Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, editors. I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and I should have the checklist, analysis, and verdict posted sometime this weekend. Timmeh! 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Although the article does meet the MoS now, it was a good ways from it when I first read it. However, I did fix all the MoS problems I could find, and it complies now.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are a lot of sources, and as GrahamColm notes, the citations are accurate. They are also to reliable sources, which is good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am not ignoring Kim's Broken Down Rocket's concerns, but it seems the musical style and many aspects of it are already covered in the recording section, resulting in no real need for a separate musical style section to pass GA review, although the article could be better if it had one.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I do see negativity and several viewpoints expressed in the reception section, and there are a variety of sources. Harris is used a bunch of times, but I see that enough other books are used as well as online sources. If the article were being reviewed for FA status, there would likely have to be a bit more of a variety in sources.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I suppose any audio samples would be included under this section. Kim's Broken Down Rocket did claim there are no audio samples, but I did see two of them. That is plenty for an album article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything seems to be in check with regards to the GA criteria, after several minor fixes by me. So, I'm passing this article for GA status. I did take into account Kim's Broken Down Rocket's concerns. However, the article is not being reviewed for FA status, and the criteria are not as stringent and demanding of the article. Of course, if the editors wish to elevate it to FA status, they will need to take into account my concerns, as well as some of those of Kim's Broken Down Rocket. Timmeh! 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hi Timmeh. I don't plan to take it to FA just yet as I have a number of other things to do, but in fairness to Kim's Broken... I did place 2 audio samples into the article while you were reviewing. Thank you for a speedy review though and I'll definitely bear in mind both yours and Kim's comments when I decide to work on it more - they're both entirely valid criticism. PS Kim - the making of DVD is already in the article ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

• Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs):

I am saddened that another editor has beaten me to this GA review, but here's my two pennies worth. I have been re-reading John Harris' The Dark Side of the Moon recently and I am impressed with the article and the excellent use to which this source has been put—I have checked many of the citations and they are accurate. I thought I knew everything that was to be known about this album, but apparently not. Very interesting - thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Kim's Broken Down Rocket (talk · contribs):

IMHO the article relies too much on one source (Harris), thus even borderline violating WP:NPOV, while omitting other essential books and documentaries almost completely (Mark Blake, Nicholas Schaffner, George A. Reisch, Carruthers/Vance, MacDonald, Fitch, Mabbett, Jones, Shea and of course Nick Mason as well as some DVDs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). It is hardly using any contemporary sources showing its initial impact in the 70ies. Additionally, the article lacks any analysis of the actual music, not to mention score examples or audio samples. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CD release

An anon IP has put CD release details into the article. I only have the Mobile Fidelity version and the version I checked on Amazon does not tally with the quoted times. What to do? I'm not even sure its worthy of inclusion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's so many different CD versions that we hardly can list all of them. I have at least five different pressings and at least another five to ten may exist. And if we do it for the CD, what about the LP? I have about ten different copies of vinyl with perhaps far more existing. That's splitting hairs. But you know better anyway. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well my suggestion would be simply to go with the track timings of the earliest known or first pressing, and the same with the CD if necessary. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very similiar to the original European CD release, but I don't know if there's any diffs to the original US release here. I only can confirm the first European EMI/Harvest pressing which was one of my very first CDs, currently in some box at my other flat though. Also please note, that different players may show slightly different timings. Additionally, some copies have 9 and other 10 tracks (splitting "Speak..." and "Breathe"). Most differences seem to be at "Eclipse", lasting some seconds longer or not. The 30th anniversary hybrid is a completely different case, since it's not just remastered like the 1992 edition and similiar releases but remixed from the original reels, even including guitar tracks that are not on any other pressing and having completely different timings for the songs. In fact it's a different album, while all other pressings used the same master tapes from 1973 or copies from them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've had a look through the FA list of albums and can't find any instance where an article has given track listings and timings for both vinyl and CD versions. One or two give listings for extra bonus tracks (for special edition releases). Not even Thriller (album) mentions if the timings are vinyl or CD. My preference would be therefore to list only the vinyl track listing, since CD didn't exist when the album was released - and to include a note to that effect. The quad and modern surround mixes may be a different matter. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, and we had agreement to only use timings from the LP. See the section called "Long track list chart" further up this page, in which a former chart was preserved mainly for the purpose of checking to make sure future fiddling isn't coming from one of the CD editions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

France

Regarding the recent 3 edits, anyone know what makes [6] a reliable source? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no other source, the other pages like norwegiancharts.com, ect usually just use the position the album reached when re-edited on CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.92.232 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cover images edit warring

Well it seems to me as though the 20th and 30th anniversarys are discussed in the article, albeit briefly:

• "This version was itself re-released as a 20th-anniversary box set edition with postcards."
• "To celebrate the 30th anniversary of the album's release, an updated surround version was released in 2003."

