Talk:Out of Reach (album)

Out of Reach (album) 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
February 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Assessment

Just been improving this article. I think it fits the start-class stage now.--HisSpaceResearch 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I's say I think, given the work I've now done on it, that it's B-class, albeit a very short B-class given that there isn't really all that much I can say about this album.--HisSpaceResearch 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be able to get this album to GA status, but I don't think there is enough information about it in existence to make that possible. Anyone got an opinion? --HisSpaceResearch 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other concern I have about it not being up to GA status (besides length as I just mentioned) is a fairly minor one about reliable sources. I mean, George Starostin and Mark Prindle may not be professional music critics, but they're pretty damned close. I'm gonna try for GA anyway.--HisSpaceResearch 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the album itself

I feel the All Music Guide underrates the album. I rated it on Rate Your Music with 3.5 stars, and although critics have generally given it bad reviews, it'd be interesting to see an album that generally gets poor reviews achieve GA status.--HisSpaceResearch 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

This article is a very short one, but it does have a wealth of information about its subject. It is well-researched and referenced, and remains neutral. However, I would suggest that the citation in the first paragraph that substantiates the release date should be removed, that need not be referenced. Another picture also would not hurt. Overall, however, I feel that this article deserves GA.ErleGrey 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove that citation yourself, that's your choice if you feel it's appropriate. As for the picture, I can't find any pictures of the band around this stage. As I've stated in the article, this is probably their least known studio recording...--HisSpaceResearch 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References come after punctuation with no space [1]) should be )[1], References are also missing details such as publisher (website) date retrieved. The {{cite web}} can help with this. Also don't wikilink solo years such as 1997 M3tal H3ad 07:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use the cite web template.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first one for you. You can use that as an example to make the remaining. All the best. - Anas ^Talk? 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-Out of Reach (album cover).jpg

Image:Can-Out of Reach (album cover).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork Media review

[1] I'm posting it here as a possible source for the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"disowned"?

citation, please. in the past, the album has been passed-over for re-release, but where is the evidence that this was the band "disowning" it? it is now a part of the remastered vinyl collection (late 2013 release), so can we remove this unsubstantiated description?

duncanrmi (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Out of Reach (album). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080110132210/http://www.channel4.com:80/music/music-core/album.jsp?albumId=20625 to http://www.channel4.com/music/music-core/album.jsp?albumId=20625

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]