Talk:Black Lab

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Music Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Low-importance).

Black Lab was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 18, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 24, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 5, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Copy-edit

I've made some minor changes to the document, namely capitalization, grammar, and spelling fixes. It's a surprisingly comprehensive look at the band's history, and I tried not to mess with the author's intended words because they're obviously much more informed than I, but the document should "work" a little bit better now. I also added a short description of what the MP3 club is all about at the end. ChronoSquall14 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working toward GA

I've left a series of inline messages to address some ways to expand/improve this. FYI to any editors involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dearly like to pass this as a GA, but it's one in front of mine in the list, and people might see it as cheating to push mine up the scale. Bugger... andreasegde 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The article looks good, but there's a few things to fix:

The Music section contains fair use album covers. According to the fair use criteria, these serve a purely decorative purpose and shouldn't be present. (I had the same situation with the Pixies' discography section). You could place some of the album covers in the appropriate section of the biography. (criteria 6)
The first paragraph in the lead should detail who's in the band, and what instruments they play (a reader has to scroll down to the Members section to easily find this). I don't think the lead is sufficient in that respect. The 'Past members' section could be merged into the infobox (see Pearl Jam for how to handle a long list of past members). (criteria 1b)
What's the band's musical style? I don't think the article address this major aspect. There seems to be plenty of reviews of the band's work, so you shouldn't be stuck for sources. Even a short section will do fine. (criteria 3a)
~~A minor stylistic issue, but you may want to change the background colour according to Template:Infobox musical artist.~~

Hopefully that'll be enough for now :) Leave me a note on my talk page when you feel you've addressed these issues. CloudNine 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 taken care of; pics integrated into body of article.
Point 2 - Added Past Members section to infobox; kept members section at bottom. Is this OK?
Point 3 - I added a few general details supported by the reviews I'd cited into the sections for the first two albums. It's very difficult to describe the band's style after their first album without veering into OR territory, as they did not receive any mainstream press reviews for any of their independently released albums. I personally might liken it to a darker, edgier Coldplay or Snow Patrol, but that's pure OR. How does it read now? Chubbles 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing this as a good article. I appreciate your concerns about the musical style, and realised writing such a section is not as easy as I first thought. You may want to add some audio samples though. CloudNine 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name info

I removed the following addition:

From unnamed source close to the band: Actually, the name comes from the band's first rehearsal studio, which was windowless and without air-conditioning. They'd turn off the lights to keep the heat down. All that was left were the indicator lights on the sound gear, giving the room a faint eerie glow in the darkness while they created the songs. So it was like a lab. It was only after this that references to Black Sabbath, Stereolab, and the dog breed came. (The postcard Paul sent his mailing list in 1996 announcing the new band said, "Paul Durham unleashes... Black Lab!") Stereo Sabbath was also once the name of the band's fan club, and would show up in place of the band's name on random, hand-labeled tapes handed out at shows during the 1997-98 tour.

If anyone can dig up a source that talks about this, I'd like to re-add it. Chubbles 01:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to keep this here all this time. I just added a bit to it. Nobody interviewed me, so there is no reference for it. All I can tell you is, I was there. The band allowed different origin stories to circulate, including the nonsense in the article about mixing Black Sabbath's and StereoLab's names because they were influences, an approach to band-naming suitable for especially hapless 15 year-olds. anonymous

Fair use rationale for Image:Black lab cover1.png

Image:Black lab cover1.png 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Black Lab/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
~~Four dead links found using this tool, also several redirects. Ref #5 [1] returns a blank page; Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)~~ Done[reply]

The AMG and PMC Top10 cites should be fixed. The San Jose Mercury-News article has been moved to a pay archive - here it is in a search: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&p_theme=sj&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(podcasters%20aim%20to%20push%20song)%20AND%20date(1/1/2007%20to%201/1/2008)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/2007%20to%201/1/2008)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("podcasters%20aim%20to%20push%20song")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no. (for some reason I can't get the link to display on its own.) How do you prefer that this be linked? Or should I just delink it and treat it like a non-online resource? Chubbles (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked it to Nexis, which I guess is like Newsbank. If you look at the cite it preserves the original url, but diplays the archive. All OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
References that could be check OK> Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
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:
~~On hold for referencing to be sorted out. Major contributors and project will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
All OK now, i am happy to confirm this artcile's status as a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers

Why is the song listed under soundtracks? It's never been featured in any Transformers soundtrack. It's nothing more than a cover song. Plus the original animated film was released in 1986 not 1987. Whoever added this doesn't know what their talking about. So it should be removed or moved to some other part of the article. Sarujo (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Lab. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110523075757/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2007/03/bum_rush_the_charts_more_numbe.html?nav=rss_blog to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2007/03/bum_rush_the_charts_more_numbe.html?nav=rss_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Lab. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120919120922/http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5486470 to http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5486470

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) 09:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Lab. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130401005106/http://www.snapmusiclicensing.com/Default.aspx to http://www.snapmusiclicensing.com/default.aspx

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) 08:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Black Lab

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Article suffers from a lack of citations and a lack of expansion post-2007. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the main contributor to its initial GA push, I would be happy if this were speedily delisted as a GA; I have no intention of spending the time necessary to change it to meet current standards. Chubbles (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.