Talk:Andy Paley sessions

Andy Paley sessions was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andy Paley sessions. 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) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andy Paley sessions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points that are not issues for GA, but I might as well mention:
- You're inconsistent about the use of a location field in book citations. Footnote 38 (Domenic Priore) has a location; the sources listed below the references do not.
- Any reason to have just a single citation in the lead? It doesn't seem a controversial point; I'd suggest removing it.
  I could not find a place for that fact in the body.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, that means it's actually a GA problem -- the lead should not include information that is not in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraged by Paley, some songs from the album drew from close to 170 rough tape demos kept in briefcases next to Wilson's piano: needs rephrasing; the songs weren't encouraged by Paley -- presumably Wilson was.
After working on the material for several months, additional producers and songwriters were called in for Wilson: same problem -- the producers and songwriters weren't working on the material for several months.
~~The day after California courts issued a restraining order on therapist Eugene Landy from contacting Wilson: suggest giving the date, or at least the month and year.~~
a brief writing collaboration with ... Jellyfish: presumably this is Wilson collaborating, but you don't say so. It becomes apparent in Manning's quote, but it would be easier on the reader to make it clear before that.
~~There's a lot of shit Andy I got written for him: this is in quotes, so I didn't fix it, but there's clearly something wrong here. If this is an exact quote it should probably have a [sic] added.~~
I don't see what the problem is --Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Andy I" doesn't make sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As with Wild Honey (album), I feel there are too many quotes. Would you be willing to make a pass through to reduce them? My argument is the same as it was then -- we should be using quotes for illustration, not as a way to carry forward the narrative.
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~petsounds.com -- the site seems to be dead and I can't find its old homepage on archive.org.~~
  It was linking to a mirror of a Mojo article, which is the actual source being cited.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  So it is -- well, Rolling Stone, actually, but your point is taken. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The Mix~~
  I can't recall where I found that source but it must have been a scan of a reputable music magazine.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, struck, though if you go to FA it may be questioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Endless Summer/Bellagio~~

Site is operated by author Andrew Doe who has contributed Beach Boys info to several books and co-written at least one of his own.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Rock Cellar Magazine
  I don't have any info about it but the information it publishes has always been accurate and reliable. They've interviewed many major musicians and other industry figures.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll ask about this one at WT:ALBUMS; feel free to comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SmileySmile.net
  Source is a post by Craig Slowinski who works for the band as an archivist and contributes technical notes to several albums' liner notes (WP:SPS).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I just says "probably", if I'm looking at the right post. I think this should be dropped, along with the two words it sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~There's a [page needed] tag in the footnotes.~~

-- Still reading through; more comments probably this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through again, I think I'm going to hold off on further reviewing until we've talked about the quotes and the sources are addressed, since that might lead to quite a few prose changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will address these issues eventually, just need a bit of time.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- so long as you're planning to work on it that's fine. I'll check back in a couple of weeks if I haven't heard from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ilovetopaint: just checking in -- are you making progress on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed much of the quotes... --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked up this version of the article to show how much is quotes. This is too much for me to able to pass this, I'm afraid. The problem is not that these quotes need to be paraphrased; it's that the story of the article is being told via quotes. I think the article would benefit from a rewrite with no quotes (and no reported speech such as "saying that he did not believe the music was commercial enough"). That would be the bones of an article that could then be illustrated with appropriate quotes. This is such major surgery that I don't think it's reasonable to wait for you to fix it, so I'm going to fail the article -- the excessive quotes mean it fails 2d of the criteria; and it is not concise (1a) or focused (3b) either. Sorry -- I know you waited a long time for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]