These don't mention the changes in cover design, but if required a simple line can be added in each instance. I know this has probably been discussed before but before everyone engages in an edit war, I think it best to leave it as it was in this revision, until the matter is resolved here? My view is that the new album covers are well worth retaining. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The covers are largely similar, and it's hard to merit them under fair use guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The additional covers aren't notable; I doubt there is any discussion about them. Wikipedia's non-free image-use policy is significantly stricter than fair-use rules, so there's no basis for keeping them. indopug (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no basis for not keeping them. If the album is released in different forms and new covers are used for those releases then that is just information about the subject. It isn't controversial material. It is an image. No lean on fair-use. The images aren't used in any other articles. They are used in an article specific to the subject the image represents. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the additional covers add value and information to the article. The very fact that the covers were updated for the later additions provides a better understanding of the importance and enduring legacy of the album. It's also illustrative of the changes in graphic style over time. Further, I don't think that these things need to be explicitly discussed in the article as they are implicit in the images themselves. Jgm (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Each re-imagining of the prism design is sufficiently different to make them notable and recognisable, but sufficiently difficult to describe by words alone. The different images can do it in such a way as to be next to impossible using prose. And given what looks like a WP:SNOW at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Extra album cover 2 it looks like the consensus being that multiple versions are fine. --WebHamster 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

I've got a couple more books, Schaffner's 'Saucerful of Secrets', and Nick Mason's autobiog. Do we think its worth creating a 'Legacy' section? There are a few entries I could possibly use. I haven't given this much thought btw. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Song Writers Credits on Albums

I have what is probably a question that has been asked already, but I can not find an answer. Why are there so many discrepancies in song credits, and does it matter? For instance, for "Time" you have (Gilmour, Waters, Wright, Mason) , yet on the Pinkfloyd.com site [7] for DSOTM they show the album credits as (Mason, Waters, Wright, Gilmour). This is not just for DSOTM but ALL of their albums that I have noticed while adding lyrics to my collection.darrennie (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that I wrote the credits down in the same way as they appear on that website (which happens to match the Mobile Fidelity version I have here), but with the addition of Torry for TGGITS. The trouble is most of the recent edits are in that section, people linking, changing timings, etc, and it can be difficult to keep track sometimes. If nobody else objects, I'll change them later on. Its easy to see why it can be confusing, for instance Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See that's what I mean, not just this page (which I should have stated in the first place) but almost every "lyrics" site as well has their own preference. Alphabetical, reverse alphabetical, Gilmour fans first (ya baby), Waters fans have him first, as well as the label pressings and new releases etc.

I'm sure it must be a pain for you but I wouldn't worry about changing anything, just was ... curious why.darrennie (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Album sales

An FAC flagged this section with the following comment:

> Comment Most of the album sales are not sourced, only the number of shipped articles. These are not the same. 2001 (album) was certified 6 times platinum and sold 7+ million copied, while My December is platinum but sold about 800,000. I think the album sales should be removed where it isn't known and the UK sales should not be mentioned as "certified" on 14 June 2009 - certification dates are when silver, gold etc. are approved, not when the last sales number came in. Hekerui (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've therefore cut and copied the text here, pending any corrections, so it can be reinstated at a later date. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Country	Certification	Sales	Last certification date	Comment	Source(s)
Canada	2× Diamond	2,000,000+	14 March 2003
Europe	12× Platinum	13,450,000+		Seventh best-selling album in Europe
United Kingdom	9× Platinum	3,956,177	14 June 2009	Sixth best-selling album in UK
United States RIAA	15× Platinum	15,000,000+	6 April 1998	11x Platinum at 16 February 1990

(hidden refs in table so as not to bugger up formatting at bottom of this talk page) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Canada information looks solid, it's exactly what is shown in the source. The source for Europe is a forum post and doesn't meet WP:RS, the whole thing appears to be garbage and should be removed. The certification level and sales total for the UK appear to come from different sources, I would put the refs next to the info it's verifying just to be clear. And the 14 June 2009 date looks like it goes with the sales tally, not the certification. The link to the ref doesn't work so it's unclear if it's for one or the other or both. For the U.S., just say at least 15 million units shipped as of 6 April 1998. That's all that can be verified by that source. I would drop the "11x platinum at 16 February 1990" comment, it's an arbitrary date and the album had been eligible for multi-platinum status since 1986. Piriczki (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it might be easier just to include this kind of thing as prose. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the 'singles' section and copied it here. Its content is already in prose, in the article body, and it doesn't seem worthwhile (at least to me) to have a table for only two singles, and an incomplete table at that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed some things to the table. I've deleted the European sales and added the sale figures for Germany and France. DSOTM sold about 20 million copies in the US, but it's certified for only 15 million copies. In 1991 the album was certified for 11 times platinum. According to Soundscan DSOTM sold over 8 million copies since 1991. Other information in the table is sourced. If there are still any errors, you're free to change.Christo jones (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Singles

Year	Chart	Single	Position	Source(s)
1973	Billboard Pop Singles (North America)	"Money"	13
1974		"Time"

Release date

The U.S. release date of 10 March 1973 appears to be incorrect. This album entered the Billboard album chart dated the week ending March 17, 1973. That issue would have been published a week prior to that date, and the tracking week for that week's survey would have ended several days before that. It is not possible for an album released on March 10 to appear on the chart dated March 17. This advertisement [8] in the February 24, 1973 issue of Billboard announced "album available March 1", which is just about right for an album to enter the chart the week ending March 17.

