Talk:Fundamental (Pet Shop Boys album)

Original track listing

Is it necessary to keep the originally-announced track listing? The final track list has the same twelve songs, just re-sequenced in a different order... seems a bit redundant. -- eo 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It seems to be misleading people, even (so at the very least it needs to be moved below the actual track listing). Anyone else? –Unint 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agreed so moved it down last week. I think it's important to keep the original tracklisting. Jonks 10:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would love to know what God Willing is about.

Fair use rationale for Image:PetShopBoys Fundamental.jpg

Image:PetShopBoys Fundamental.jpg 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) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fundamental (Pet Shop Boys album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) Nice article. To boost it to GA, cite sources where needed. Create a section on it's release and reception. The singles section can be moved to the infobox, as well as citing sources where needed and suggested. There are too many reviews in the infobox, WP:Music suggests that there be a fair and ubiased labeled reviews, amounting around to no more then 10 reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) This article lacks a "personnel" section, which should at least include the musicians but also the technical personnel listed =amg&sql=10:fzfexqtdld6e~T2 here. Although a list of personnel (not a band infobox) is required for "start", I believe other matters lift this article to a "C". To eet the more rigorous criteria of the revised B class, this article will not only need a full personnel listing, but also improved sourcing to help readers verify the accuracy of information, as in the unreleased songs section. Also, there are too many reviews in the infobox, as Andrzejbanas noted. Additional improvements may also be necessary. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on B class in album articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)