From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Backspacer 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 star Backspacer is part of the Pearl Jam 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
Date Process Result
August 9, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
June 17, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
July 26, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated GA-class, Low-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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I've not edited anything on here before, but there's an interview up with Kelly Curtis stating that one of the songs (possible first single) is called The Fixer - PrimalSurf (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move as the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Backspacer (Pearl Jam album)Backspacer — Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the other album of this name only has one real incoming link. The Pearl Jam album can then have a link to a disambig page for the tour and the Supergrove album. --Lugnuts (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Although I do not think a disamb link to the Backspacer Tour is necessary. indopug (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Pearl Jam gets over 1,000,000 ghits[1] compared to just a few hundred for Supergroove[2], clearly the primary topic. --JD554 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per above. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As the person who bifurcated these in the first place, it's clear that this has become the primary meaning of "Backspacer." Someone would be likely to expect this meaning, so it should be the main one. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference list[edit]

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure I always use {{References|2}}, but I'm not going to object to someone defining the size of the columns. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Could you tell me why you use {{Reflist|2}}? Just out of habit, or do you see any advantages using it compared to {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}? —bender235 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Widths I'm in favor of using relative widths so that users' browsers and preferences can determine how big something is. If you determine the width in ems (or pixels), then you are forcing others to conform to what you want them to have. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but that argument can be easily turned around. Because if you determine the number of columns, you're forcing this on others as well. But the problem here is that let's say three columns may look good on your screen, but awkward on a larger screen, and pretty much unreadable on a smaller screen (like a netbook or tablet). Using colwidth solves that problem, because you can determine on what width the refs look good. You might have all short refs (like here), so using colwidth=20em just fits, or you might have longer refs (like here), so it's better to use colwidth=45em. Using a fixed column set (like {{Reflist|3}}) would suit neither. —bender235 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh I'm not sure that I follow... Again, if you want to define the column width, that's fine with me--I certainly won't revert it (or if I do, it would only be because I'm kind of not paying attention in the future; it wouldn't be out of pettiness.) I don't mean to brush off your argument, either: you are clearly more invested in this than me and you've bothered to post to talk and explain your position. I have no substantial objection, so I say go for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk2me) 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria



  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

  • Include release date in "Release and reception" section
  • Put locations of studios in brackets as seen in California King Bed
  • According to WP:LEAD#Length, articles with more than 15,000 characters but less than 30,000 characters need a lead of two or three paragraphs
  • Expand lead section to include chart history, certifications, accolades, etc.
  • Backspacer is the ninth studio album by the American alternative rock band Pearl Jam, released on September 20, 2009. – Include release information at end of first paragraph
  • No issues
Music and lyrics
  • According to WP:SAMPLE#Guidelines, an audio sample should be less than 10% of original recording up to thirty seconds. "The Fixer" must be less than 17.7 seconds and about 64kbps in quality.
Release and reception
  • Those who purchase the Compact Disc... – "Compact Disc" does not need to be capitalized
  • ...where it holds an 79 after 24 reviews or "generally positive" reviews. – "...where it received a 79/100 on an average of 24 reviews, which indicated "generally positive" reviews."
  • Allmusic should not be in year-end chart if it did not rank at all
  • Album chart information should be in separate section; certification should be separate from charting info, but in same section
  • Try and rename the section to fit all details within it
  • On the cover and spine of the limited edition gatefold sleeve version, the "Backspacer" keys glow in the dark. – Should not be standalone sentence
  • Album artwork can have its own section while the album title could be in a "Background" section
  • Not all singles released from album have sources to validate information
Track listing
  • Sources are needed to validate all information in this section
  • Sources are needed to validate information
  • According to this, there are ten dead links and others with suspicious activity and connection issues.

Overall review[edit]

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to fail the article at this time. Here are the main reasons why:

  • MoS compliance with Lead: The article should have a two or three paragraph lead because it has between 15,000 and 30,000 characters, according to WP:LEAD#Length.
  • Accordance to music samples: Audio samples should be less than 10% of original recording up to thirty seconds, according to WP:SAMPLE#Guidelines.
  • Citations of reliable sources where necessary/No original research: There are some sections that do not contain sources, making it violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR
  • Reference usage: Ten references are dead links and others have suspicious activity and connection issues, making it violate WP:DEADREF.

It is in good faith that I believe this article does not meet the good article criteria to the point where it can not be fixed in the general seven days. Once you have addressed these issues, you are welcome to renominate. Rp0211 (talk2me) 02:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:PJ-TheFixer.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:PJ-TheFixer.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Burningclean (talk · contribs) 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly the only thing I see that need to be done is a little bit of rewording in the lead. "It was recorded across February 2009 and April 2009 with producer Brendan O'Brien—who was working with the band for the fourth time, and the first since 1998's Yield—on both Henson Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California and O'Brien's own Southern Tracks Recording in Atlanta, Georgia." That seems to be too long of a sentence. Split it into to or three if you could. And rather than "on both Henson Recording..." it should be "in both Henson..." Burningclean [speak] 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Note I informed the nominator that I would be willing to co-nominate, as I was the nominator on the first, failed GA. Also note that the main contributor to the article was User:-5-, who is no longer active on these topics, but whom I informed the first time around. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this quickly. Everything from the first nomination was addressed already, and my one concern was taken care of. This article came to GAN well prepared this time around. Burningclean [speak] 02:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Lugnuts (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)