, as I was able to do with for the ''Detroit Metro Times'' review by Kofi Natambu. I successfully went through a source check of print sources at my last FAC (for ]), so I don't feel there shouldn't be more good faith afforded to me this time around. ] (]) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
Greetings, Dan56. It appears that you're interested in the subject of music genres for the Allman Brothers Band. If so, feel free to participate in the discussion at ]. Thanks. <font face="cursive">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></font> 21:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:23, 2 May 2014
Status: Unknown
This is Teflon Peter Christ's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,307 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be).
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
FAC comment?
Hey, Jerome Kohl, Since you enlightened me about citation consistency at my previous FAC for Misterioso, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing that aspect of my latest FAC for Marquee Moon? The FAC is here. Dan56 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Marquee Moon – additional citations
Hi Dan, great work on unquestionably one of the great albums of the punk/post-punk/new wave era. Going by their UK chart entry dates, I would say that the singles "Marquee Moon" and "Prove It" were released in March and July 1977 respectively. I can probably find exact release dates for these and the album itself (at least in the UK) when I visit the British Library in a month or two to have a look at their back copies of UK music magazines: I'm currently working on trying to get what I consider to be some of the key singles and albums from 1975 to 1985 up to or close to GA status over the next year or two, so I trawl through the magazines quite frequently (I currently have about 70 singles and 30 albums on my 'to do' list – I wanted to concentrate on these as this seems to be the era of music most overlooked by Misplaced Pages: classic 60s and 70s rock has any number of articles and books already written about it that can be used as sources, and music since 2000 has plenty of information available on the internet).
- Those dates would be useful, Richard3120. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that Marquee Moon was also voted number one album of 1977 by the critics of Sounds? I can try and get issue dates for this and the NME critics list while I am at the BL. I can also try and look for the original album reviews from February 1977 – as the album was well received and sold relatively well in the UK, it might be a good idea to include some UK reviews in the 'Critical reception' section to give some colour to the British response to the record. Many apologies if my assumption here is incorrect, but as the majority of reviews in the article are from US magazines I assumed you were American, and therefore you don't have such easy access to British sources.
- The Sounds list and issue would be very useful, although NME's ranking is included already in #Critical reception. I don't think sources touching on the album's reception (like the 33⅓ book or other retrospective books) made a distinction between the critical reception in the US vs. the UK, although Hi-Fi News & Record Review, NME, and Gramophone's reviews are included. I'm American, but I really rely on GoogleBooks' preview for sources either way and rarely have print sources on hand or go to libraries for them. I've heard that Rock's Backpages is a good archival source, but I don't have access. There are five US reviews and four UK reviews in the section, but I would consider adding another UK review if it's from a really notable critic or publication like Q or something. All things considered though, I think the points of praise most critics had for the album are established by the section as it is. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I also have a copy of Fear of Music: The 261 Greatest Albums Since Punk and Disco, a book by British journalist Garry Mulholland listing what he considers to be the key albums from 1976 to 2003. It includes Marquee Moon – do you think any of his quotes about the album would be useful to include in the 'Legacy and influence' section for the article? Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be interested in his quotes on the album. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll see what I can find and collect together and send it on to you in due course, and then you can decide what you would like to use in the article. What I meant by the NME critics list was a proper citation for the issue date in which it was published (almost certainly the last issue of December 1977, but I'd have to check to make sure). Rock's Backpages is an impressive collection of articles and interviews, the trouble is that unless you have access to it by being a member of an academic institution, it costs a fortune to subscribe as a private individual. So what I do is search RBP for articles on the subjects I'm researching, note the publication and issue date, and then go and look for the actual copy in the British Library, which doesn't cost me anything to be a member of. Richard3120 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's awesome! Btw, Richard3120, do you support the article is it is for FA or are there more things that could be improved or raised? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to support it, I don't think there's anything I could personally add to the album's history! I'll write a line to that effect on the FA nomination. One thing I have just thought of is the album's release history: as this basically only consists of the original 1977 release, the first CD release in the late 80s, the 2003 remastered CD and the 2012 remastered LP, there probably isn't a need for a separate section for this, but maybe a line either in the lead section or in 'Recording' to say that it was reissued in 2003 with bonus tracks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's awesome! Btw, Richard3120, do you support the article is it is for FA or are there more things that could be improved or raised? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll see what I can find and collect together and send it on to you in due course, and then you can decide what you would like to use in the article. What I meant by the NME critics list was a proper citation for the issue date in which it was published (almost certainly the last issue of December 1977, but I'd have to check to make sure). Rock's Backpages is an impressive collection of articles and interviews, the trouble is that unless you have access to it by being a member of an academic institution, it costs a fortune to subscribe as a private individual. So what I do is search RBP for articles on the subjects I'm researching, note the publication and issue date, and then go and look for the actual copy in the British Library, which doesn't cost me anything to be a member of. Richard3120 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Done, in "Legacy..." so it flows with the prose better. Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Late response to Grapple X
In response to your message on March 26, Grapple X, the editor who opposed the article's last and second to last FACs required of me an independent editor to go through all of the sources (which he said explicitly at the last one). That's clearly not practical, even though another editor concurred in the last one that there needs to be a "concerted effort" to address the former editor's points. I don't have or own any print source, I used Google Book's preview/search engine for all of them. I can transcribe some of them in their entirety, as I was able to do with this one for the Detroit Metro Times review by Kofi Natambu. I successfully went through a source check of print sources at my last FAC (for this article), so I don't feel there shouldn't be more good faith afforded to me this time around. Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)