Jump to content

Talk:A Moon Shaped Pool/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Track 10 song title: Tailer vs. Tailor

Official band website clearly uses former spelling ("Tailer"), while all other outlets use latter ("Tailor"). Admittedly, the latter spelling does make much more sense, although tailer is an English word according to some dictionaries. Until actual physical product manifests circa June 17, I'd tend to go with the former spelling since that is exactly how it is listed on the band's official website. Please note as well that the title of track 5 also has a counter-intuitively and intentionally 'misspelled' word ("Ful" vs. "Full"). Wikieditor0611 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, especially with Radiohead's track record of non-standard spellings (see also "Packt Like Sardines"). It might still yet turn out to be a typo, but let's wait to see if it changes. Popcornduff (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, having said that, the MP3 metadata, purchased directly from Radiohead, says "tailor". Popcornduff (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition, I see now that the spelling on the band site has been changed/corrected to "Tailor". That should settle it! Wikieditor0611 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Genre classification

This album in question has six genres at least in my eyes, which I would like to discuss here. Those being Art rock, Ambient, electronica, Progressive rock, Post-rock, and Symphonic rock. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakyonDrive (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added art rock and psychedelic folk with sources already. I think only art rock, ambient, and electronic, out of the ones you listed, fit the album. I think chamber pop fits the album instead of symphonic rock, though. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? Aria1561 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There are traces of Sigur Ros all over the album, who are Post-rock and ambient, which should probably go on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakyonDrive (talk • contribs) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, we need sources for any claims of genre we add. Popcornduff (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We can have a consensus, too. Not every review will call an album a genre that is obviously featured in it. Aria1561 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no. · | (talk - contributions) 16:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Present Tense in 2008 or 2009

So, I'm a bit torn on this edit. Technically this is correct, because "Present Tense" was soundchecked in 2008, but the source that we're currently using would have to be changed - the Paste review only mentions the Thom Yorke solo performance in 2009 when talking about the origins of "Present Tense". We could either

  • keep it at 2008 and find a source that confirms this (e.g. Pitchfork, FACT Magazine), or
  • revert this to 2009 (the Yorke solo performance) and keep the same source (Paste).

Would like to hear some other opinions on what we should do here. HKraemer73 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Great spot. Why not use both sources and both dates? I've made the edit accordingly. Popcornduff (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Psychedelic folk?

There seems to be a bit of a spat regarding whether the album is psychedelic folk, so I figured that I'd make this section. · | (talk - contributions) 18:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"in a way, “A Moon Shaped Pool” is Radiohead’s psych-folk album." I don't have to stress it any further. Aria1561 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the source, but you do have to frame that excerpt into context: "in a way" indicates something other than "it is". · | (talk - contributions) 20:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the "in a way" makes this a less useful source for that claim. Popcornduff (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Production credits

There are detailed production credits here: http://www.91x.com/uncategorized/hear-radioheads-new-albuma-moon-shaped-pool-at-11pm-tonight-on-the-ftw-new-music-show/

Looks legit to me, but what do other editors think? Can we trust this source? Popcornduff (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

They haven't cited where they got it from. I mean, the site and information looks genuine, but that's a bit of a detraction. · | (talk - contributions) 14:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Several articles have mentioned the London Contemporary Orchestra and named its composer, and mentioned Deamer, suggesting there was some sort of press release sent out to journalists, or something - probably where this same article got its facts. Hmm. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Moon Shaped Pool. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Style of the track listing

I propose changing the track listing to use the tracklist template. The motivation is that it would look more orderly and professional and it would be easier to read because lengths of songs would be aligned and start from the same position. Some time ago I made this change to the track listing but today it has been reverted. I don't see any reason for this undo. Ciszek (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Label LLLP LLP

On my copy of AMSP it says as a label "LLLP LLP under exclusive license to XL recordings". I added LLLP LLP twice as a label, and twice it was removed, once with the remark "that is not the actual label". I have no intention to start a edit war, so what are the arguments not to include "LLLP LLP" as their label? Why is it "not their actual label" ? I note that TKOL RMX 1234567, TKOL and IR all have Ticker Tape or Xurbia Xendless mentioned as their label in addition to XL. What would be different this time? Merijn2 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

On Discogs, it said that LLLP LLP was the copyright holder and not the label. I'd assume that your copy has the copyright symbol © before "LLLP LLP", which refers to the copyright holder and not the label. Usually, the label's logo/picture is on the back or front side of the case. Looking at the images of the Discogs source you provided in your edit, it seems as though only XL Recordings and S Music have their logos only, on the back-side of the case. Aria1561 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this article has more information on that: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/29/radiohead-corporate-structure-firms Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Moon Shaped Pool. 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:

