Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 1

Recommended changes

1. Inline citations shouldn't be bulked together
2. Explain terms "arena rock", "hard rock", "glam rock", "heavy metal" and "progressive rock"
3. Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
4. Do not use terms such as " later in the article", either use "see below" or link
5. Explain the term, "commercial music video", explain that it means "music videos"
6. Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction

1. 1. Prose band members and "As instrumentalists" into paragraphs
   2. Replace terms such as "(e.g. "Sheer Heart Attack")", via prosing using words like "such as" or "including"
   3. Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
   4. When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
   5. Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
   6. Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
   7. This is a very poorly written section " he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part.[11]"

1. 1. 1. The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)
      2. Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
      3. Don't use words such as " kicked off".

(I'm not attempting to dig through this paragraph, I guess you can get the idea).

1. 1. 1. 1. Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
         2. Don't stockpile inline links.

Further Points

1. Convert chart numbers into a wikitable
2. Remove "fansite links", example "one of the biggest Queen sites "

This article still has a long while to go, but keep working! --Highway 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestions...you do makes some good points. I'll try to improve the grammar. Some of those mistakes are accidental; people do occasionally come and add personal fansites that I miss. I do disagree with you on a few points - it would be inappropriate to add the definitions of "glam rock" to the Queen article, for example. TheImpossibleMan 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial comment

I started this article and I would like to share my plans and ask for your comments. I am a Queen fan, but I believe I can be objective.
- I think that since this is a general encyclopedia, the only song that should have a separate entry is Bohemian Rhapsody. So, if nobody objects, I shall remove links to any other individual song entry in a few days' time.
- Separate entries for all four members are coming soon.
- I will write a short history of the group (a few lines), but I need some time. After all it must be my own work!
- I propose the following Queen related separate entries in Wiki:

• Freddie Mercury
• Brian May
• Roger Taylor
• John Deacon
• The Cross
• Bohemian Rhapsody (I'm happy to see that people are adding things to it.)
• Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert
• Népstadion (where the Hungarian concert took place)
• Highlander (exists, but needs improvement)
• Flash Gordon
  

Please comment if you think that any of them is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaganyik (talk • contribs) 07:26, 27 February 2002 (UTC)

First 'animated' stage group since The Beatles?

I did edit or qualify the reference to Queen being the first group to be animated in their stage performances since The Beatles. This seems rather strange as The Who, Jimi Hendrix, et. al. had gone a considerable distance down the road of stage pyrotechnics. Often literally!

As the person who removed the Beatles reference, rather than get into a drawn-out edit war I'll try very hard to explain why I removed it and will probably do so again (unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise).

Let me quote from the neutral point of view policy:

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, video games, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is, we can agree, out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not all be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest bass guitar player in history. But it is very important information indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public, by reviewers, or by some very prominent experts.

Now, where the hell does your assertion fit in to the above? It doesn't say who makes the assertion. Is it in terms of record sales? Is it by the public perception - if so, can you point me to some polls? Has Rolling Stone or another prominent pop music magazine said so? Has the British recording industry association said so, perhaps? Any prominent music historians, perhaps?

If you can't provide any of the above, I'll delete the comment again. --Robert Merkel

I know it was a long time ago, but you were right. vaganyik

POV

This article reads like a band bio from their corporate website. I really like Queen, but it needs to be far more objective!! (ricjl 11:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I agree with this. We need to work on POV even now in 2006. 66.116.19.7 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think that in the Queen (band) article the musical progress section's annotated album list is very clumsy. Opera and Races should definitely be in the same group, and I do not think Queen ever played punk, and even if they did, then definitely not on an album from 1974. The rest is all right with me. Actually, I'd rather not see that annotated list. What about deleting it? user:vaganyik

Actually, Queen did make punk in 1973 with the song "Modern Times Rock 'n Roll", which could well have been a Ramones-tune. 62.238.92.181 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Annotated lists can be useful if done right. I don't know enough about Queen to comment on the usefullness of this particular list though. You seem to be more informed about the history of Queen so please do make any changes that you think improve the article and still adhere to our NPOV policy. --mav

Prophetic Queen speech

I just wrote: The Wembley concert, part of a UK tour in 1986, attracted 150,000 people over 2 nights. A memorable and prophetic moment occured when Freddie Mercury told the audience: "There are a lot of rumors lately about a certain band called Queen... that we are gonne split up. What do you think?" Audience: "No!". Freddie: "Forget those rumors, were gonne stay together till we fucking will die, I'm sure!".

