Talk:I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

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

Alternative music Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Icanheartheheart.jpg

Image:Icanheartheheart.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover

Anyone know what the cover image is a picture of? 88.83.102.0 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the entrance to the Holland Tunnel on the Manhattan side. 74.92.117.102 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research.

This seems like WP:Original Research:

The album's sound is a blend of various genres, such as folk ("One PM Again"), rock ("Moby Octopad"), shoegazing ("Deeper Into Movies"), noise pop ("Sugarcube"), long noise jams ("Spec Bebop"), ambient ("Green Arrow"), and bossa nova ("Center of Gravity"), with a few songs showing electronic music influences ("Autumn Sweater"), which would be more deeply explored on the band's following album, And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out.

After all, whose opinion is it that those songs represent those particular styles of music? If not original, cite it. And who says they would more deeply explore electronic music on the following album? Again, cite it.

It looks like you need to collect the references from the various reviews where specified. Both Christgau and the Rolling Stone review have comments about some specific songs, and general comments about the range of styles, but not all of the specific claims in the quote are supported.

-- J. Wong (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - does anyone think that it's wrong? It's not a tricky "thrash metal vs. death metal" discussion - the styles of these songs are rather obvious to anyone who knows very basic things about 20th century music. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic things about 20th century music? Well, excuse me, I guess the article is only relevant to those who are "in the know". Also, the Rolling Stone reviewer called "Spec Bebop" a stylistic collision; how is that similar to "long noise jams". He also implied that "One PM Again" is country. Is that the same as folk?

-- J. Wong (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

We are not allowed to interpret genres on our own. Genres are subjective (WP:SUBJECTIVE), therefore we can not just guess them as people will have different opinion on what is, or what does not belong in certain genres based on their own strictness on rules. Currently, there is no source calling the album noise pop. Saying that "Sources generally simplify it as "pop", but they actually mean noise pop", means you are interpreting what someone is trying to say, which we don't do on wikipedia. I know AllMusic uses Noise pop on the sidebar, but per WP:ALBUMS rules we don't use the AllMusic sidebar as a source. I know they say "As for the blissed-out melodic noise pop Yo La Tengo had been working on for the majority of their existence, this was one of the band's finest hours.", but you have to incorporate that into the article, or at least source it for the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware of that, and I'm also very well aware that I'm not injecting original research. I'm simply paraphrasing. In any case, I added a source to support the genre. I hope we can reach an agreement with this. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A short, but very comprehensive article about Yo La Tengo's most acclaimed album to date. Very hard to find anything wrong with it, just one point I could think of:

In the release section, you might want to adress the different releases. Rate your music lists a limited edition release of both a CD+bonus disc and a vinyl, and another vinyl release in 2009. The tracks of the bonus disc could then also be included in the track listing as shown in the GA of Felt Mountain.

That's about all I can think of. I place the review on hold for now. Good work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Thank you for your review, really appreciated. Unfortunately, Rate Your Music is considered an unreliable source according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so we can't use that as a reference. I tried to find a reliable source about the album's limited edition release, but I couldn't find anything. This means that the limited edition is not notable and therefore we shouldn't include it in Wikipedia. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is really a pity. I tried my best to find a reliable source myself, but failed to do so, since apparently Discogs is also not considered RS. As for RYM, that is frustrating, considering that at least for new releases they have a policy similar to Wikipedia, where you have to provide sources for every entry. This does not seem to have been in place at the time of this album's release though, since I couldn't find any... Well the good news is, then this article covers every aspect that it can, so it is a pass! :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]