Talk:Barrett (album)

Barrett (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Pink Floyd Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd 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.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Progressive Rock Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock 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.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. It is my first GA review of an album (I usually do biology related ones), but I'm quite familiar with Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett, so I think it'll be al-right. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Pink Floyd as merely "Floyd" strikes me as fan jargon. Seems comparable to for example referring to Led Zeppelin as "Zeppelin", and it may not be appropriate encyclopaedic language.
Maybe the intro should say "Pink Floyd's guitarist David Gilmour", since unfamiliar readers may not realise what instrument he played, as only bass is mentioned here.
On the same note, why is "Richard Wright (on keyboard)" in parenthesis, while "Jerry Shirley on drums" is not?
Two remasters are mentioned in the intro, shouldn't it be "A newly remastered version was released in 2010" then?
In the release section, only the 2010 release is labelled as a "remaster".
A few of Barrett's eccentricities are mentioned throughout the article, but wouldn't it be good for unfamiliar readers to mention under "background" that his mental health was deteriorating at this time, so that they are placed in the right context?
Could the following sentence be more specific with the year?: "The album was reissued in the early 1970s"
The following has no bearing on this article passing here or not, but on for example the GA London Calling, singles are mentioned in the infobox, and there are some fair use samples. Maybe that kind of stuff could be implemented here too?
Could more of the (important) footnotes perhaps be incorporated into the article? I for one rarely care to look at footnotes, so it would be sad if you felt some of it was interesting, but rarely read.
This image could use an info template on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abbey_road_studios.jpg

Done. Re:London Calling point, no singles have been released from the album (shame really, as most of it is pretty good, IMO). I'd say the use of samples isn't that important for Barrett (though, I've been meaning to add an "Octopus" sample to Madcaps). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps this fact (no singles) should be mentioned then? FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for samples, could be nice for "colour", but again, isn't required. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused what to do with the Commons photo? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like this random example: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Aerial_photograph_of_Maiden_Castle_from_the_west,_1937.jpg The Abbey Road image has no template with source info. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence could maybe be rephrased, as it reads a little odd: "Wolfpack" one of Barrett's favourites, out of all his material, he mentioned in an interview.

Done Will work on footnotes at the end of the review. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there bonus tracks on the 2010 release? Or was the track list unchanged?

There weren't any, (again, shame really) it was a reissue of the 1993 edition (albeit in remastered form). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now that's it from me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've moved the more important information into the article. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues raised, does the album get to pass now? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was away over the weekend. Nice article, and I hope you'll work on more like it. Shame it took so long before this one got reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the compliment, and the reivew. I've already done Syd's first album, and the early Floyd ones (pre-Dark Side, basically), but I do have some solo Beatle albums at GAN, if you're up for reviewing them? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Richard Wright's production credit

On all issues of the album prior to the Crazy Diamond box set, the production credit for Barrett clearly reads "produced by David Gilmour and Richard Wright". Only on the most recent reissues does the production credit read "produced by David Gilmour" (or in at least one instance, "Dave Gilmour"). This article needs to reflect that initially, and for a period of at least 20 years, Richard Wright was a credited producer of this album. If anyone can source the reason as to why his credit was removed, that would be interesting, valuable information. But beyond question, this article absolutely needs to make mention of the fact that for the initial issue of the album, and for every subsequent reissue for the following two decades, Mr. Wright is listed as a producer of Barrett. 70.30.81.49 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Songs section of this article reads like a meandering mess of unsupported opinion.72.93.10.73 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you call the plentiful citations at the end of each paragraph there? FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I agree that there is too much interpretation in the songs part. There are also sentences that go nowhere like "The lyrics that describe the way for a person to kill time". Huh?Jules TH 16 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrett (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 https://www.webcitation.org/6HcB2WTbf?url=http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t7597-rick-wright-broken-china-interview.html to http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t7597-rick-wright-broken-china-interview.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]