It could be mentioned that the number following this was "Who wants to live forever" (but I didn't, because I think it's a little bit overdone).

Pascal 05:36, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Which was at the time their new single....not very phrophetic, but quite a promotional speech.

Also, on the opposite disc in the Live at Wembley DVD set, there is an interview with either Roger Taylor or Brian May (I'm fairly certain it's Brain May) in which he talks about the quote.

User:MAGCOT just so u know im a huge huge queen band and no they did not play punk ever they were far from it the only thing was the fact that they started doing live shows to compeate whith the growing poulatrity whith punk

R&B?

"Queen are widely recognised as pioneers of R&B, glam rock, and stadium rock." But they really aren't R&B, are they? Expert opinions anyone? Rdsmith4 00:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I would describe them as R&B. Some of Freddie Mercury's vocals are reminiscent of 50s crooners and pop singers, but I certainly would not describe them as "pioneers of R&B". Tuf-Kat 05:28, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Songwriting

User:68.100.46.45 has twice changed the content of the "Members" section from calling members of the band "creative equals" to giving Freddie Mercury all the credit. While Mr Mercury may have been an excellent songwriter, I must take issue with the assertion that he was the driving force of the group, as this user has asserted both times. The first time I reverted the edit because two grevious spelling errors coupled with the removal of relevant information made it look rather like hasty vandalism, but instead of reverting the second edit I'm just going to reword it to make it agree with the general consensus about the band's songwriting, and re-insert the sentence or two that the user removed unnecessarily. FYI. Rdsmith4 | Talk 04:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

70's?

I remember that Queen was rather slow in getting mass audiences. Much of their early work did not get much air play (in U.S.). They did develop a very loyal following in the early and mid 70's. Their sound was unique, classical vocal harmonization with heavy electric guitar work. It may have been that people during this time were somewhat homophobic and didn't wan't to readily associate with a band called 'Queen'. With Bohemian Rhapsody, people just couldn't dismiss them any longer. 'Killer Queen' is still my favorite. --69.5.156.155 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am from germany and i loved Queen music so much. Every record is great. My absolutly favoriet songs are from the first record. I grow up in the 90's with "Great king rat" and "My fairy king" (from the early 70's). This i had to explain you. Queen lives all over the world.--145.254.32.85 10:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bo Rhap, not "first true music video"

The Beatles made music videos in the 1960s for hit's such as "Paperback Writer", "Rain" and "Hello, Goodbye", long before Queen even made a record, let alone a video!

...and Bob Dylan made one before The Beatles did, but that's not the point. The issue here is that Queen were the first to make a music video intended to actually promote a newly released single rather than add something extra to a song released some time earlier 62.238.92.181 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Beatles were the first, just they did it (a long time) before Queen. Infact, The Big Bopper made one before Bob Dylan. However, you are wrong. The Beatles made their videos to promote their singles at the time of release and went to this fact in depth on "the Beatles anthology", saying they didn't want to have to do countless TV shows the world over, so they made videos to promote the music! 205.188.117.74 19:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who got them to Knebworth Park?

Someone just changed the article to say Jim Beach arranged the last concert at Knebworth Park, whereas the text originally said it was Roy Thomas Baker. Both the original text and the edit were by (different) anonymous users. I can't find any information about this one way or the other. Could someone who has the appropriate books check whether the edit by 24.88.44.169 or the one by 62.6.136.109 is correct? Thanks.

--fvw 15:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I made the change to Jim Beach before quite knowing the rules here, sorry. I'm not entirely sure of the facts as to who arranged the Knebworth gig, but I do know for certain that Roy Thomas Baker was their producer until 1975, never their manager and by 1986 they were produced by themselves & Mack, so if anybody would have arrange an extra gig it would've been their managment (Jim Beach) not Roy Thomas Baker.