The article also states that "the album reached the Billboard album chart #1 spot on 28 March 1973." This is impossible as there was no chart dated March 28, 1973. The nearest dates were March 24 and March 31 and the number one album those two weeks was Dueling Banjos. The Dark Side of the Moon was the number one album on the Billboard chart the week ending April 28, 1973. Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Dueling Banjos a single, and not an album? Are the singles and album charts on the same dates? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then the article should be changed to give more ambiguous dates - with so many conflicting versions I don't believe any other solution can be found. See [9]. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-checking my sources, Harris (2006) states 28 April for the #1 spot (as opposed to Povey who says March) so I suggest changing to that date, and adding a note with the explanation you have offered above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked both my Mabbett's books and the UK and US release dates are down simply as March '73 with no day given. --WebHamster 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they may well have encountered a similar problem. I can see how such things arise, with a record company contacting magazines and publishers with a specific date to raise interest, that date gets changed, the shops sell it a few days early, etc etc. I'll use this discussion to create a note to inform the reader. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well now, Mason (2005) on page 361 claims 10 March US, and 24 March UK. Based on this, I'm settled on 10 March (3 sources), and 23/24 March (as a compromise between the other 2). Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that the Mason, Harris and Povey books can be considered reliable sources, that doesn't guarantee the accuracy of everything contained in those books and it doesn't make sense to continue citing those sources when the information is disproved by other reliable sources. The Billboard album chart reflects sales between Monday and Sunday of any given week. The magazine reaches newsstands on Friday. Each issue is dated based on the end of its publication week. Thus the Billboard that reaches newsstands on Friday, March 9, for example, is dated March 17. The Dark Side of the Moon entered the Billboard Top LP's & Tape chart for the week ending March 17, 1973. The March 17, 1973 issue of Billboard would have been on newsstands Friday, March 9, 1973 and the survey period for that week's chart would have been Monday, February 26 through Sunday, March 4, 1973. It is not possible for an album released on Saturday, March 10, 1973 to be included in the chart dated March 17 because it had to be selling during the survey week ending on March 4, 1973 in order to appear on that chart.

The album reached the number one position on the Billboard Top LP's & Tape chart the week ending April 28, 1973. There can be no dispute regarding this fact. The best source for this information is Billboard magazine itself with the next best source being the Joel Whitburn books. If any source shows Billboard chart information that disagrees with the magazine, it is obviously incorrect and should not be used. Piriczki (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather contentious statement to make, to presume that one publication can be in error and another cannot. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar problem with the UK release date of 24 March 1973 because The Dark Side of the Moon entered the New Musical Express album chart in the issue dated 24 March 1973. Piriczki (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cover images again

The main point of contention for several users over this article's promotion to FA is the non-free images used, specifically the 20th and 30th anniversary images. Considering we've had a discussion about this before (look up the page) I can't just arbitrarily remove them without first asking again. I don't think there's really any other objections, most people seem happy with the article otherwise.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Side of the Moon/archive2

So, 20th and 30th anniversary images - stay or go? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Stay. Additional and useful information for the reader/fan trumps subjective comments from FAC critics reviewers who probably have bugger all interest in this PF opus, and are just hung up on their own little bit of self-perceived power in the den of iniquity known as FAC central. --WebHamster 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this FAC critic reviewer is massively interested in this Floyd masterpiece. I would love to see the article featured and appear on the Main Page one day. The only "power" that any editor can exercise at FAC is in attempting to achieve consensus, and this is what I have been trying to do since the article was re-nominated. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy that there's a strong rationale for the 30th anniversary cover as a decent chunk of text regarding its design is now in the article. I'm not sure about the 20th anniversary cover though, I didn't find anything for that, and it is very similar. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Stay. The cover art is an intrinsic part of this historic work; almost as much as the music and lyrics; and far more so than for most albums. If one or another of the major variants isn't discussed in the article then it should be. Who cares if this is a FA or not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

After carefully considering the unacceptable uses of non-free images, while none of them seem to be in serious violation, they don't really provide the reader with any particularly necessary information, and the article could function plenty well without them. I'd say if it suits the purposes of the reviewers at FAC then I won't object to removing them. That said, I can't see a consensus developing in support of that on this talk page. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove—Doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #8. Also the article infobox would look far better with just the iconic original. indopug (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The additional covers aren't really that different from the original that we can justify including them. Look at Autobahn, for instance - the additional cover is completely different, and discussed somewhere in the article. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stay. The covers are discussed, they're relevant to the longevity of the album. The 20th anniversary image is less defendable, but the 30th anniversary image is in no way similar to the original - the original is a photograph of a graphic design probably on mount of some description, the 30th is a photograph of a stained glass window. To me, a similar image is a cropped or colour-adjusted version of an original. The 30th is in no way similar to this description. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to keep the 30th, I suggest removing it from the infobox and moving it to the Packaging section. This would shorten the infobox and the image would gain relevance next to the prose which discusses it. indopug (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that now, but if people vote 'go', it'll have to go anyway I suppose. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is some kind of vote, but just in case, I'll say stay and point to my edit of 3 July 2009 above for reasoning. Jgm (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved userview: While the use of alternate covers is hugely debated at present (here, there, and everywhere), I would be majorly surprised if this was to impede the FAC process. Ithink, personally, they are different enough to provide adequate coverage of the history of the album, and may well be the covers that new listeners have come to identify the album by. As such, I don't see any harm in keeping them, as your consensus above seems to reflect. Good luck. :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove. Fair use media should be severely limited, and if anything the sound clips should get more precedent than minor cover variations. The rationale for keeping all the covers is very tenuous, and given the criteria for Featured Article Candidates, it's a small sacrifice to make. They also make the article look unsightly. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing date

