Talk:Are You Experienced/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll start adding comments soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a rarely used (because few know about it) infobox parameter for alternate album covers, see for example Time and a Word and Blind Faith (Blind Faith album). FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and that's what was there before, but it created what was IMO an unsightly column, and since the US cover is discussed in great detail in the album cover section, I thought it would be nice to have it there. Having the US cover further down in the article also staggers the images, which were otherwise clumped at the top. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was thinking, and it's up to you. But in a sense, the US cover is as "valid" as the UK one, which would warrant appearing there, but not important.

How about a sample from a single?
- Will do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it could be nice with a year for when the "500 greatest" ratings were published.
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest CD versions (maybe all?) have all the songs from both the UK and US versions, shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps under tracklisting?
- Is this enough detail, because my thinking on CDs is that they are yet another dying format, and since we don't detail track listings on cassette tapes or 8-tracks I view this as excess detail. You could convince me otherwise. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think other details about the CD version, like first release, length, etc., would warrant mention as well.
- See above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Impressed with Hendrix's version of the song" What version? Did he record a demo, or did he just play for him?
- Clarified? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about background and recording in the lead, though this is the bulk of the article. Or cover and music/lyrics, for that matter. Yet the lead should be a summary of the entire article.
- Great point. I expanded the lead. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If room becomes and issue in the lead, I'd cut out one (orboth) of the quotes instead. The Rolling Stones quote is particularly hard to read, because it is snipped, but they both have this problem.
- Done. I'd prefer to retain the other quote for now, but I'll look for a suitable replacement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the lead seems like it should be merged with the one below. It is a bit weird hanging alone as it does. For example "and launched him as a new international star" would fit better after "The album was a critical and commercial success,".
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The fifth and final song recorded at CBS was "Red House".[36] Omitted from the American version of the album, the track would not see an official release in US until the 1969 compilation, Smash Hits.[36] An unusual feature of the recording is that it does not contain a bass guitar track; Redding instead played rhythm guitar with his equalization set strongly in favor of bass tones.[37] It is the only original twelve-bar blues written by Hendrix.[38]" The recording section doesn't go that much into detail about such aspects of other songs, maybe much of this belongs under music? There may be other examples of this (too much musical detail under recording).
- Moved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the replication of the which caused Mitchell some consternation" What?
- Clarified? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Egan described the track as "a psychedelic extravaganza" He has only been mentiond once long before this point, perhaps mention he is an author again? Not sure, I was confused when I got to that point.
- Removed. I think it redundant with stuff that comes later anyway. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should The Breakaways be mentioned under personnel?
- Added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The External Link seems a bit shady.
- Removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"number fifteen on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time." This is not in the article, only the lead. Everything should be in the article as well.
- Its in Reception and legacy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It only says "they ranked it the 15th greatest album of all time", no mention of "500 Greatest Albums".

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On December 13, 1966, the band made their television debut, on Britain's Ready Steady Go!" This note seems significant enough to go in the article, especially since other TV performances are mentioned as well.
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox image may need a new fair use template, the one used is ancient (2006).
- Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mitchell's exceptional drumming" Loaded.
- Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Third Stone from the Sun" is about..." Since there are no lyrics, could the article explain where the supposed story comes from?
- Does this help: "The track contains no proper vocals, instead using spoken words played at half-speed to invoke images of interstellar space travel.[125]"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is that there is no indication of how we know there even is a story. Who claims this is the story?

Fixed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, apart from two or so issues I've expanded upon, all looks good.FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I've addressed everything, but please correct me if I missed something. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, seems I'll have to pass it then!FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (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.