Talk:Extraordinary Machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Extraordinary Machine was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
December 28, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
January 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
January 17, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>[edit]

  • All song titles serve as redirects to this album or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it truly relevant that Jon Brion broke up with his girlfriend? It appears to be entirely out of place in this article. --mkb218

Since it was Brion's breakup that led to him persuading Apple to make the album, I think it's part of the album's lore. I've clarified a little. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Jazz?[edit]

I think that putting Extraordinary Machine in the Jazz genre is a stretch. If you want to get into the murky waters of genre designation, the bootlegs are more pop orchestral a la Sgt Pepper with some classical flourishes, and there is even less of a case for a Jazz designation from the sounds of the re-recordings. I think Pop is all that is needed.--Weebot 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read several reviews describing Extraordinary Machine as jazzy, although looking closer, they seemed to be referring to the title track rather than the whole album. Extraordinary Machine 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Tracks[edit]

Here and in other articles (specifically, in the bootleg review by pitchforkmedia) I read that tracks 1 & 12 weren't reworked. While it's true for "Waltz," "Extraordinary Machine" has a re-recorded vocal track, which would be important to note. Red Plum 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Extraordinary Machine: If you are going to make a track category, maybe you want to move the quotes about the different tracks from the Leak category and into the Tracks category. Otherwise it is rather redundant. Another idea: may I suggest a "Reception" sub-category for Leak? It would be a way of organizing the review quotes you've been pulling and maybe putting a bit more structure to this fast expanding article.--Weebot 03:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think inserting a "Reception" section into the "Delays and leaked tracks" section would interrupt the flow of the article. As for the quotes that are already in the first two sections of the article, they seem to be describing more what the songs sound like than what the lyrics are about, which is what I intended the "tracks" section to detail. Extraordinary Machine 13:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of quotes, thinning the article of them would be a good idea as some of the people on the peer review already pointed out. Reading through it, the quotes make the article sound rather clunky. That's not to say get rid of all of them, but some areas such as the last paragraph of Delays and Leaked Tracks and the Tracks section would benefit greatly from a rewrite. As for the Reception, there was also another reason that struck me after I had written it: all the reviews you cite within the article are uniformily positive, and while this may slide by unnoticed for a canonical album (Sgt. Pepper or Pet Sounds, say), Extraordinary Machine isn't there yet. The article reads lop-sided at best and fannish (and possibly crossing the NPOV policy) at worst. Admittedly, while most of the reviews for the bootleg Extraordinary Machine were positive, this wasn't universally so. You may want to look for some mixed or contrarian reviews about the bootleg (one from the Village Voice[1], for a starters). That the only negative quote I could find is in regards to the re-recorded album is a bit telling (even though I don't expect the official EM to be as well recieved, at least from the sounds of what I've heard). A reception subsection for the bootleg would be one possible avenue to allow you to skirt that issue by giving those review quotes a context.--Weebot 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard CD format[edit]

The EM discs being sold in my area (Pacific Northwest) have a label to the effect that they aren't standard CD format, and may not work in some players. Does anyone know whether this prevents listening to the album on an MP3 player? -- 70.203.98.7 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm...seriously?[edit]

Nice job with this article, EM. You've written a very (overly?) detailed thesis on your namesake. However, The editors' choices for album reviews are a bit....suspect. Mainly the way pitchfork's critique is presented. The scores given were 7.8/10 and 6.2/10. Something's amiss. See, I don't know how to make a 7.8/10 - a 78%, into a 3.5/4 - about 88%. Why out of four in the article? Why not give the score out of ten, as was intended? Why not include the PFM score of 6.2/10 for the real release? Could the general love of the editors for this album lead to their falsification of the scores? (Also, the PFM score is 3.1 out of 4 for the bootleg, 2.5 out of four for the official.)

