Talk:Friends (The Beach Boys album)

Fair use rationale for Image:BeachBoysFriends.jpg

Image:BeachBoysFriends.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 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 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why was this moved? Is someone going to start another article called Friends (xxxxx album)? If not, shouldn't this just stay at Friends (album)? I'm sorry, but this just seemed kind of pointless. MookieZ 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only five years late to the reply, but I would suggest this to be as a simple "just in case" measure for any other notable artist who has, or will, ever release an album titled "Friends". It may seem pointless, but it's best to get easy changes out of the way early and seem redundant than wait until the change needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styk0n (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BeachBoysFriends.jpg

Image:BeachBoysFriends.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 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 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Passing By

When I switched to the tracklist template, I put 'instrumental' under lead vocals for Passing By. There are vocals in the song, but they are wordless, and it would be a stretch to me to say that they were lead vocals. But, if anyone wants to change it, go ahead, I don't really care. The hummers/ooh-ers are Brian, Al, and Carl. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

On the song "A Saucerful of Secrets," released in 1968 by Pink Floyd from the album of the same name, features David Gilmoure as "lead vocals" despite the actual vocal accompaniment of the song being more consistent to wordless monk chanting. I have taken the liberty to change the classification from "lead vocal = B. Wilson" to "lead vocal = B. Wilson/C. Wilson/Jardine (wordless)" If this is too specific, incorrect, or otherwise misinformed, please correct any mistake I have made. Cheers. Styk0n (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy Editing "Live Performances" section

PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Friends (The Beach Boys album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060630150321/http://blender.com:80/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2248 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2248

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friends (The Beach Boys album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QPq7dtdc?url=http://www.everyhit.com to http://www.everyhit.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friends (The Beach Boys album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this article soon. It'll be my first review. :)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Change "Despite the failure of the Maharishi tour" to "Despite the failure of a collaborative tour with Maharishi"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   My first concerns are the confidence ratings in the copyvio detector; reading 44, 48, and 63 percent. But it seems like for the most part, it's from song titles. I recommend paraphrasing quotations from reference 4, which has the 63 percentage.

   I'm nearly done with the review. My last major irk with the article is Brooklyn Vegan being used as a reference for the genres in the infobox. I'm not sure if it's reputable enough to cite genres.

   Ilovetopaint: I would like your input on this sometime soon. Otherwise, I'm failing the article within 7 days.

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:

   I'd do without that first Rolling Stone comment. It signifies favoritism and it doesn't contribute much to the technical aspects of the album.

   @Ilovetopaint, I apologize, I meant the comment in the critical reception section, talking about the first side being great. That section you modified was already fine. It bought me to my next point, the reviews by Robert Christgau, Penny Valentine, David Griffiths and Steven Gaines are in bad taste because they offer nothing but their own subjective opinion.

   Passing in agreement to the drive-by comment.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Most of the frequent edits are from expansions and cleanups to meet the criteria.

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):

   Not sure if the Maharishi image is totally free. I'd feel better if there was some sort of indicated approval of its use, or another image altogether.

   Looking again, maybe its just me since the image has been on wiki for quite awhile.

   Not a requirement, but perhaps you could add a sound-byte of one of the album's more exotic moments since they were elaborated a bit in the content section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   You're good to go now!

Drive-by comment

100cellsman: I'm sorry but I think you're wrong that "the reviews by Robert Christgau, Penny Valentine, David Griffiths and Steven Gaines are in bad taste because they offer nothing but their own subjective opinion." Well, wrong if you're saying they should be removed from the article. Almost all music reviews are highly subjective and, too often, offer very little that's actually informative. It's often the case that in a highly favourable critique, the writer will expound on their points and give plenty of reasoning (because they're so enthralled by the subject), whereas the writer of a highly unfavourable review might be blunt and dismissive, and let their derision alone stand as a reflection of how unengaging they find the music. JG66 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

JG66That's a good piece of thought. I just meant the reviews are bad because of the way they're worded. For example "The MOST disappointing" or "...IS good/bad", unlike "PERHAPS the most" or "is ONE OF". I thought of this in a way that doesn't make the reader feel too influenced by or conflicted with strong opinions and let them listen to the album to form their own thoughts themselves.100cellsman (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Readers would want to know what Rolling Stone, Record Mirror, Disc & Echo, etc had to say about the album. We can't just leave them out because they didn't say anything substantial. The substance is in their disregard for the music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. (By the way, I'm still reviewing the article. I just went through a stressful life situation.)100cellsman (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2018 (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.

Sales and Do It Again

How plausible is it that "Do It Again" was actually issued to recuperate from Friends? I'm not aware of how quickly Capitol would have known the sales figures. Would it have been before July 6? And if not, would two days have been enough time to press up a new single? It seems as though the band would have issued the song regardless of how well the album did.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)