Well "Time" is ticking, if its ok I'll suggest a close for this, on Tuesday at 1200GMT. That at least gives time for people who browse Wikipedia on weekdays a chance to respond. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So by my count, that's:

• User:WebHamster - stay
• User:Pigsonthewing - stay
• User:Master&Expert - remove
• User:Indopug - remove
• User:Parrot of Doom - stay (but remove the 20th anniversary image)
• User:Jgm - stay
• User talk:Bubba hotep - stay
• User:WesleyDodds - remove

Five 'stays' and three 'removes' is reasonably clear cut to me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Matters of policy are not subject to voting. You also don't get to set a "closing date". The 20th is unnecessary because it's an almost identical design. The 30th should be moved down to where it is discussed per WP:NFC. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the 20th - WP:NFCC#3 "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." There's not enough distinction between the original and 20th to justify using both - the design remains the same, and there's no risk of confusion, they're both "prism effect on black background". The 30th is in the vicinity of the text that discusses it, so that's less of an issue. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well excuse me for trying to defuse a troublesome situation. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up over it. It was a noble effort. In general, Wikipedia works based on consensus, which is judged by weighing up the arguments, and majority support doesn't mean a weak argument "wins". Five people have said they want to keep all three images. Three people have said they shouldn't all be there, and provided a solid justification in line with our image use policy and the rules on non-free content. It's a common mistake to think that things which look like votes should be judged as such. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The NFCC page isn't particularly clear, especially on a subject such as this. If you take a look over at WP:ALBUM you'll note a pretty big discussion on precisely this topic. It wasn't resolved. "if one item can convey equivalent significant information" is very much a matter of opinion, and your opinion carries no more weight than anybody else's. This article is unusual in that its subject keeps on selling, again, and again, and again. It refuses to die, and is almost a perpetual feature of the charts. Albums like that, especially conceptual albums, and especially conceptual albums with such a unique and recognisable cover image, deserve a little more consideration than simple reiteration of a policy that doesn't appear to address this issue.

That said, I'm glad you appear to be happy with the 30th anniversary image now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The 30th anniversary cover should remain near the top to illustrate the alternative cover a user may come across searching for the album. Placing it further down the page makes it very obscure (And isn't absolutely necessary simply because the text on the re-release is there). I strongly object to that placement, as it is quite a different cover than the original, and may be the cover new listeners associate the album with. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT a buyer's guide. Someone who sees it on the shelf having only seen the original cover can make the connection, and vice versa. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of that redundant argument. No, we aren't a buyers guide. We're an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia serves to show the most facts as quickly as possible to the skimming reader. It has nothing to do with buying. What if an 11 year old comes by Dark Side of the Moon, never having heard or seen it before. They read the bit at the top, see the clearly only cover that the album must have. They then proceed to look for a black album in their mother and father's CD collection. A brighter blue one is not even examined because the person is looking past the non-black albums. Just an example - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ITT: we make up stupid, contrived scenarios to justify our position when logic fails us. The answer is that the child identifies the album from the words "PINK FLOYD - THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON" on the spine of the jewel case, that being the way most people store their CDs on the shelf. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ITT an anonymous IP and an editor derives "consensus" on a spur-of-the-moment decision. I'll change it back myself. The scenario is just that, a scenario. The point is that the album cover identifies the album itself, and should be at the top. There's no benefit gained from being way down the page, and it quite clearly passes NFCC (As was discussed a couple months ago). Please get a few more opinions before deciding that you are going to jumble everything around because that will make it more eligible for FAC. Further, please reread WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, as there are no points that allude to the image having to be within the vicinity the text describing it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a keeper fer sure why are we even wasting time debating this??? Back to work! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say it was a waste of time; I'd like to see this article on the front page at some point. Amazingly there are probably a few hundred people in the English-speaking world who haven't listened to it, and they need converting, quickly.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I changed the wording of the "Sales" sub-heading to "Sales and popularity"?

I notice that it also mentions polls/'greatest album' lists that rank DSOTM highly, and I wonder if anybody would object to me renaming the section to encompass both of those things. What about separating the polls/critical commentary into a different section? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's only a single paragraph on the album's position in various polls, not really enough IMO to warrant a mention in the heading. I'm most definitely against separating the polls and commentary into a different section - by doing that, you'd be making major changes to the chronology of the article, especially as that section mixes reaction to the press launch with reviews of the album. With the exception of 'Concept', its worded so that each section reads directly onto the next. I think articles read better this way, rather than splitting the body into neat sections. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Concept Album?

