I put the tag a while time ago, probably on a hunt for spam in technology related articles. There were and are still multiple issues with the history section. It is long (too long), has tons of red links, and used to have tons of external links in the text that should be either removed, changed to wikilinks when possible, or made into references (cites) when appropriate.
First and foremost, I would recommend a big trim. It appears common in articles on recent and emerging technologies that a history section is made up with relatively recent news (often company X made up product A, then company Y developped product B, country Z started using tech C, company X release A 2.0, etc) that just pile up over time without much consideration to what is really historically significant. I am no expert on internet radio, but someone with deeper knowledge of the subject should be able to summarize all this info to the essential breakthroughs and developments. Once that trim is done, the red links (either removed or new articles should be written for them), external links and citation issues should be much easier to fix.--Boffob (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you've been spending a lot of time editing the internet radio article. You might want to consider joining WikiProject Radio or WikiProject Internet culture. Just a suggestion! ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. I think of my page and signature as more "clean" than "drab". While I probably wouldn't turn down userboxes or a sig, I really am OK with the plainness of what I have. SlubGlub (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try to reword/find citations to tone-down more of these rather nebulous descriptions of his style. I can see why editors have used these descriptions, though, in seeking to convey the subjective shock of the extremity of his best playing. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know that Radioist (talk · contribs) has decided to open a case with the Mediation Cabal here. I can't imagine why, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to contact you at any point. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, I probably know as much about mediation cases as you do, seeing as I've never been involved in one myself. My general advice to you would be to lay out the reasons why the case is invalid and incorrect (remembering to assume good faith) and then just let the thing play itself out as it usually would. Seeing as you've done nothing wrong, I wouldn't worry about it. You do good work (I watch the Internet radio article, and every edit you've made to it has been quality and improved the article significantly). If you focus on that, the rest will take care of itself. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for raising the "peacock" element with respect to the Prakash John article...which seems to be based primarily on a biography by Prakash John. It seems to me that many of your concerns have been addressed now (not by me), so I am wondering if the peacock caution should now be removed (by you). The lack of reference caution should stay, in my view.
Sorry, I forgot to sign in first.
Ray Parker, Jr. page
First, thank you for your edits. I take it that you are a common user who is familiar with this. I am a new user whose sources of updated information came from interviews shared with the public by Ray Parker, Jr. His original page sadly lacked updates as any musician should receive when new information becomes public so in gathering information about him and attempting to stay within Wikipedia guidelines, I have sources that I placed in however, there are still the warnings. Would you be kind enough to help me do what needs to be done in order for the page not to be deleted and it can stay 'verifiable'? Thank you.
- If you read through WP:CITE, you will probably learn everything you need to know to properly cite things in the article. Many of the items in the External Links section would probably be better as citations for specific facts in the article. Good luck! (I don't think you need to worry about the page itself being deleted. Ray Parker, Jr. is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an entry. Still, the page could definitely stand some improvement and I encourage you to do whatever you are able and willing to make it better.) SlubGlub (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Please re-visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nap#Merger_proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. It seems odd that he's not mentioned in any of the Thin Lizzy books or anywhere else that I've seen, especially as Thin Lizzy usually made a point of crediting everyone. It does need a better source than that though, I'll have another root around and see if I can find his name anywhere. Uncredited musicians do need careful sourcing though, to avoid the inevitable IP putting his own name down as a session musician on his favourite album... Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh, scrap that.. hahah. I've just found a brief mention in one of the books - I'll re-add it with a ref. Thanks for prompting that little nugget of info. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You have earned
Hotel California: section Harmonic Structure
The first statement about native chords is virtually a direct quote. The statement appears in the Chord Patterns section in between the verse and chorus breakdowns. The exact quote is:
- Though this sequence sounds pleasing and self-evident, at first sight it does not show any traces of any known progression. Moreover, the chords of F# Major and E Major are not native to the key of B Natural Minor. - Tillekens
Admittedly this made me think twice myself because the notes E and F♯ are part of the B minor scale. So the root notes of the chords belong to the scale, but we are talking about the chords of E Major and F♯ Major and their relation to the key of B minor. In the key of B minor, the common chord progressions do not have E Major and F♯ Major in them. For example, a common B minor chord progression would be Bm-Em-F♯m (i-iv-v), not Bm-E-F♯ (i-IV-V) as this would be very unusual. So it is E minor and F♯ minor that are native chords in B minor. When the chords Emaj and F♯maj do appear in a song in B minor, they are considered borrowed chords, not native chords.
The other statement in question was paraphrased from the the same source. Exact wording below:
- The actual construction of the song started with guitarist Don Felder supplying the rough guitar track with the song's main chord progression, that still easily can be extracted from the final result. Behind all the polish and power of competing electric and acoustic guitars, lies an intriguing harmonic framework of seven different chords, fraught in a peculiar progression. It proves to be an easy starter for the beginning guitarist, but — as we shall see — a riddle for the musicological analyst. - Tillekens
So in either case it wasn't original research on my part. However, you do raise a good point as far as appropriateness for inclusion. To be honest, I had questioned myself if the entire section is appropriate for the article, which is why I linked the proposed section at the talk page for a couple weeks before going live. I got no feedback at all, so I just went ahead added the section.
Since you have at least shown enough interest to edit the section and have a critical eye for it, I would like to take this oppotunity to ask your opinion if the section deserves to remain in the article at all, or would it be best deleted entirely?
- First, apologies, that I called it WP:OR. I guess I didn't check the source nearly as carefully as I should have.
- To say that the chords cannot be built from the notes in the B-natural minor scale is true, but unremarkable. (And, of course, it's the reason that we have harmonic minor and melodic minor scales.) The list of songs in a minor key that have a major IV is probably comparable to the ones that have a minor IV chord. And the compositions and songs in a minor key that have a major V chord would vastly outnumber the ones that have a minor V chord. (For one thing, that list would include nearly every minor key blues and minor key show tune ever written.) I took "not native" to mean "unusual", and perhaps that was the key error on my part.
- I also think the statement that the harmonic progression is a riddle for musicologists is incorrect. But my opinion doesn't trump published reliable resources, obviously.
- As for whether or not the section belongs in the article at all, I had thoughts along those lines too, but decided to be surgical instead. Happy to look over the section and look over the source or sources and weigh in on the talk page. Thanks for taking the time to write. SlubGlub (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. Couple things to point out. There is only one source I used. I don't know if there are others that support or refute all this. You are probably correct that the use of the major IV and major V in minor keys is not at all unusual as the statement implies and the rarity of it was not something I had even considered. As far as the progression being a riddle...well, this relates to why I created the section in the first place. Compared to the reletively few pieces of music I play on guitar or piano, the chord structure of "Hotel" as always intrigued me. At least for a rock song, it stikes me as unusual. I don't know of another rock or pop tune that begins with seven different consecutive chords. It's remarkable that they flow so naturally together and I wonder why I know of no other songs that have the same or similar chord pattern. Perhaps there are many and I just don't know. If the section doesn't really describe anything that unusual or notable regarding the structure, then I would be all for deleting it. Of course the same would be true for individual statements within the section. If a characteristic of the harmonic structure really isn't all that surprising, then i would be OK with removing it. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi SlubGlub, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)