User:MAGCOT 2004 Oct 27

It was Gerry Stickells, Tour Production Manager, who got them the gig at Knebworth.

--Magcot 12:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Full History?

I think the subtitling of the Decades worked, but it seems to be missing large chunks of important info, like albums following Day of the Races in the 70's, which spawned 'We will rock you' & 'We are the champions' etc Their touring history also seems a bit thin and the strange claim that they only made money on the 1986 tour...these chaps were multi-millionaires by the mid 70's and toured places that had never seen western groups before (1st Band behind the Iron curtain, 1st Band in Argentina before & after the Falklands conflict) Obviously it depends on how detailed it should be, I'm currently reading their own Biography, I'll get more facts and add them on for discussion.

--Magcot 10:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the piece concerning John Deacon's involvment with Queen in the 90s section. Whilst the previous piece says that he is quick to pour cold water on any Queen reunion, he seems to be happy with the current 'Queen' situation, see www.deaky.com/weekly/2003/dw11E.html The comment that he has retired and yet is happy with what Brian May and Roger Taylor are doing also pops up from time to time on the Queen and the Brian May Official Websites.

--paulburgin 24:00 , 8 Mar 2005

Queen-bashing

It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out.

Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Popular in the 70s and 80s?

I don't thik Queen was only popular at that time. I think there are many people who like Queen until today. So why not to change that?

How Come I Can't Find A Site Telling Me The Dates For When Greatest Hits I Came Out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They Are Very Good And I Am Only 11 And Like Them.

No synths?

It was the first Queen album to use synthesizers, which the band had previously resisted fiercely.

Can anyone provide any evidence that the "resisted fiercely" bit is true? According to a 1995 interview with Roy Thomas Baker and Gary Langan, it is not:

"There was no stipulation that we wouldn't have any synths, but the statement 'No synths' was printed on the album sleeves because of people's lack of intellect in the ears department. Many people couldn't hear the difference between a multitracked guitar and a synthesizer. We would spend four days multi-layering a guitar solo and then some imbecile from the record company would come in and say, 'I like that synth!'"

I'd like to tone down or remove the phrase if there are no counterexamples. — mjb 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Moot point. From the inner sleeve liner notes to "The Game": "This album includes the first appearance of a Synthesizer (an Oberheim OBX) on a Queen album". Since I was already correcting the factual error, I took the opportunity to remove the unsupported phrase. If anyone finds documentation to warrant it, I have no objection to someone re-adding the language. Until I read the interview excerpt you provided, I myself always thought the band had an artistic objection to synths in their early days. Skyraider 23:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, I would have assumed that the band had resisted the tempation to use synths as well. The words "no synths" and "still, no synths" gave me the idea that they were boasting. It's not such a far fetched assumption. I wouldn't completely trust Baker's statment in 1995. It could be a defensive statment of the fact that they broke down and used them in The Game (the really didn't have to if they made it that far). 67.184.150.126 09:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Attack Tribute

To say that Dragon attack has "no musicians of note" is extremely biased -- not to say insulting. Just because someone doesn't know the musicians that play on the Album, it doesn't mean the musicians are "of note". As a matter of Fact, Dream Theater, Yngwie Malmsteen, Glenn Hughes, Rudy Sarzo, Marty Friedman (to name a few) are not only very talented musicians, but also appreciated by Brian May himself.

Hi!

But I think 'of note' means here, that the musicians are not so famous like others.

Anna Makievski 12:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No interest??

Hello!

Is nobody interested in Queen? Because in the discussion is very seldom written something...

The article is quite good, I think.

And has anyone seen Queen live? Did anybody watch the WWRY concert or their tour with Paul Rogers?

Anna Makievski 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anna, the "discussion" section is a bit misleading. It's intended to provide a discussion of the article, not of Queen itself. As you say, the article is now quite good, and as Queen are no longer recording or touring there will be relatively little to change, so it's not surprising that the discussion is quiet.

Occasionally, the rules on the talk pages get bent a little bit, but we try to avoid running a general discussion site to avoid flame wars.

If you're interested, the Queen article and related ones, while good, I'm sure they could be improved. I think you mentioned somewhere that you're German - is there material here that you could add to the German-language Wikipedia articles on Queen?