Does Dark Side of the Moon really qualify as a concept album? Should it be listed as such? There isn't any solid recurring theme or subject that the songs deal with. There are plenty of interpretations, of course, but the songs deal with very separate subjects. Wish You Were Here, Animals, the Wall and the Final Cut are each very clearly based around a specific concept or premise, but Dark Side of the Moon lacks that particular quality. Friginator (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps an interesting philosophical debate, almost everyone has decided that it is indeed a concept album, which is why it's listed as such. The concept I believe is death or darkness. Time, money, life, insanity, are all themes of this concept. While at first the band shows the beauty of life in its simplest (Breathe), the rest of the album shows each theme in turn being roasted for their true ideology, which is the darkness and death that unite them.

Also remember that the lyrics are only one part of the melody. The music is one 43 minutes piece performed without pause, which qualifies as conceptual in my eyes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

At the band meeting in Mason's London home, it was Waters who had the idea of an entire album encompassing a single theme. The entire album is about the inevitability of death. I remember a Waters quote, where he one day realised that the life he had been waiting so long to begin, had begun when he was born. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the album reflects the inevitability of death, though. That's definitely a theme adressed in a couple of songs, but the album is clearly more varied than that in its subject. Friginator (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly does include madness, but the important point is that the sources used define it as a concept album. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The concept album status doesn't have too much of a strong source in particular. The closest I see is from Rolling Stone which says, "It seems to deal primarily with the fleetingness and depravity of human life, hardly the commonplace subject matter of rock....Even though this is a concept album, a number of the cuts can stand on their own." It then goes on to list what the songs themselves mean individually. There seem to be many, many different opinions on various websites about what the "concept" of the album is, rather than a clear premise or singular theme. Just in this discussion, there have been several different descriptions of the album's overall meaning. The "Concept" section in this article describes it as "the nature of the human experience," but also lists the different songs and what they mean apart from that, or each other. I don't see why this should be listed as a concept album if there's no straight answer about just what the concept is. All I've seen is, "different things that lead people towards insanity," or "life in general," neither of which are necessarily true, and are both very loose and catch-all.Friginator (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concept albums needn't necessarily have one concept. And again, lyrics aren't the only aspect of the music. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reliable source saying it is not a concept album. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Schaffner, p160 - 'single coherent statement'. Blake, p176 - 'Waters described his vision for a piece of music "all about the pressures and difficulties and questions that crop up in one's life and create anxiety".' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC source comments: Referencing

General. Why are the publishers of web citations in print form, e.g. Rolling Stone, up to ref 37 and then in website form for the rest, e.g. billboard.com. Pick one method and stick to it for consistency.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1-3, 7, 90, 109 need doing, too. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I need to keep my eye on the ball, editors come along and add their own citations without bothering to check the rest of the article. Its bloody annoying (although 109 is my edit, copied from elsewhere). Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 3. Remove link. We can't be sure the website has permission for republication.

Gone. Not an edit of mine anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I only meant the url link. The ref was fine. You can put it back. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only cite things from where I first saw them. If I didn't see the original, I can't include it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 6. Remove link. We can't be sure the website has permission for republication.

Gone as above Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I only meant the url link. The ref was fine. You can put it back. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As above Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 7. Why is the publisher Harvest?

Done, another edit by someone else. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 10. Needs page citations.

Difficult since its a DVD. It was once proclaimed as such, but removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can cite DVDs, too. There's a template for everything. You can put it back. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will edit the citation template to include 'format = DVD', that will make it clearer. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 24. Remove link. We can't be sure the website has permission for republication.

It's linked from Manchester Library's 24 hour library service to newsbank and is quite reliable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 53. Needs a publisher.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 55. Page not available?? Not accurate enough.

Page numbers are preferable but AFAIK not always required. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be true. But there are 10 separate cases of the source being cited and it definitely needs page numbers. It's a dealbreaker for me I'm afraid. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well since the book costs about £50 and isn't in any of my local libraries, I doubt it'll get getting changed soon. The information in the article will be easy to find, in fact any user who browses the book in Google Books will be able to find it in less than a minute or so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, add the Google Books url link. And surely you would be able to see the page numbers and cite them from GB? As I said, this is a dealbreaker for me. RB88 (T) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the book is bigger than Google's scanner, and they buggered up the scanning of many of the pages. WP:V does however say "providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." - in this case, it simply isn't yet possible to do. The information is there, it will just take the reader a little longer than normal to find it. Its really little different from living in Bolivia and not having access to any of the books. I don't oppose your view though, I'm just explaining mine. It isn't an issue for me whichever way. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon has it from £15 [10]. I definitely think it needs page numbers, sorry. If it was a one-page album review in NME or whatever without a page number then I wouldn't care, but this has loads of info cited, including fact, opinion, and chart placings. An alternative would be to source the info from other places. RB88 (T) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 60. A bit sceptical of a 7 page citation for one or two sentences.

