Jump to content

Talk:Tonight: Franz Ferdinand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cover art

[edit]

I understand nothing in the image copyright, but what is now placed as "Tonight" cover art is in fact only a fragment of the real cover art (according to dominorecordco.com/uk/albums/15-10-08/tonight-franz-ferdinand/) - so I hope someone who knows copyright better will upload the real thing here.

phil (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album Cover Announced

[edit]

NME has the cover exclusively, at http://www.nme.com/news/franz-ferdinand/41288 I don't know how to put it up, but maybe someone who does can? 65.12.163.209 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Edit: Never mind, it's there, it didn't show up for me a second ago though. 65.12.163.209 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Release Reception

[edit]

I added The Quietus' track-by-track preview of the album to the page. Also, there is one on the NME blog but it isn't as detailed and doesn't really have as much substance to it, so it was ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauiwi09 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be here. Copy-pasting this text most probably infringes the copyright of the author. See WP:CP. (If it was released public domain or under a suitable free license, please provide details.) I'll remove this section for now, the link to the review is sufficient. --David Edgar (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information about tracks leaking on the internet is unnecessary, and was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.103.172 (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton Percussion Comment

[edit]

Although interesting and from a verifiable source, the album doesn't have a song called 'Kiss Me.' 'Katherine Kiss Me' is the closest, but it is a percussion-less track, so it seems Alex was taking the piss or things changed between then and now. What do we think? 'Kiss Me' could have changed its title and been added to the special edition box, too, I guess. 70.20.241.177 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been changed months ago. Confusingly, "No You Girls" (where the skeleton was used) was previously called "Katherine Kiss Me". It was changed, presumably because "Katherine Kiss Me" as it appears on the album evolved and fitted that name better. So in that article "Kiss Me" refers to "No You Girls". U-Mos (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track Listing

[edit]

On the page it says the track listing is for the standard edition when in fact it is for the special edition. I edited it but somebody changed it back and I'm not going to start an editing war.
Standard edition: Amazon UK, Domino Records
Special Edition: Special Edition
Where are the conflicting sources Reidlos mentioned? -Jeskec (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Discogs Reidlos (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think for a British band, the British Amazon and the bands record label would be better sources-137.222.31.60 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My version of the album that I bought a few weeks ago agrees with me. Reidlos (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My version agrees with me, the UK standard edition. Do you live in the US? Jeskec (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I live in Austria. Reidlos (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

[edit]

Lucid Dreams was not a single from Tonight, rather a stand-alone single. Please edit the singles table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Michael Michaelk (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different Cuts.

[edit]

I've no source for this but the Vinyl version of the LP has a different cut of Katherine to the one on the CD that came in the double pack album with Blood.(Morcus (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tonight: Franz Ferdinand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aria. I'll be reviewing this in a couple days. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Aria1561:[reply]

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References formatted incorrectly, probably no OR but can't be sure for unsourced bits.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Places can be expanded, such as the singles and the album's concept.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    More images would definitely be possible.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments
suggest fail for now, work on it, and peer review
  • Why is "Manta.com" a reliable source?
Not sure. I've gotten rid of that ref and I'll get rid of the "Mr. Dan's Studio" thing if you want me to. Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find Glaswegian a funny word that distracts from the text. I wasn't sure what place it was referring to at first. Maybe just put "Scottish"
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • new "tunes" is very informal
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of works/publishers in the citation templates should be linked.
  • "in a blitz" is also informal
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because we've already established that this is their third album, you don't have to refer to it as their "third studio album" in the Production section.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File for this section?
  • Take a look at the Govan, Scotland part. It's written a bit funnily and could possibly use some expanding.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Govan, Scotland should be one link, not two.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "musical style" subsection doesn't really life the reader with any sense of cohesion. Currently, it's just a list of quotes that have no relation to each other. Not only is it difficult to navigate and keep track of who's saying what, there's no overall sense of the album's musical inspirations.
  • How do you know the song "Kiss Me" became "No You Girls"?
  • The ending quote of that subsection is completely isolated. It's not about the same topic as the others and does not give any sort of context.
  • Also, given how much time you allocated to it in the lead, I bet you could say a good amount more about the album's concept.
  • I don't know why it says ref 15 is dead--it's not. Fix that.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subsequently…" This is a bit of a weird transition to this part of the paragraph. Cut that sentence and put something like "The pictures eventually became part of a series of photographs featured on the band's blog."
  • You should combine several of the short paragraphs in the release section.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the italics around "not". Also, if it's not a single, why is it listed as such in the infobox? I also think it's questionable that they said that because that ref is dead.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The track on the album differs from this version." Source?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 'Ulysses' was chosen to be the first single and was released 19 January 2009. The song received first airplay at BBC Radio 1 on 17 November 2008. It was made available on the iTunes Store in North America on 2 December, and in the UK on 18 January 2009." Unsourced…
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 9 January, "No You Girls" was released on iTunes." source?
Statement removed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was announced via the band's website on 20 May that "Can't Stop Feeling" would be the next single, released on 6 July." Unsourced. Also, more info about chart performance of this one?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about "What She Came For"?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Metacritic, add "indicating 'generally favorable reviews.' "
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add some of the general reasons for the album's praise and criticism.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album, however, suffered a fifty-place decline on the Billboard 200 from #9 to #59 in its second week on the chart." Source?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot more chart info that could be incorporated into that subsection.
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you cite the liner notes for the personnel section?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of chart information is unsourced:
  • Austrian Albums Chart
  • Belgian Albums Chart
  • Canadian Albums Chart
  • Danish Albums Chart
  • Dutch Albums Chart
  • French Albums Chart
  • Irish Albums Chart
  • Italian Albums Chart
  • New Zealand RIANZ Album Chart
  • Portuguese Album Charts
  • Spanish Albums Chart
  • Swedish Albums Chart
  • Swiss Albums Chart
 Done — Sources have been added for all charts Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian Chart ref is just the homepage.
 Done — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references that do exist in the charts section are virtually all incomplete.
 Done — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go through your references with a fine-toothed comb, looking to make sure all are complete.
 Done — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 16, 20, 17, 23, and 50 are all dead. Look at Checklinks for the article.
 Done — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aria1561: I'm very sorry to say this, but I think that this might have been a premature nomination. If you believe you can fix the issues in a short time frame, be my guest, but I strongly recommend that you have me fail this for now, work on it some more, and submit it for a peer review before nominating again. I think that will help make the article better instead of a frantic rushing for sources and such. But you can do whatever you want. Just let me know. Cheers, Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BenLinus1214: I will attempt to fix these issues as soon as possible. Doesn't seem that difficult, honestly, but if it ends up becoming so, I'll let you know. Aria1561 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good luck. Placing on hold. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update #1: Most of the issues have been fixed, the rest will be fixed soon. Aria1561 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update #2: All of the article's refs have been fixed. I'm having a tough time deciding what to do in order to fix the musical style section, though. Aria1561 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aria1561: Because a lot of it talks about the album having non-Western influences, start with "many commented that the album was African-influenced in its musical style." Also be sure to expand on the concept album thing. Everything else looks good. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on the concept and I've fixed the musical style section; hopefully it's been tweaked enough. Thanks for the suggestion, btw. Aria1561 (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aria1561: Nice job! I can tell it's been a lot of work, but the article looks a thousand times better now. Pass. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reviewing this :) Aria1561 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tonight:_Franz_Ferdinand&oldid=1246161673"