If you are looking for a general Queen-related discussion site, there's a link to one in the article. --Robert Merkel 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

sorry I didn't answer for a while, but I've been on holiday.

The German Queensite has improved very much and there have been very much informations, and the article changed very fast, but now it's quite good and I'm going to read the whole one. Then I'll look if there are good things to add to the English page.

But I have to tell you, the English page is better than the German, because on the German the informations are too detailed.

Do you think such a wikipedia article should be either detailed or not?

And a question by the way: Are you British, American or what? Because your name sounds not really English.

Regards,

Anna Makievski 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If...

if F.M. wasn't dead we would still be rockin' to queen. I am a long person. He died a year before i was born, so i could witness anything queen.

Hi!

And I was born a year before he died. And?? Aren't you supporting Queen because of that? I think Queen's music is immortal. It's a real pity, Freddie Mercury's deaath, but you can still 'rockin' to Queen. I do as a real fan.

Anna Makievski 18:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

PS What do you mean with 'long person'? Sorry, I'm German...

Hello people!

As a person who was born a year after Freddie Mercury's death I didn't really grow up listening to Queen. In fact, it was quite the opposite; I listened TLC, Biggie and Tupac. I was more of an R&B and Rap person. It wasn't until about three years ago that my brother brought a Queen CD home and told me to listen. He told me that I would like them and I didn't believe him. I had never even heard of the band Queen, although I knew the must-know Queen songs, such as We Are The Champions, We Will Rock You, and Bohemian Rhapsody. So I listened, said a couple of "Hey, I know this song! They sing this?", and I was hooked. I began to listen to Led Zeppelin, P.F., ACDC, and some other classic stuff. So, thanks to Queen, I now consider myself a rocker! Because I am getting off topic I will say that I DO wish that Freddie was alive. Although, if he was I would wish that Queen did stop making music, because, really, in the words of Neil Young (another favorite) "It's better to burn out than fade out". You have to admit though, Freddie Mercury's death did help Queen's sales, and afer being critically panned for years, it helped them finally get great reviews. Many Queen fans look at Freddie as though he is immortal, and he earned this title by dying in this prime, not when he is an 80 year old man in a wheelchair directing musicals. So, I believe that if F.M. didn't die, they wouldn't be as successful as they are right now.

Sabreen Shahin

• I don't want to pee in your guys' lemonade, but Wikipedia is not a chatroom... :/ I'm sorry.. -- SoothingR 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SoothingR, I tell you what, I'd sure has hell like to take a crap in your lemonade! The way you said that wiki was not a chatroom was very rude, and I'm just returning the favor! So, mind your own damn business!

None of ya business

• Actually, Wikipedia can be edited by everyone and is therefore everyone's business...so my business as well. Furthermore, I don't really see how the way I said that Wikipedia's not a chatroom was rude. I didn't use insults, vile language and I even linked you to the page where the policy is laid out. Having said that, I'd like to point out another widely accepted policy..Please remain civil at all times..We don't want a bitchfest in here now do we -- SoothingR 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, please, people! Just drop it. You don't know how immature this section looks. Irunwithscissors 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I dropped the subject a long time ago. Note that that discussion dates from October.SoothingR 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Massive Re-Wikification and Cleaning Up

I am beginning the massive re-wikification of this page. In recent months, this page has been bogged down by POV and choppy sentences, as well as unneccessary passages and info stated two or even three times. If anyone would like to help or revise my revisions, your help is welcomed, but please do not revert this page to the mess it once was. Thank you.

CinnamonCinder 00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, too. I'll help if I see something.

Anna Makievski 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just replaced a section that was removed, perhaps for reasons CinnamonCinder stated, but I NPOVed it and removed some unneeded pieces. I felt the section is at least temorarily useful the valuable information that it included.  —siroχo 10:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Something fishy is up with the main image at the top.. Freddie's name is replaced with Brian Waller (???)--Drowse 04:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sun City

...really needs to be mentioned if this article is to be considered worthy of an encyclopaedia.