It isn't for one or two sentences, its for most of that section and contains transcripts of each interview. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From the reader's point of view (and mine), I only see "Although the truth remains unclear, Thomas' intervention resulted in a welcome compromise between Waters and Gilmour, leaving both entirely satisfied with the end product. Thomas was responsible for significant changes to the album, including the perfect timing of the echo used on "Us and Them". He was also present for the recording of "The Great Gig in the Sky" (although Parsons was responsible for hiring Torry)." cited to it. More citations from the ref may need to be added to the paragraph as appropriate. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using lots of citations where only a few are appropriate. Unfortunately Wikipedia lacks any method of identifying which text is being cited (by hovering over the number), its a shame. I try and be as accurate as possible, but just as the reviewer has to trust that the information I have cited is indeed correct, you can be assured that nothing in that paragraph is uncited. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 74. Use the album citation template.

Citation templates are not to be mixed as per WP:CITE Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can! Depending on the medium of the source. You can have album, DVD, web, news etc in one article if you have all those separate sources. RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:CITE does not agree, and neither do the reviewers at WP:FAC who would point this out. My preference is to use the Citation template, not the cite:xxx template - and I'll not be changing that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 84. Needs page citations.

I don't have them, and am not sure if they're available. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as much of a dealbreaker, but the book IS in existence and only a library/amazon trip away I should guess. [11] RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 87., 90., 134.-137., 139 Unabbreviate.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to unabbreviate all the awarding bodies. E.g. British Phonographic Industry RB88 (T) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But that would not then be internally consistent with the rest of the article. I don't see this as a requirement for FA, in fact I'm certain it isn't since other FAs I've worked on have passed without comment on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No FAC process is ever 100% comprehensive and criteria change continuously. But I'll let this one go. It's not that big a deal. RB88 (T) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 138. Only title is in citation.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• 141. Wrong title.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tables and referencing again

Moving these table entries here until a more reliable source may be found:

Year	Chart	Position	Comment	Source
1993	UK Albums Chart	4	Reissue
1994	UK Albums Chart	38	Reissue
2003	UK album chart	17	30th Anniversary hybrid SACD edition

Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• These are all fine btw. Put them back. I meant the Swedish, Norwegian, and Australian ones which can all be cited to Ultratop. RB88 (T) 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry, the tables above were confusing the references. I've archived them. I just can't be arsed doing all this tonight, long day tomorrow :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Any website of an awarding body is fine. My point was about everyhit.com and also about merging all the three other charts into one Ultratop citation. RB88 (T) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

...and here are two more sources whose reliability I cannot ascertain. It isn't really very important information but maybe someone can find a reliable source to use:

It languished in obscurity for about 30 years until a DVD-Audio bootleg surfaced. The disc purports to be derived from the original studio masters, mixed by an anonymous individual who claimed to be a "professional sound engineer".

Jazz musicians Sam Yahel, Mike Moreno, Ari Hoenig and Seamus Blake released Jazz Side Of The Moon in 2008,

Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fix the title

Throughout the article correct the album's title: it's "Dark Side of the Moon", not "The ...". JanPB (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(NB moved this to bottom of page for chronology) Actually it's both. Yes the original release was without the leading "The", but the latest SACD release does have the leading "The". It's debatable as whether this is important enough to amend the titles quoted in the text, or even to move the article. I do think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere though. --WebHamster 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of this album, since 1973, has always been The Dark Side of the Moon. The '90s compact disc release omitted the "The" on the spine of the jewel case for some reason, that's all. No reason to question the correct title of the album. Piriczki (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was originally without the 'The' an had to be changed to include it. I've got the vinyl LP and it definitely starts with The - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All the sources used use The Dark Side of the Moon. Find a source that says otherwise and perhaps you may have a point. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How about page 176 of Comfortably Numb: The Inside Story of Pink Floyd by Mark Blake, which says "Dark Side of the Moon (the definitive article would appear with the 2003 reissue)...."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it does. Good point. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So does that "Mobile Fidelity CD Ultradisc" featured in the picture in the article. Oh and the poster in my room. That's a pretty legitimate source right there. I've always thought it was odd to include the definite article, because people have always referred to it as "Dark Side of the Moon" or simply "Dark Side". I don't really care what the Wikipedia article lists it as, but if anyone talking to me referred to it as "The Dark Side of the Moon" I'd slowly back away before turning and running out the door.70.168.11.55 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Another source is the "Official website" link under "External links". That web page is entitled "Pink Floyd : Dark Side Of The Moon". I think that's about as authoritative as it gets. Also all of Amazon.com (USA) references omit the "The". So does iTunes USA. I really think it's "Dark Side Of The Moon" (as of this minute) but I am not going to be so presumptuous as to edit the page without some agreement here. Dmitch777 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy: Radiohead, OK Computer

I was going to re-write this section because it is vague and poorly referenced but I see it has become a point of contention so I will address it here first. Whether OK Computer is critically acclaimed or not and Christgau's opinion of it really aren't relevant to the central point here—that the influence of The Dark Side of the Moon extends to modern music. Plus, Christgau's "unfavorable comparison" doesn't address whether the albums are similar or dissimilar as much as the point that he didn't like either one.

Removing the irrelevant text, we are left with:

"It is often seen as a symbolic point in the history of rock music, and a common comparison is one made between Pink Floyd and Radiohead, specifically their album OK Computer. The two albums share a common theme: the loss of a creative individual's ability to function in the modern world."

