This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The listing under "(Style) Parody" for "Generic Blues" originally stated B.B. King. I went back and listened to the track and found that label quite inaccurate. "Generic Blues" sounds much more like the electric Chicago blues of artists like Junior Wells and Paul Butterfield, whereas B.B. King's blues is a more sparse and subdued Memphis or Louisiana style. These styles are just about at opposite ends of the spectrum from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the line regarding the album being discontinued as of August 2009. I don't see any evidence of this one any websites. in fact, Al's site shows that all of his albums are available for sale. there is a similar comment posted on pages for some of Al's other albums. Lawnboy1977 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The article has two images; cover art's source website appears to be a dead link and seems a tad dark anyway. (The album I have is dark gray around the borders rather than black.) Second picture, of Mark Knopfler, seems OK.
I uploaded one that preserved the original vinyl look (the CD has an ugly logo in the bottom).--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if this matters for the GA process, but that link is dead. And funny, I just now remembered that logo. BTW I'll finish your Bad Hair Day review tomorrow. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the edit history, things seem peaceful. Groovy.
Now for the hardcore stuff, starting with overall writing.
Seems like the mention of "UHF" the single is slightly out of place. Just looking at it, it seems wrong to me.
That's the way the rest of Yankovic's articles' leads start. I just continued the trend so that they would have a similar layout.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, coming back from Bad Hair Day which as you said does follow the trend and where it does not seem so out of place, I guess my reasoning here is since the single had no fanfare, it looks kind of bad right there. I guess it doesn't seem like such a defining feature of the album that readers might be familiar with (like how "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was the monster smash from Nevermind). Just IMO, it seems like it would fit better at the end of the second paragraph there, but I suppose even if you left it that wouldn't hinder a GA status. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"The album also features many "style parodies," or musical imitations that come close to, but do not copy, existing artists. These style parodies include imitations of specific artists like the Harry Chapin, as well as imitations of various musical genres like blues." Seems very clunky.
The dashes in the first sentence enclosing the phrase "co-written by his manager Jay Levey" seem unnecessary. In fact, I would almost say you could get away with not having any kind of punctuation there to isolate that phrase.
Sorry, I should have written more clearly - the typo is "filmed", and "featured" sounded weird there (I was trying to address each word in sequence, but that's my fault). LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I was just silly and forgot to fix the typo. Changed now.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"Surprisingly" referring to the character's success seems POV.
"Although the movie made a little over six million domestically—out of a budget of five million"... what currency? And "a little over" seems a bit informal, but I could be wrong and this just seems like a nitpick. And the dashes need spaces before and after to give the words room to breathe, so to speak.
I touched it up a bit. I think that's how it's supposed to go. LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"Once again, former The McCoys guitarist Rick Derringer was brought in to produce the album; this, however, would be Derringer's last production credit..." seems like you could take out "this, however," and replace it with "but this" and get rid of the semicolon.
"...and thus "Let Me Be Your Hog" was recorded." First, isn't "Let Me Be Your Hog" a parody? Of an Iggy Pop and the Stooges song, if I recall correctly? If so, this isn't an original - and the aforementioned phrase needs to be replaced with something that indicates Yankovic got the rights to this song.
Actually, it is not a parody. I couldn't find a source saying whether it was a style parody, however.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I must be thinking back to a previous version of the article. It said something to the effect of "obvious elements of "Let Me Be Your Dog" by the Stooges". But if the source says what the article currently says, I believe ya. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"The lyrics of the song [UHF]..." I think it was more than the lyrics of the song which lampooned the concept of a station promotional campaign. Further, I think this sentence and the one before it should be joined to say, "Yankovic then recorded the theme from his movie, the titular "UHF", written in the style of a TV station's large promotional campaign."
"These short segments were originally featured in the UHF film as commercials. In fact, several skits that were featured in the film, such as "Plots 'R Us" and "Conan the Librarian" did not make it onto the album." This might be better-written as "These short segments were used in the film as commercials; other commercial segments, such as "Plots 'R Us" and "Conan the Librarian", were not used on the album."
