Talk:Horizon (The Carpenters album)

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 articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is one of the most hilarious articles I've read, maybe rivaling the one on Scott Walker. Somebody clean it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.3.140 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The information section of this article is hugely biased and is basically a review (very positive one). Please remember this is an encyclopedia which deals only in facts. Can somebody who cares more fix it?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worldwide chart positions of this album have been compiled by extensive online research. These chart positions will be added soon with links to the websites in which they are found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions and verified information is fine - unsourced reviews are not. Article is tagged.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect then what you wanted was a cite tag. I'm removing the NPOV tag until you can explicate your claim of bias, with specific examples from the text. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire information section is a review. The article should be based on facts not personal opinion. There are many examples, eg: "Karen put every bit of soul she had into this song" - how is this a factual statement? The tag has been reinserted. It also needs additional citations as well.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this does read like one big review. In fact, I'm concerned that this could be a big WP:COPYVIO, as the entire thing, or at least big chunks of it, sound like they could be word for word pulled from the Coleman and Schmidt texts. A more appropriate way to organize this would be to split descriptive aspects from the texts apart from judgmental aspects, and put everything in quotes with proper inline citations. Albums are recommended to have a critical reception section anyway. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The entire "information" section should be removed. Composer credits and timings should be added to the "tracklist" section. Other factual information belongs in the lede or singles sections. If the "information" section is copied from a book, there could be a copyright violation issue. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the claim that chart info was added after "extensive research", and you intend to go back later and find all the places you got the info from the first time, and add citations... I've seen promises like that before. Tags about missing citations belong in the article until someone actually does this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be copyvio issues with this, a search for the first sentence of the Information section also through up this link. Unfortunately I can't check it out at work as it is blocked. --JD554 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Now that the probelmatic section has been removed, songwriting credits and timings should be restored from that section to the track listing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon further review, it looks as though the text was added by the person who runs a Carpenter's fan site, as well as that myspace blog: RickHenry. I replaced it, but the page will need major re-working.Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a copyvio per se (although the copyright status is not entirely clear and shouldn't be presumed to be OK just because the original person who put it here is also the one who put it there), but it is very unencylopedic and we aren't, after all, a messageboard for people's own writing. – B.hotep •talk• 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of inappropriate content, and re-wrote parts of it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys removed way too much. You ruined this article. Wikipedia is messed up and has too many editors. I can understand removing some of the comments such as "Karen Carpenter put every bit of her soul into this song", but a lot of facts about these songs were removed. Just because somebody found it offensive that there was a positive spin on this album they felt they had to pare this page down to almost nothing. Most everything that was on this page was common knowledge with Carpenters fans (which I know does not matter to you guys... as you say references must be listed). As far as copyright violations not one thing that was put into this article was copied and/or pasted from anybody's book but was information that is commonly found from several different sources across the internet and in many publications found in Carpenters compilations and so forth. I will be coming back with all references in tact and will replace most of what has been removed. I will keep opinions the article, but I feel that the proper factual information should be represented. If I should use incorrect grammar or punctuation in what I place here it is understandable if that is corrected. I am wondering if the people who have removed this information even know anything about Carpenters?—Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the heading comment by the unsigned person about "hilarious article" somebody needs to remove that. As this comment is uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception: later reviews

In the reception paragraph, it is stated that Rolling Stone gave a positive review, but AllMusic didn't. This is written in the past tense, suggesting that the AllMusic review was written at the time of the album's release. However, the album predates the launch of AllMusic by 16 years. Is there a standard WP way of phrasing this better? 62.205.90.105 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The allmusic review was written in the past - therefore the past tense However, I do see your point. It could be written "However, the Allmusic website gives the album...".--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Horizon (The Carpenters 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:

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) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dolby 301?

Could the "30 Dolby" which is mentioned in the introduction be "Dolby 301"? As the WP article about Dolby Laboratories says: "The first product Dolby Labs produced was the Dolby 301 unit which incorporated Type A Dolby Noise Reduction, a compander based noise reduction system. These units were intended for use in professional recording studios." A search for "30 Dolby" or "Dolby 30" doesn't seem to come up with anything relevant. 62.205.119.6 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]