Maybe nothing more needs to be said but that seems a bit thin. It could be expanded with further comparisons of The Dark Side of the Moon and OK Computer from the Reising book but one thing to remember, that book is a collection of essays and the one in being cited was a four page essay written by a 21 year old with unknown credentials. A source which documents some actual influence of The Dark Side of the Moon on OK Computer is needed. Similarities, even if widely recognized, don't necessarily prove influence. Better sources would help here. It is probable that any influence is that of Pink Floyd's body of work on that artist rather than a specific album influencing another specific album, in which case this section probably belongs in the Pink Floyd article, not this one.

And exactly what does "symbolic point in the history of rock music" mean? Piriczki (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've found extremely difficult to resolve, in all the Pink Floyd articles - their influence on modern music. Its extraordinarily difficult to find reliable online sources that say "Yes DSotM probably influenced this album". I agree with everything that you say - my annoyance at the IPs recent edits was caused by the assumption of bad faith, that the article is biased. It isn't. OK Computer is a right load of bollocks compared to The Bends though ;). Parrot of Doom 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Radiohead rigging in "Legacy"

Sure, some Floyd fans (of which I am a huge one) may see Radiohead as Pink Floyd copyists (even though they've never cited Floyd as an influence - rather The Pixies, REM, Can, Tangerine Dream, The Smiths, U2 - and have on many occasions stated that they despise prog rock) - but this section is evidently biased. It presents one review which criticizes OK Computer, obviously in an attempt to make DSotM look like an oh-so-great album which has been copied by pale-faced imitators. Clearly, OK Computer is widely regarded as one of the greatest albums ever recorded - even though it has sold a quarter of the copies DSotM has, it's arguably equally critically acclaimed. I attempted to introduce material to make the section neutral (pointing out that OK Computer was a critically acclaimed release, and that Roger Waters "really liked" the record - while retaining the negative Christgau review), which was obviously immediately reverted by a user who branded my edits bad faith - an easy out, of course (he then left a comment on my talk telling me to assume good faith, which is an absolute joke, and a textbook example of bias among supposedly "impartial" moderators). Perhaps we could soften the rigging here and give OK Computer its due and work towards making this article neutral... not another rigged article for which Wikipedia is so famous. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Radiohead and so there is no need to insert material about the critical acclaim of OK Computer, since any reader can click the link and read it in that article. Your bad faith is perfectly obvious to all, in your edit summaries - " Removing bias/rigging and blatant attempt to discredit Radiohead, "playing dumb" to the fact that OK Computer was critically lauded and widely regarded as one of rock's greatest albums" - " Softened blatant rigging." - " Further softening of rigging and pro-Pink Floyd, anti-Radiohead agenda" - "(Undid vandalistic agenda by Parrot of Doom" - ""Take your bad faith edits elsewhere", then you tell me to assume good faith? Ha! Again removing bias. What does the Radiohead mention prove, other than to discredit them and make Floyd look great?"

If you want to be treated as an adult, I suggest you stop making such comments and make constructive contributions to this project, instead of instantly assuming that people have an agenda - which I do not. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Your bad faith is perfectly obvious to all." Well, neutrality does translate to "bad faith" around here. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be a storm brewing here. In a nutshell, what is the issue—or what are the issues (without getting personal)? Is it that Floyd were an important influence on Radiohead, and that this should be acknowledged? Or is it that Radiohead have no relevance to this article at all? To be honest, this is a difficult debate to follow. May I ask that you try to be nice to each other—clearly your are both passionate about the subject—and surely this can be resolved here, on the Talk Page, without the need for arguing via edit summaries? Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer passionate. Frankly I couldn't care less. When you work for months improving an article to FA, and then have to put up with random users accusing you of being biased, it tends to make one think only one thing—why bother? The material under discussion was only there because I wanted to demonstrate that Pink Floyd's influence extended to modern well-known bands. If people want to think that somehow makes me biased, well I care not even slightly for their opinion—I'm just getting fucking sick and tired of having to deal with these kinds of stupid, childish, and thoroughly baseless accusations. Delete the entire section, I no longer care. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may step into this spat to offer an unsolicited, neutral-ish opinion: the entire paragraph under "legacy" that mentions Radiohead needs, at the very least, significant rework. The enduring legacy of The Dark Side of the Moon is however in its influence on modern music, the musicians who have performed cover versions of its songs, and even in modern urban myths. This is baldly and awkwardly stated with no references whatsoever. Who says that these things are the album's legacy (as opposed to, say, production techniques, artwork, sequencing, whatever)? It is often seen as a symbolic point in the history of rock music -- this is meaningless and unsupported. and a common comparison is one made between Pink Floyd and Radiohead, specifically their 1997 album OK Computer, which has been called The Dark Side of the Moon for the 1990s. Common? The only reference is one essay published in a vanity-press book. The two albums share a common theme: the loss of a creative individual's ability to function in the modern world. -- This is analysis and synthesis, and sort of beside the point. I'm tempted to delete the paragraph altogether, as it is contentious and adds nothing useful to the article. If we give documented examples of the legacy of the album, such as notable covers, urban legends, and influences on other musicians, then the facts speak for themselves and we don't have to try to justify overly-broad statements. Jgm (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to have Christgau slate OK Computer, then we simply must note that the album was widely acclaimed - that's neutrality. I'm not sure if it's at all necessary for OK Computer to be mentioned, but the material was there. When I first read that paragraph, it translated to "DSotM is so great, that pale-faced imitators such as Radiohead have tried to copy it with poor records." That's why I'm here. I read that as an impartial editor, and it reaked of bias. I put in a BBC cite to support the fact that OK Computer was acclaimed and that Chrisgau was in the smallest minority of critics who didn't warm to it (10/10 NME, 5/5 Q, 5/5 Allmusic, 10/10 Pitchfork etc etc etc...), but that, was of course, removed. Rig, rig, rig. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly the DSOTM article is not the place to debate OK Ccomputer's merits or critical reception, so I wouldn't agree that it's bias to keep that stuff out of here. I think, first, that we are talking about influence here rather than legacy here (legacy is something people have, not albums). The acid test for inclusion would be whether the artists themselves acknowledge an influence, or if there is critical consensus (beyond the one guy's rather tortured essay) that OKC was influenced by DSOTM. OKC is an important enough album that, if such a relationship could be documented, it bears mentioning here; but currently I see no evidence of either. Jgm (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried an edit to address the issues I noted above, only to be reverted to the problematic version that seems contentious here. Must we do this line by line? Jgm (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't true—I suggest you study the edit history and the times at which the above comments were made. This matter had already been resolved. Your edits, which did contain some positive changes, frankly made most of that section appear a mess. I didn't revert your edit in its entirety. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'll look about 4 edits above in this section you'll see my line-by-line summary of issues with the paragraph. In any event, I've made several more incremental edits. Let's discuss any you think are not helpful. Did you really want Milli Vanilli and Marky Mark samples to be the primary examples of enduring influence? Jgm (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at your edits now. Your grammar is poor, and including 'samples' in the 'covers' section is incomprehensible. I couldn't care less what people think of Milli Vanilli and Marky Mark - they're both notable musicians/bands who used samples from this album. I make no judgement on their musical ability. There isn't enough material to warrant a section on 'samples', let alone merge it into the significant 'covers' section.

