Talk:Weezer (1994 album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Weezer (1994 album) 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.
September 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Pedal question[edit]

why is the fuzzy bass mentioned if it's not added through a pedal? --liam 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]

I'm having this go through a Good article review User:cowbellcity45

Hi cowbell. I think you were looking for Wikipedia:Good article candidates. At Good Article reviews we re-review old GA and disputed GAs to see if they still fit the criteria. To get an article granted GA status, you should go to the candidates page. I know the name is confusing, we're probably gonna change that soon. So in the meantime I hope you don't mind me taking the Weezer listing off the review page. Good luck though. Drewcifer 05:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. / edg 06:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude User: cowbellcity45 Aug 31, 2007 15:02

Singles[edit]

I removed it because it is just a copied and pasted from the Weezer article. I also moved the information about My evaline and Mykel and Carli to the discography pages.

Rating[edit]

I've assessed the article as B as it contains an impressive array of references. It has a slightly stubby feel in places, and, as someone identified, lacks a reception section. For future reference, GAC is not the place to request a rating: it's the place for good article candidates. One of the easiest ways to request a rating is to blank the rating field in the project templates. Good luck with it. The JPStalk to me 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixes needed: a couple of MOS problems. Album and magazine titles should be italicised. I'd merge the first two reception sections into one: usually best to avoid sections of only one paragraph. Consider, also, writing the most notable awards/accolades into prose. Good work, though. The JPStalk to me 07:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

An excellent all round article, I've passed it. Here are some suggestions on moving towards FA.

  • The lead could do with refs - it's optional, but I advise it.
  • IGN professional review should use the review template (rather then (9.0/10)).
  • [1] - Where's the review?
  • You don't really need a section on the band's history - save that for their article.
  • All URLs accessed on February 5, 2007 UTC - Add this to the accessdate parameter in {{cite web}} instead.
  • Album section - Put the refs over the numbers, it looks better.
  • I don't think you need charting for singles - save that for their articles.

Anyways, congrats on the GA! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay!  cowbellcity45   talk  05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

B side (Mykel and Carli)[edit]

The B sides information was removed. Has it been moved somewhere I'm not finding? I feel this is important information.B sides 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Mykel and Carli Ozmaweezer 14:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Allmusic review[edit]

"The album was well received by critics on its release,[27] Allmusic gave the album 5 stars explaining..." The allmusic review was written in retrospect, not at the album release, so it doesn't belong in the initial reception section. Rm999 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Allmusic review also states that it wasn't universally well-regarded, which contradicts the statement "well received by critics on its release". The Christgau Consumer Guide Review rating is neutral with no prose, which is certainly not positive. -- J. Wong (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Article detailing the creation of the cover art[edit]

Here's a really thorough write-up about the creation of the cover art. If someone is interested, this would be a good addition to the article. One note that might not be clear on the first read, is that the art was insipired by the cassette cover of the Beach Boy's Do it Again compilation, not the LP version, and not the song "Do It Again". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)