Talk:The Great Lost Kinks Album

IP comment from 2007

My (1973) LP version of this album includes "I'm Not Like Everybody Else" so it wasn't simply later added to the cassette version. Also your time for the previous song, "The Way Love Used to Be", was wrong, your "3:29" actually being the time for "I'm Not Like Everybody Else", while "The Way Love Used to Be" is actually 2:11 long. In other words, I suspect that someone had dropped a staggered line from the data you were relying on. IanHistor 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greatlostkinksalbum.jpg

Image:Greatlostkinksalbum.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 this Wikipedia article 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 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

title

Can we have a definitive ruling from someone who possesses a copy of the album? Is the song titled "Where did the Spring Go?" or "Where did My Spring Go?" both of which are mentioned in the article. Harfarhs (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Where did the spring go" on my LP. I'll tweak the article accordingly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Songwriter credits

The track "Groovy Movies" is a Dave Davies composition and should be noted as such, as it is in the main article. An absence of a credit implies it is a Ray Davies composition per the line "all songs written and composed by Ray Davies, except where noted." ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 20:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

• Needs alt

• Added.

• Genre is not sourced on the in the body of the article

• I couldn't find anything, so I'll just remove it.

• See Template:Infobox album for studio and producer

• I tweaked the studio one, but I'd rather not have them all laid out with "London" for each line when I could just keep it cleaner the way it is with one line. That's the way its done at a FA like Sgt. Pepper. Regarding the producer, this is how its credited on the record.

• Credited or not like that on the record, you need to comply with the template. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed.

You hav yet to fix the producer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, MarioSoulTruthFan, I hope I'm not seeming obtuse, I didn't understand what you meant and thought this one was sufficient. Is this good? Tkbrett (✉) 19:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Lead

• Released in the United States in January 1973 →

• I think you accidentally erased your suggestion.

• The compilation served to satisfy Reprise Records → satisfy regarding what?

• Reworded things to be clearer.

• The Great Lost Kinks Album offered the debut release for many of its tracks → doesn't every album does this? Do you mean the unreleased tracks? be more specific

• It's a compilation album, which typically have previously released tracks. I tweaked the wording to clarify.

• No. → number

• Unless I'm missing something, it's fine by MOS:NUMERO.

• Use No.. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Numero gives an abbreviation option, so I added it in. I didn't see anything specific at MOS:ABBR about whether the mouse-over tooltip should be used on first mention or for everything use, but I did the former since it lines-up with WP:OVERLINK. What do you think?

• Mention there was a re-issue of most of these songs

• Good point – added.

• Add more detail to the critical reception sentence.

• Added more.

• After this split the second paragraph into two

• Done.

 Done

Background

• Reprise Records' offices, → Reprise Records's offices.

• Fixed.

• most of which were → Most of those were

• Done.

• LP → studio album

• Done.

• "spare tracks" and not assigned a master → "spare tracks" withouth a master

• The point is that they weren't assigned a master number after he delivered them. I think the reword would make that less clear.

• songs' → songs's

• Shouldn't it be the former by MOS:PLURALNOUN?

• Due to the rejection, Reprise determined → I don't understand the "Due to the rejection" portion, maybe just remove it ad replaced it with "However" or something in that vein. RS's Rob Sheffield wrote, "When the band switched record companies, their old label punished them by rushing out this ragbag of unreleased treasures" → this was the cause then?

• Because Reprise didn't release Percy in the US, the label's execs figured the Kinks still owed them one more album. I reworded it to make that clearer.

 Done

Song selection

• of Kink Kronikles – a reference to → of Kink Kronikles. It was a reference to

• Done.

• In the early 1970s, compilation albums collecting previously unreleased material had become increasingly common among record labels seeking to undermine bootleg recordings; comparable contemporary examples include the Who's Odds and Sods (1974) and Jefferson Airplane's Early Flight (1974), though they differed in that the labels sought approval from the bands before their release → I can see the reasoning for this sentence until the ";" Afterwards you just lost me, its too much detail for something unrelated to the album.

• Fair enough. Cut it.

• from the aborted → from the unreleased

• Done.

• No. → number

• See above.

 Done

Release and commercial performance

• Is the catalog number essential information?

• Not really. Cut it.

• wrote liner notes for the album → which one? Is confusing because you mention another compilation album beforehead

• Clarified.

• Can note three be written in the text? As a form of comparison.

• Sure, brought it into the body.

• No. → number

• See above.

 Done

Contemporary reviews

• to Reprise' → to Reprise's

• Fixed.

• resolved → this is not an appropriate word for this article

• Reworded.

• "Waterloo Sunset" or "Lola", → year of release between brackets

• Added.

• In the Los Angeles Times, critic → Los Angeles Times's critic

• Done.

• mentioned the same songs → mentioned the latter two songs, he also mentioned "Victoria"

• I reworded it as  ...mentioned the same songs and "Victoria" (1969) ...

• of the underground newspaper → of the newspaper

• Done.

 Done

Retrospective assessment

• LP's → album's

• Done.

• as the LP's highlights. → as the highlights

• Done.

 Done

Track listing

• Couldn't the notes here be included on another section of the article?

• The only comparable example I can think of is the FA for Aftermath, which includes a note regarding the different spelling of "Paint It Black" at each first linking. I tried consolidating it all in one note in the Release section, along with a mention in the body about the different spellings.

• Writing credits are per Doug Hinman. → Don't you already have this on the body of the article?

• I don't think so.

 Done

Personnel

• Fine

Charts

• Fine

Notes

• See on other sections.

References

• Source check: 5, 8, 11, 21, 32, 26, 40, 54, 55 and Gunton 1982
• AllMusic is publisher

• Fixed.

 Done

External links

• Fine

Overall

• You can now address the issues, let me know once you are done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks MarioSoulTruthFan. Responses above. Tkbrett (✉) 20:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Left replies in some sections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Only missing one thing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)