Yes, I read your entry above this. Much of it really doesn't make sense. Only claims which are likely to be found contentious need to be referenced, but your assertion that certain lines are entirely unreferenced is, quite frankly, completely untrue. I can't think of much in this article that aren't referenced. I know this, because I wrote probably 95% of this article, and I'm certainly responsible for referencing more than 95% of it.

I have no problem with people making changes to grammar, or adding new citations, or even inserting cite requests. I have a big problem with people making significant changes to the structure of a section that frankly, make the article look a mess. If you have a real problem with this, take it to WP:FAR, before I do. Parrot of Doom 20:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

With this revision, a link to a Q Magazine rating has been inserted into the review field (along with other changes which are rather messy IMO). I'm restricted now by the WP:3RR rule, but I don't think there's any value whatsoever in having a rating, with a link to a review, the text of which is unavailable. What does the reader learn? Nothing in my opinion. Parrot of Doom 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? If there's no input, I'm simply going to revert as necessary, and perhaps use some manner of dispute resolution. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Q review is not available online shouldn't automatically discount it's validity. When discussing albums from this era, probably most of the relevant reviews are only in print form. I guess the question is, is the infobox meant to be a set of links to online reviews or a quick glimpse at critics' ratings? My problem with the reviews often cited for older albums, like the Q review, is that they were mostly written in hindsight long after the album was released. I can see having one or two definitive contemporary reviews included but otherwise I think it's more relevant and informative to use reviews from 1973. Whatever contemporary critics have to say about it should probably go in the Legacy section. Piriczki (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be online - my problem is, what is the content of that review? Has the person who made the edit seen it? I sincerely doubt it. All the contemporary reviews in this article are available, or if only selected quotes are used, then those quotes are available (with the sources I have here). I don't see the value linking to a review that isn't available or which hasn't been seen, and of course if you remove the URL as irrelevant, then how do you verify the source (as nobody has read it)? Parrot of Doom 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ranking Among Other Rock Albums

The assertion that this is frequently ranked among the top albums of all time requires a reference. What is "frequently"? Certainly more than more than once, twice, or three times. Numerous credible polls should be cited. What is "top"? Top 5? 10? 100? This should be easy to quantify if it is actually true. HM211980 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)HM211980

And easy it was, when you know where to look. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recording

The article needs a reference regarding the site, specific dates, and the statement that there were two sessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are already numerous refs in that section which cover the statements. The dates are also mentioned on the album sleeve notes (on various re-releases too). It seems to me that you are now becoming disruptive in your quest to get one over on PoD. Please stop. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PoD has been disruptive in trying to retain these comments in the article without proper sourcing. HM211980 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)HM211980

Au contraire, PoD has done a sterling job in making this article the article that it is, and how good it is, and incidentally is also responsible for most of the current sourcing, whereas you sir are just attempting to use the article for your own purposes in a petty squabble. All you have succeeded in doing is deleting information and wasting various editor's time having to correct your spiteful edits. You are not improving this article one iota and I ask that you stop doing what you are doing, it's unbecoming and disruptive. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)