Jim West hasn't been mentioned in awhile and just to remind readers who he is you might need to insert at least his first name into the sentence, "According to Yankovic, West had practiced the song for weeks..." and at most, identify him once again as the guitarist.
Did Yankovic just start "Spam" that day or did he finish it on that day as well?
The website only tells when he starts recording a song, not when he finished.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty then. It still seems kind of weird to word it that way but if the source provides no alternative, I don't see what we can do. Might as well leave it as it is. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"a pastiche of "Wild Thing" by Tone Lōc. The song is about a girl..." --> "a pastiche of "Wild Thing" by Tone Loc, about a girl..."
Missed one - "She Drives Like Crazy" LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Charts and certifications
If this is the only chart position you can find, you don't need this section; you've already got it covered under "Reception".
Article seems fairly balanced and neutral, save for any POV concerns I noted above. Additionally, if any part of the article goes overboard on the details, I certainly didn't catch it.
Now, for sourcing. Hoo boy. Three things jump-out at me as I look over them:
Most sources come from an officially-affiliated Yankovic source. In fact, two of them have been milked for information.
It is true that a majority of the sources are from officially-affiliated items, but most of them have been professionally published either through an editor, DV distributor, or record label (The Permanent Box liner notes, the record itself, the DVD, the trading cards, the books, etc). Also, there is no policy against mining sources, and its generally encouraged (if one can squeeze info out).--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I meant, my concern was that the article seems, only seems, to exhibit an overreliance on primary sources. I am all for squeezing as much crap out of a source as you can get - I do it all the time ;) LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, gotcha. Sorry about the rant, then. :P --Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There are few sources overall, but an absurd proportion of officially-affiliated ones.
Like I pointed out above, the majority of the officially-affiliated sources come from ones that have been professionally released. I could see the "Ask Al" sources being slightly problematic, but they have been accepted before, and there is no policy against self-published sources, just as long as the publisher ("Weird Al" Yankovic, in this case) is notable and reliable. So far, none of this "Ask Al" answers have been malicious or erroneous. I checked out WP:SELFPUB before I nominated this article to check, and the Ask Al sources pass all five of the necessary requirements (also, they only make up 1/5 of the sources). If there is something that you'd like to see backed-up by a third party source, I could try to find some.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If you plan to take this article beyond GA, I would highly recommend doing that. The sources used are okay ATM, but again more third-party stuff is always welcome. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yeah, for the time being I'm just trying to get it to GA. Maybe if more info presents itself I'll take it higher.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Amazon.com listings are considered viable sources on WP.
Replaced with a different, non-commercial, source.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
And third party no less. Good job. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
At this point, the article is not GA-material... yet. It's too far along, I think, for me to fail it right away, so I'm putting it on hold for one week. I'll look over it later and determine if the changes made are satisfactory; if not, I won't hold it any longer and I'll fail it. If they are, you'll have a GA. Good luck.
I have made the requested changes/clarified some points. How does the article look now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Lookin' good, real good. Just a few more nitpicks. Also, like I said, if the album only ever had one chart position (unless you can find a few from, say, Finland or Fiji), it shouldn't stand on its own like that. You've already got it covered in the Reception section, so you don't need it down here. LazyBastardGuy 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I removed the chart section and I *think* I got all the nitpicky stuff, as well as the stuff I just missed the first time. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon(Talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There were a few things but all of them were minor, so I took care of them myself. If you called me a grammar nazi, I wouldn't take offense. ;) Congratulations - I'm ready to pass this as GA. Tomorrow I will get to the other "Weird Al" articles you've nominated (I've already claimed them as the primary reviewer). LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Isn't the title of Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies supposed to have an asterisk, according to the article about the single, thus the title would be "Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies*"? Jed 20012 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on this. First off, yes, that's the legally copyrighted name of the song. However, it is never printed anywhere on the album like that. I feel like adding it to the track listing is almost too in-depth for the casual reader, but it does receive a mention in the text.--Gen. Quon(Talk) 22:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)