Would you care to tell us what Sun City is? I've never heard of it before… Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in South Africa.. Queen performed there with all the apartheid problems going on in the 80s.. and were shunned from most major music organizations after that. --Drowse 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that. I'd heard of the event, but not the name of Sun City. And yes, if the article doesn't mention it now, it definately should. Jon Harald Søby 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in there now -- I noticed that too, and I did my research. Although it pretty much only lost them about a year, until they brought the house down at Live Aid from Wembley.   _Pit^Shig | @   01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian?

I notice that many of their earlier songs seem to be Christian orientated, could they be considered a Christian band?

I would say no... some of their early stuff did have some Christian themes (such as "Jesus" on their debut album), but such songs are very few in number. – ClockworkSoul 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, in the same album, the lyrics of one of the songs go "don't believe all you read in the Bible…". So they're not consistent either, hehe. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Roger was rather vocal in his distrust in organized religion.. Nothing springs to mind at the moment but I know there are quotes out there... --Drowse 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. F.M wasn't even christian.

Freddie Mercury had an interest in Christianity (and religion in general) in the early days, but was never a practicing Christian, Muslim, Jew, Satanist or anything. He WAS born a Zoroastrian and had a Zoroastrian funeral, but most probably to please his parents.

John Deacon married a strict Catholic, but nothing is known as to his personal religious views.

Brian May is technically speaking an agnost, but he does have some Christian and Buddhist views.

Roger Taylor is a fanatical anti-religious person, saying "religion tends to fuck people up" and, in the song 'The Key' from his solo-album Happiness? "a sensible religion's just a contradiction in terms" 62.238.92.181 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency about break-up of group

Over several months I have seen the infobox slowly oscillate back and forth between the viewpoint that the band broke up in 1992, and the viewpoint that it's still together. I don't know which is "better", but we should really pick one and stick to it. Stevage 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as they went on a world tour, though with a different singer, I'd say that they're still together.SoothingR 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why is Freddie Mercury listed as a band member? It has to be consistent. Either he should be listed as an ex-member, and whatever stand in singer is being used should be listed, or it should represent the Queen that ended when he died. It's having a bob each way at the moment. Stevage 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(a) Queen never broke up. (b) Paul Rodgers is not a member of the band: "Queen + Paul Rodgers"... --62.47.179.196 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So is Freddy a member or an ex-member? Perhaps there are only three members: May, Taylor and Deacon, and several ex-members: Mercury, and the various bass players before Deacon. Stevage 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

An ex-member is a member who quit the band. Freddie never quit the band. Jon Harald Søby 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless, he's not able to perform with Queen anymore..SoothingR 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Every site to which I have been, including the official queen fan club (http://queenworld.com/), has them listed as: Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon... Freddie may not be able to play, but to take him off the list of band members would be a disgrace and a dishonour to his name. It was he, afterall, who mainly sang lead vocals. He was the charisma of the group, and he deserves to stay...Billvoltage 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred is a member in spirit. ;) --CJ Marsicano 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So I think the general consensus is to keep him listed as a member? Billvoltage 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mercury and Deacon should of course be listed as members. -- Candyfloss 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article, but too polish...

Hi! I have been read the WHOLE article and find it very good written and well documented, but at last, not very objetive. I suppose it was written for a fan (or a group of fans) so it feels so very comfortable, very kind with the group and in my particular opinion, their last years (from 2000 to the present day) are very objetable.

Why? because May & Taylor becomes a pretty pair of vampires. One thing is put all the music in new audio formats, launch DVD's with concerts and videos and other, go on tour with another singer exploding the nostalgic feelings of the Queen Fans. I love Queen, but i can't stand to see him on a gig without Freddie!!!

And of course, all the histories had their dark sides ... and Queen's history, of course, are not the exception. So in order be honest and objective, i think it will be nice to put these things on the article, whitout rubbish and press sensacionalism ...

Best regards

Smile..?

I am not clear why Smile redirects to Queen's page here.. They are two seperate bands.. Smile only featuring Brian and Roger with Tim Staffell. They broke up following his departure and then Freddie, Brian and Roger started a project called Queen..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drowse (talk • contribs) .

