Talk:Coltrane for Lovers

Prestige LP

Note that Prestige released an LP, "Coltrane Plays for Lovers." This is a collection of (previously released) Prestige material, hence has none of the material on the CD. However, this might cause some confusion. Impulse did put out a similar collection, "The Gentle Side of John Coltrane," although it also had a different playlist.

Not sure if any of this should be in the article.Editor437 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image-Rehabilitation Program

Not sure if this is quite the case -- it seems to be only the cited-article's opinion - not Coltrane or Impulse's. Lewis Porter's biography (see esp. page 196) says it has more to do with mouthpiece problems than the need to become "commercial."Editor437 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Irregular formatting

This article does not utilize proper formatting in the infobox according to the standards of its primary wikiproject. The proper formatting for reviews is:

• Allmusic link

This article has been altered to this:

• Allmusic

While "citeweb" is quite useful for citing facts within an article, this does not conform to project standards. See here for more. Additionally, when listing this particular source in articles, there is a template for the purpose, which can be found at {{allmusic}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dan56 A good article, The Documentary, features citations instead of links for the professional reviews section of the infobox. Why?

The article passed on October 31 2007. It was done correctly then. Improper formatting wasn't introduced in that article until this edit, in February of 2008. Since the editor who did it didn't explain why in an edit summary, I have no idea why he or she did it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

• This is not my usual hang-out, but I just wanted to note, as I have addressed on the talk page, that the infobox does not conform to project standards for formatting of reviews. I have pointed out the difference at the article talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• There should be a Reception section.
• Can a Production section be added/expanded in the article?
• Break up General and Specific references in the " References" section with subheadings using ;General formatting.
• "See also" section goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT.
• Use en dashes for date ranges, like in the infobox, per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there has been no discussion from the article's editors here and some of the issues remain unresolved, and in addition, 7 days have passed, this article has failed. Gary King (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coltrane for Lovers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will start reviewing now. Updates will be posted soon I hope. So#Why ^{review me!} 08:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, a couple of things:

• The first review remarks "Can a Production section be added/expanded in the article?" - as far as I can see it, the History-section is today still more or less the same as it was on June 26th - why was that ignored?
• It is generally assumed that the clinching reason Coltrane signed with Impulse! was that it would enable him to work again with recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder, who had taped his Prestige sessions, as well as Blue Train. — This sentence is not as such supported by the source specified[1]. It needs a better source that this was really the reason why Coltrane signed with Impulse, the source only states that Van Gelder worked on the album "Blue Train", but nothing more.
• The next sentence, It was at Van Gelder's new studio in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey that Coltrane would record most of his records for the label, including the recordings featured on Coltrane for Lovers., needs a source.
• I am uncomfortable with this sentence: Shortly after, Coltrane would return to a more experimental phase, releasing Impressions in 1963 and A Love Supreme in 1965, but it would be these recordings that would give John Coltrane a place in romantic jazz. — I think it sounds like an opinion and you should provide a source saying so.
• I do not think Amazon.com reviews is a reliable source for a claim like "[...] becoming one the most popular of Verve's For Lovers albums." There should be a source from the label confirming this claim.
• Fix this sentence please: Another Verve compilation of Coltrane ballads, entitled More Coltrane for Lovers, followed in 2005, which was also followed by a similar compilation, entitled Plays for Lovers, by Prestige in 2003. — An album released in 2003 cannot follow one released in 2005
• The "Charts"-section is not helpful in it's current state. I would suggest expansion with maybe charts in other countries to make it less US-biased or having it as 2-3 sentences so it just looks better. Expansion would be better though.
• Maybe add some more categories if it makes sense, "jazz albums" or such like. That's just a suggestion tho.

Well, that's all I could find for now. I will put it on hold now until this has been fixed. It looks good otherwise imho. Please write into my list above when you did fix something and if possible and not too tedious, do so with a editing diff (e.g. ":Fixed by adding source (diff)). So#Why ^{review me!} 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any more information on production. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. I struck everything I think was fixed from my above list. I still think the Amazon.com-"source" needs to be replaced and the "Charts"-section expanded or reworded. SoWhy ^{review me!} 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the Amazon.com source, reworded the chart history section, and added another category. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; Y (as far as I can see) and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Y (appears to be the case)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Y

   (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); Y and

   (c) it contains no original research. Y (none I could find)

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Y and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y (the main contributor could use the preview button more often to avoid unnecessary revisions but no content disputes)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; Y and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Y

As far as I can judge it, this article now passes these criteria. Will promote it to GA. SoWhy 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coltrane for Lovers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917150132/http://www.nea.gov/national/jazz/jmCMS/master.php?id=2009_05 to http://www.nea.gov/national/jazz/jmCMS/master.php?id=2009_05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Coltrane for Lovers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)