Talk:Take Off Your Pants and Jacket
|Take Off Your Pants and Jacket has been listed as a Music good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: April 2, 2014. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
In the article it says that the album was recorded in just 10 days. However, the info box says that it was recorded from "November 2000-February 2001". This seems to be a descrepancy unless I'm missing something. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a separate entry for every single song and album by Blink 182?
I dont think it is. /Modster
- It's not necessary, but then nothing is necessary as such. There's nothing wrong with having an entry for anything so long as there's enough to write about it. This particular article is a bit short, but I don't think it would be good to have tracklistings of albums on the artists' page, so it seems fair enough to me. Eventually, things might be added about critical reception, how many copies were sold, and so on.
- A separate article for each song might be a bit harder to justify, but again there's nothing wrong with it in principle, so long as there's enough to write. All this is just my opinion, of course. --Camembert
Hard disk is cheap. Why not? Bbtommy
- Having just looked at the articles on individual Blink182 songs, I don't think there's enough there at the moment for them to be useful - I'd rather the info (ie release dates) was incorporated into the pages on the albums or the band singles discography, and these little stubs be made into redirects. But even these could probably be extended into proper articles in time. --Camembert
Incidentally, on this subject, see Talk:OK_Computer. I've come round to the view that what LDC says there is basically correct.
I just read that there is hidden tracks.... how do i know i have a certain version? Pants Jacket or Plane!? and after that, where are the tracks hidden? thanks, Rayne
- My disc doesn't include any hidden tracks. The front image has the same look as Image:Blink182-takeoffyourpantsandjacket.png. Am I missing something?
- Robertmh 11:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody know what take of your pants and jacket really means? No? weel its a metaphor for masterbating. Take of your pants and jack-it. Get it? (this is true)
Okay, one of the Hidden Tracks. I'm not sure it's simply called "Grandpa". I think it's called "When You Fucked Grandpa", not just "Grandpa". Look, the AZlyrics link to the lyrics and the title of the song is below my entry here. Captain N
Who put that up? It's trash and shouldn't be there; if we really need track details then it should use direct quotes, cited, by people in the band, not any random person who found the time to write it. I removed it, but if you can prove that it needs to be there, please clean it up (i.e. bold the song names, proper editing) and put it back up. (Vendettagainst (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
Wheres Anthem Part 2?
Why isnt there a page for the song Anthem Part 2? even though it isnt a single it is one of the bands most recognizable songs and it should get its own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What Went Wrong
Is it worth mentioning that this song is one of, if not the only full-length/serious song played entirely in acoustic, or song without drums at least? TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Take Off Your Pants and Jacket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Let's just get some stuff out of the way. We can get to the nitty-gritty of it later.
- Sources used: Discogs is a user-built wiki and not acceptable. Unfortunately I notice it's used quite a lot (13 times). Fortunately, pretty much all of them are unnecessary (be careful; we can't list complete catalog information for all releases of an album). Other than that, though, sourcing seems to be okay.
- Article history: Everything looks peaceful back there.
- Images: Album cover is of low resolution and has sufficient fair use rationale. Image of symbols used on album packaging appears to have sufficient fair use rationale although is tagged as not having been provided one to start with; as I am neither a patroller nor an administrator it is not up to me to remove that tag. Both images used are relevant and captioned appropriately. Very nice.
And now time for the nitty-gritty
Mostly good, if a bit disorganized. We could rearrange this to flow a bit better.
- First paragraph dwells too much on the topic of the previous article; most of this detail can be trimmed (in particular I removed the description of the "All the Small Things" music video).
- Second paragraph is, again, too prehistoric in terms of this album. Could easily be minimized and merged into the previous paragraph, because while some of this information is important I doubt such things as stage settings and the theme of the tour are going to have much of an effect on the rest of the article in the reader's experience.
- The quotation beginning "Highlight" does not follow from the rest of the sentence. The quote is not grammatically sound in this context.
- Singles and promotion
I notice there's a lot of time spent describing the music videos. Since each single has its own article, is this really necessary? It's very well done here, but those three articles could use some improvement and this would be a great place to start. My suggestion: Migrate all the music video information into their respective articles, and leave none of it here.
- Commercial performance
- Some stale prose regarding redundant information. Charting information is already present later on in the article in table form, where it should be; we do not need to restate it so much here.
- Sold 14 million copies worldwide as of when? This is a time-sensitive statistic.
- "...the company 'ran out of money'." And then what happened?
- I got rid of some stuff that isn't really important to the whole, things like the one date where they dropped in on that year's Warped Tour (one date as opposed to a significant leg of the tour isn't all that important).
- The "regain their status at the top of the tree" feels like a direct quote, so it should be presented as one (or whatever wording he used; it's only acceptable by Wikipedia standards if it's a direct quote, but otherwise too informal).
- Release History
Got rid of it wholesale. Again, the sources used were unreliable and the information as a whole was unnecessary.
- See also
"Pop punk" is already mentioned in the infobox and does not need to be put here.
Whew! Sorry this took so long, I wasn't busy but it just took me this long to get it done. Until you post back here or edit the article or whatever I'm done here, so I'm putting this bad boy on hold for the time being.
- 53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I’ve kept you waiting long enough. Anything else that needs work can be reserved for, say, the FA review process. This article now passes the Good Article Criteria. Congratulations!