Note that Smile (band) is a disambig page, not a redirectpage. And in regard to your comment; probably because there wasn't enough to write about for the time being. If you can turn Smile (United Kingdom band) into a decent stub, I say go for it.SoothingR 09:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap you guys are fast, I created the Smile (Queen) page and 2 minutes later there was a merge request on it! I think there's a lot that could be said about Smile which would be too specific for this article. Have a look at [1]. The article may be short at the moment but it could be expanded a lot. And the 18 months before Smile became Queen are really not Queen at all - it only had May and Taylor. Stevage 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one seems interested in pursuing the merge suggestion, so I'm removing it on the grounds that they were two completely separate bands, and there's easily enough material to write a complete, interesting article on Smile. Stevage 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What genre are they?

What genre are they? Glam rock, Arena rock, Hard Rock, or Glam metal! Make up your mind already!

• They're all those genres...keep in mind, Queen recorded in many different styles, including hard rock, heavy metal, disco, funk, blues, progressive rock, and ragtime. TheImpossibleMan 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "POV" section

This text was deleted from the 1982-1983 section.:

In hindsight, it seems that most of the negative reaction has proven to be slightly exaggerated as the album still contained many traditional Queen songs such as the heavy Brian May-esque rock of "Put Out The Fire", the poppy "Calling All Girls" and the gorgeous Latin ballad "Las Palabras de Amor (The Words Of Love)" (which was a UK Top 20 single). Furthermore, the album included "Under Pressure,". Die-hard fans were reassured during live concerts in 1982, and the band demonstrated that they had not lost their hard rock edge, and even the songs from "Hot Space," had a heavier, rock-feel when performed live. A live highlight of these years was their concert at the Milton Keynes Bowl, which was filmed and subsequently released on DVD.

Perhaps someone can "de-povify" it and put it back in. Stevage 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I was the one who deleted it...I removed it not only because it was very POV ("it seems that most of the negative reaction has proven to be slightly exaggerated"), but also it was very opinion based (describing songs as "poppy" and "gorgeous"), had choppy sentences ("Furthermore, the album contained Under Pressure"), and didn't cite anything ("The band demonstrated that they had not lost their hard rock edge" needs a citing). Queen's article is very good, but it still needs cleaning up, and paragraphs like that aren't helping. TheImpossibleMan 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queen in Film" paragraph

In 2006, a short movie titled "Journey of the Dead" was released on various websites, including ifilm.com and youtube.com. The movie is about Steve Perry (former lead singer of the rock band Journey) saving a couple from an attack by rock star drummer zombies, and then fighting Freddie Mercury in order to save the world from a plot to unleash hell on earth. Freddie is depicted as a Dr. Doom style villain in the the B-movie/classic rock tribute/comedy, and became popular among Journey fans and classic rock fans as well. It can be seen here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XnFwBhaAcWo

Does anyone else think that that paragraph should be deleted? It strikes me as the kind of thing that the creator stuck on here just to self-promote. It doesn't really add much to the article and appears to me to be completely irrelavent. Yea or nay for it to be removed?

• I've deleted the above paragraph.

I want to add a reference (This website) but I'm not really sure how to do that properly. Someone help? TheImpossibleMan 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also combined "Queen in Film" and "Documentary".

References

This article should really use the Wikipedia:Footnotes footnotes instead of plain external links. The external links method is really annoying, disturbing the text. Jon Harald Søby 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would be happy to convert the links to footnotes myself, but I really don't know how to. Please do so - I am trying to get this article to become featured, and every little thing helps. TheImpossibleMan 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it as soon as I have time for it. Jon Harald Søby 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jon Harald Søby 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queen as Instrumentalists"

I'm considering simply deleting this whole section. It seems very juvenile and doesn't really add much to the article. I've tried to wrangle keeping certain parts - I do like the idea of including the Brian May quote about how Freddie would write on the guitar - but much of it seems unnecessary and pointless. Thoughts? TheImpossibleMan 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The information about who is able to play what instrument is interesting, and should be in the #Members section; but all the details in the section aren't necessary, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby 07:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I could move the most interesting/important parts of the section to a separate Trivia section; it would allow me to remove most of that section while still keeping the most important parts (i.e. Freddie on the guitar).