It's an honest mistake. The review score added is actually for the single "Not About Love", not the whole album. I'll update the article accordingly. It's good to assume good faith in these kinds of situations. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, I don't think reviews of the Jon Brion sessions bootleg should be included, as they don't seem to be accepted as a reflection of the final product by either Brion or Apple. But if those reviews are included, then they should at least note that the bootleg was being reviewed. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright. It looks like that the bootleg release reviews are properly marked, but there are more reviews for the bootleg release than the original one and it seems kind of confusing (I got confused too) that they're first in the review order. There should really be more reviews of the final release on there than there are for the bootleg release. I'm taking the review of the single off and making the proper changes. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Also, in an Entertainment Weekly article, Fiona said that the Internet leaking of the songs actually screwed her over contractually and made the release of Extraordinary Machine more difficult than it would have been. 70.137.141.126 01:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

As part of fixing up GA tags for WP:UCGA, I saw that this article has some issues that could possibly delist it from a GA, but they're easy to fix. Most of the references (not the ones cited inline) should be converted to inline references unless they apply to the overall topic of the article (most of the titles do not suggest that). Also, some references are not correctly formated using WP:CITET. I don't think these are hard to correct and recommend doing so.--Masem 13:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonus Tracks[edit]

In previous versions of this article two bonus tracks from the Japanese CD were listed, they were deleted a while ago. Is there some reason for this cause they were correct.--lironhallak 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Extraordinary Machine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

  • Lead: The article's lead is only one paragraph and does not adequately summarize the entire 2,600-word article. In particular, there's very little on development and nothing on release and critical reception.
  • Referencing/Verifiability: Large swaths of the article are apparently unreferenced. Ex:
    • "By late 2002 Apple, Brion, engineer Tom Biller and percussionist Matt Chamberlain were at work in a wing of the Paramour Mansion, which was built in 1923 by silent film star Antonio Moreno; the four used the building as a temporary residence from early 2003, and Chamberlain said the experience of recording there was "completely amazing". With the album half complete in April 2003, Brion, Apple and Biller worked at Cello Studios, and a new release date of July 22 was announced. Brion and Apple then travelled to England later that month, to record strings and orchestration for the songs at Abbey Road Studios in London. The album was completed from Brion's perspective by May 2003, at which point the release was pushed back to September 30. But by Fall 2003 Apple and Brion were back in the recording studio adding finishing touches to the album, thus forcing back the release date to February 2004 (this was later changed to "early 2004")."
    • The above is but one of many sections that need additional referencing.
    • Why is there a link[2] to a (now non-existent) copyright violation?
    • "Early album cover art. It is believed the plant on the cover is an Agapanthus"—original research much?
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
      • [3][4][5][6] (considering many of them are deadlinks now, they should be removed anyhow; please check the rest of the article for deadlinks as well.)
    • Why are the citations split into a bizarre mix of notes and refs? Everything must be inline cited, and the use of only month and years for some magazine cites (Spin, February 2004) is not good enough. All the citations should be consistently formatted, preferably with {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, et al., and there should be a article-wide consistency in how things are cited.
    • Why are there a bunch of reviews to the bootleg release? Either they are important enough to mention in the article or they should be axed entirely. Why is [7] an external link? What about [8]? The external links section needs major cleanup.
    • "A minority of publications commented less favourably about the album"—original research.
  • Images/media: File:ExtraordinaryCvr.jpg is redundant with File:Extraordinary Machine.jpg and should be removed. (By the way, the cover art was badly compressed. A smaller-resolution, less lossy copy would be superior and still in keeping with WP:NFCC. File:Better Version Of Me.ogg and File:A Better Version Of Me.ogg have poor fair use rationales, and there is no substantial critical commentary in the article to warrant their appearance.
  • Prose: Overall, decent enough.
  • Comprehensiveness: Sections of the article, particularly critical reception, are underdeveloped and/or now outdated ("As of April 19..." of what year?) You have a bunch of reviews in the infobox cluttering up the article, but don't use half of them.

Given the above issues, I believe that this article currently fails criterion 1b, 2, 3, and 6. Given that a near-complete overhaul of the referencing system is required, and that the entire article needs to be rechecked to ensure that cites are supporting information given, I am boldly delisting this article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time, but I strongly suggest dealing with the above issues before then. If there are any questions or comments, they should be directed to my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Extraordinary Machine. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Former references section[edit]

This were listed on the page, largely outdated and unusable.

References[edit]

Vinyl, release section?[edit]

I think I saw on Facebook that this album was re-issued in vinyl. Perhaps this article needs a release history section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Extraordinary Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)