[go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Pablo Honey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidatePablo Honey is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articlePablo Honey has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPablo Honey is part of the Radiohead studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 23, 2024Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Recording date

[edit]

Hey @Popcornfud:, mind helping me with something? I can't seem to find a source for the recording date "September–November 1992". I looked in liner notes and sources and can't seem to find anything. Any ideas? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm not sure where those dates came from — I'll have a dig around in sources and report back. Popcornfud (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I consulted a few sources but couldn't find any dates provided anywhere. I'll update the article if I find anything. In the meantime probably best to remove the claim to avoid risk of WP:CITEGENESIS. Popcornfud (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found an AllMusic archive but not sure I would trust it... Especially since WP:RSP says not to trust genre listings — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Pablo Honey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PerfectSoundWhatever (talk · contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! I'm Sam, aka The Sharpest Lives. I decided to review this article because I love radiohead and hope that this can reach GA, maybe even FA status. I'll get started on the review soon, probably around tomorrow. – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to place this on hold. Below you can see my suggestions, and once they are addressed I will feel ready to promote the article. Good job! – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 20:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the article, I am ready to pass this. Time for a good topic! PS I found a source for the {{cn}} tag. – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Excellent lead Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Seems to follow MOS to me. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Comments below Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Nothing appears to be OR Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyvios detected Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Check Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) It goes into excellent detail. What a read! Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No exceptional claims or anything non-neutral sounding Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) I checked on the album cover NFUR, it's all correct. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Check!

Background

[edit]

Release and promotion

[edit]

Critical reception & Legacy

[edit]
  • Each review listed in the {{Music ratings}} template should have its own mention in the prose as well. Calgary Herald and Select are examples of reviews lacking prose. – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 18:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First I've heard of this idea. Is this stipulated in a guideline somewhere? Popcornfud (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I based it off of the info on the template page, which says "The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other numeric score." I assumed this applied to all reviews, but feel free to object. – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 03:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a beneficial thing to do, but I would guess that most agree it's not a requirement to pass the GA criteria. I've found a text copy of the Calgary Herald source on ProQuest. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fair. My only other comment left open is the first under "Release and promotion".– The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 05:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks to @User:PerfectSoundWhatever and @The Sharpest Lives for your recent excellent work improving this article, particularly in the thoroughness of identifying faulty sources. I think those were mainly my fault — I haven't checked the history but I think I just copy-pasted over some claims + sources from the main Radiohead article, which had been there for years before I ever arrived, without verifying them first. That creates opportunity to improve the Radiohead page too, so nice work all round. Popcornfud (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! And thank you for your excellent work on so many Radiohead articles! – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it! Thanks for your work on the article and succinct copyedits PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Itch

[edit]

I've been reminded by some recent edits that the Itch EP exists. It was released in Japan (and maybe New Zealand?) and compiles some of the Pablo Honey songs. It doesn't require its own page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itch (EP)) as it appears to be barely recognized, but it would be good to mention in a sentence on this article, if anyone can find a single reliable source for it. (I can't.) Popcornfud (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, if you'd like a source. – The Sharpest Lives (💬✏️ℹ️) 06:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did find that too, but I'm not sure it's usable. It has a rating but no review or description, so we can't use it to say what the EP actually is or what it contains. It also claims it was recorded in Metro, Chicago, IL... Popcornfud (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a passing mention in Malay Mail, 2004. [1]
"Gaining complexity after experimenting with a few EPs in between (1994's Itch and My Iron Lung), the highly successful and complex The Bends was released in 1995."PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hmm, still not really enough I think... it doesn't tell us what the EP contained or what it was. I think if we only mention that it was released, with no further detail, that will be more confusing than if we don't mention it at all.
I'm surprised that seemingly this EP by a major band isn't even notable enough for a sentence, let alone an article. Popcornfud (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]