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) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

La Fabrique september 2014 or 2015

The article states that they started working in La Fabrique in 2014. However, the source for this claim establishes that they worked in La Fabrique in 2015 (it states that the author visited them there 3 years after their concert in Nîmes, which was in July 2012), but not in 2014. In fact, I am quite sure that they weren't in France in 2014, since I think that on Nigel's private instagram page (now set to private so I can't check it) all photos from southern France are from 2015 Merijn2 (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Great spot, thank you. Popcornduff (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A Moon Shaped Pool/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


I'll take this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, let's get to it:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The following things need sorting out:

  • Infobox: That the album is considered "art rock" is well sourced in the "Music and lyrics" section, however, that does not apply to the "electronica" label. This would need a source in the respective section or be scrapped from the infobox.
  • Lead: I'd add the year to the date at the end, considering that it is not self-explanatory that the album goes gold in the year of release.
  • Recording: "In 2015 they resumed work in ..." Two things here: First, it is already established two sentences earlier that they resumed work in March 2015, so this is a little redundant.
  • Secondly, if it says where they resume work, the question arises where they have worked before?
    • Unfortunately, we don't know. It hasn't been discussed in any source I can find (and I think I've read everything). Radiohead's increasing tendency not to do many interviews makes writing Wikipedia articles harder. I would guess their Oxford studio but that's only my speculation. Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Recording: As far as I know, it needs to be "8- and 16-track recorders".
  • Music and lyrics: This is not absolutely necessary, but since the official name of the paper is "The Guardian", I think it would be preferable to put the "The" in italics as well.
    • Confession: this is a cause of great irritation to me. You're right in that the official Wikipedia style guide considers the entire name The Guardian and therefore 'The' should be capitalised and italicised. As a copy editor by trade, and nerdy lover of style guides, I consider this an archaic and senseless rule that will eventually change, just as it's already changed in many newspaper and online style guides, including the Guardian's own. Until that day, though, I grudgingly have to bow to Wiki policy. Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Release: "It contains the album in CD..." - This is a little weird to read considering that the sentence before was in past tense. I know why this is done, but still feel that for a more fluent reading experience, keeping it in past tense would be better.
  • Promotion: Just a quick notice that obviously, for this article to retain GA status (should it be promoted), the last sentences of this section need to be updated once the stuff has happened.
  • Critical reception: Source #102 only lists the Grammy nominations, the information about the Pitchfork list is unsourced.
  • Track listing and Personnel: Both of these sections need sources. The liner notes of the album (and the special edition) will do, but I am sure there are other sources for that as well.
    •  Done Went with the liner notes, which only credit "Radiohead", not the individual members of Radiohead. I hope it's OK to list them as I have as I think no reasonable person would presume it didn't mean those people. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Release history: A Japanese release is mentioned in the prose, shouldn't that be included here as well?
    • Wow, I don't think I've ever looked at this part of the article before. I've included the Japan release with a source, but I can't figure out why it's displaying in bold, even in the source editor. I'll check it out again later. Popcornduff (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Notes and references: This is the biggest problem of the article, the references are quite a mess. What I feel needs to be done is:
  • Consistency in date formats, so far, there are many references with the year-month-day format, while I would prefer if all were Day Month (as a word) Year.
  • Several references, such as #9 and #10, but also several others, contain things like "NME.com" in the page title, which is not necessary and should be removed. The weirdest instance is ref #56, where apparently a whole part of the search form of the website found its way into the reference.
  • Several references give a page title, but no publisher or website name (# 36, 54, 57, 58, 71,73). These should be added.
  • References #1 and #2 are the same source, these need to be merged.

That's all I could find. Overall, a very well written article that is worthy of GA status once the reference section gets cleaned up. Up until then, this review is on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this thoughtful review. Another confession: I find making references neat and tidy extremely tedious work, so I always wait for GA reviewers to catch the problems before going in for the final polishing sweep. Which is a selfish and lazy strategy, but... *gulp*
I've responded to your concerns as best I can. Let me know what needs to happen next. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I am satisfied with the edits done to this article. You've noticed that I made some minor changes myself. Especially the reference section looks a lot better now. I can gladly promote this article to GA status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Great news. Thanks for your work on the review and the article. Popcornduff (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Other genres?

I don't feel like it's right to just leave it at simply "art rock". Should we add these genres to the infobox? I have citations for them for you to look them over.

Tjdrum2000 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Moon_Shaped_Pool/Archive_1&oldid=1136487551"