I have never seen anyone argue before for moving information *to* a trivia section :) IMHO, information about what each member played *is* interesting - I had no idea Freddie could play piano, or that May was so well-rounded, for instance. Stevage 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

History year subheadings

Since the person doing the peer review recommended removing the bolded years from the history, they were removed. However, I don't realy understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged. That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on. It's just out of control otherwise. So, I'm rather inclined to add them back again. Anyone have any objections, thoughts, etc? Fwiw, I'm proposing putting them back to this style:

1970s

1971

Queen brought out another album in April...

Rather than:

1970s

1971 - Queen brought out another album in April...

Stevage 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I actually perfer the second style - the first style greatly inflates the size of the table of contents. TheImpossibleMan 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with you there. I really wish there was a way to use heading styles without them blowing out the table of contents. Any objections to me re-instating this second style? Stevage 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Evaluation of Queen (band)

This evaluation was done on this version of Queen (band) at 2 PM PST on 29 March 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.

Criteria:

Well-written

This is the criterion I tend to be harshest on, so try not to be offended. Diction is nowhere near the level expected of a featured article. The multitude of contractions and unnecessary parenthetical asides does not help readibility, and can be distracting. The article has a distinct voice with a penchant for mild hyperbole and a lack of logical continuity in creating precise truths. Grammatical errors and Manual of Style errors are sparse, but not completely removed. At risk of repeating myself, the writing style demonstrated in this article is not worthy of featured article status, and not of good article status either. Songs should be wrapped in quotes, and there are misused participles, ugly contractions, bothersome parentheses, and plenty of other writing gaffes.

Factually accurate

Overall, nicely done. There are a few slightly outlandish facts, such as Brian May's paragraph of Section 1.1, that could be verified, but otherwise the article looks pretty solid. You should definitely find all of the weasel words, per WP:V, and consider rewriting all occurrences of said weasel words.

Broad

While focused as an article should be upon the band, its members, and its music, Sections 4-8 cover a very broad and comphrehensive slice of popular culture, examining the presence and influence of Queen in other disciplines. Well done.

Neutrally written

Amazing. This is typically the hardest criterion for an article to qualify on, and this article excels at being neutral. Sections 2.4-2.5 are very neutral and honest for the subject matter. Deaths of notable people tend to be steeped in slant, but this article somehow rises above.

Stable

Comparing the previous 15 edits on the page rounded up to avoid vandalism, it appears that all changes on this page are slow and steady improvement and growth. In those 15 edits, the most major change was the addition of an interwiki link to another version of this article in another language. This article is decently stable.

Well-referenced

References appear solid. Most of them are from news websites or musician interviews. References to chart positions and song popularity are from organizations in good standing with the music industry (Rhapsody, VH1). The citation from Reference #9 was informative and pleasing to read, and was a good choice for inclusion. Reference #20, to sing365, is probably the weakest reference on the page.

Images

One of the images on the page, Image:Queen3.jpg, does not have a good fair use rationale. All other images are used under fair use. I would like to gently remind this article's contributors that album covers are usually not considered fair use anywhere besides the articles covering those albums. While technically all images are tagged, Image:Queen3.jpg might as well be not tagged if it has no rationale for why we as a community are allowed to borrow it without permission.

Summary:

• Well-written: Fail
• Factually accurate: Pass
• Broad: Pass
• Neutrally written: Pass
• Stable: Pass
• Well-referenced: Pass
• Images: Fail

Better luck next time. - CorbinSimpson 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• TheImpossibleMan has asked me to fix grammar and Manual of Style issues. I agree and will do so. I also retagged the offending image, Image:Queen3.jpg. I will renominate this article for Good Article Status in one week. - CorbinSimpson 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On images, none of the several freely available photos are used. Some of those could be used instead of fair use equivalents. (By the way, this was an excellently done review, Corbin!) Jon Harald Søby 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers, I think you're setting the bar *way* too high for a "good article". It's not a FA yet, sure, but "good articles" are simply meant to pick out some of the better articles of our collection, not to set the standard for all other articles. I really like your review, I just disagree with the "fail" for not being well enough written. :) Stevage 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)