Talk:Songs from the Black Hole

Songs from the Black Hole 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
December 16, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
April 30, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Archives

Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Songs from the Black Hole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always find unreleased albums fascinating (some of which have been used as cites here), to see what ideas people had and why they were rejected, and how they might be pieced together. So this looks like an interesting article to review. I see a lot of work has gone into improving the article steadily, so hopefully this will be a quick and painless review!

Lead

The second "Weezer" in the first sentence can simply say "the band's"

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Rolling Stone citation in the closing sentence on the lead is cited. The quotation is in the body, but I'd expect a cite to rollingstone.com/something to immediately follow it. Can you check this?

Done Good spot. Either I missed this out or it got lost in an edit somewhere. Whoops. The citation has been added to the Legacy section. Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the body to follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Weezer's self-titled debut album was released in 1994 and became a commercial and critical success" - I think it would be better to use specific achievements - number 16 on the Billboard charts is not bad, but it's not number one is it?

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"stirred up a lot of mixed feelings in me – 'Yay, I'm happy' as well as 'I'm not sure this is the life I want to lead.'" - I can't find this quotation in the Rolling Stone source specified

Done Whoops, this was attributed to the wrong source. Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Alone II: The Home Recordings of Rivers Cuomo liner notes" - generally it's a good idea to include as much information about a sleeve note as possible, preferably a serial number (so somebody knows which version of the album you're citing sleeve notes from). For example, The Yes Album (to pick an example I worked on) uses sleeve notes, but specifically notes they are from a 2003 CD reissue, with page numbers for each citation, and the label's serial number.

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a little quotation heavy. It might be preferable to cut down on the quotes and just paraphrase them instead.

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concept

Same problem with "Alone II" - and I don't think you need to link "liner notes"

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rolling Stone 2007" - most major interviews in Rolling Stone, even those that pre-date the internet (seminal example) are now online, so it would be worth finding the specific link for this.

Done I couldn't find any online source for this, but I found a similar quote in the Alone liner notes, so I've substituted that instead. Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and abandonment

I think generally a "see also" goes to the exact location ie: Pinkerton (album)#Recording

Not done I'm confused - doesn't the link already go there? Can you clarify? Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does ultimately go to that link, but the description of the link is different, so it's not obvious (per WP:EASTER) - I simply meant take the pipe out of the link. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I tried editing this, but it produced weird characters. I hate to ask, but could you fix this, if you know how? Popcornduff (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be okay now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8-track links to multitrack recorder. It might be better to qualify this as "8-track recorder", as "8-track" (for older people) can be interpreted as 8-track tape

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"bassist Matt Sharp" - just "Sharp" will do here

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"using a vocoder for the robot character of M1" - I can't find the word "vocoder" in the citation given

Done Whoops, that was the wrong citation (it was on another page on the Weezer site). Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""started to feel too whimsical for where I was emotionally, going through the pain of the procedure ... I went to a more serious and dark place." - this misses out a crucial part of the quotation : "And so I scrapped the whole idea", which changes the emphasis on it somewhat

Not done My understanding of the history of this album, based on the research I've done, is that the album wasn't formally abandoned at that point. In the interview cited there, Cuomo goes on to say "and so I scrapped the whole idea"; it's ambiguous, but I didn't take that to mean he decided to scrap it there and then. We know some of its songs were recorded after this point, for example. I omitted that part so as not to cause confusion. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll AGF you've done a lot more work on this article than I have and that what is currently written resembles facts correctly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"where their debut album was recorded, but were not productive" - this may want rewording, as it could be interpreted as "where their debut album was unproductively recorded". Possibly this could be reworded as "Recording sessions for the album began in August 1995. As with their debut, the band used Electric Lady Studios in New York City, but the results were not as positive"

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pinkerton deluxe liner notes" - as with previous liner note citations, this need further information

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The decision was influenced by that year's release of Return of the Rentals," - the phrase "return of the rentals" doesn't seem to be in the Rolling Stone source supplied

Not done Cuomo doesn't refer to it by name, but Return of the Rentals is what he's referring to: "And then our bass player, Matt, put out his first solo record and I felt like it had a lot of the same musical and lyrical themes that I was planning to explore on the second record." Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Weezer's second album" - the article might be better with this removed, as technically it was their third album recorded but second released, which could invite confusion. It might be better to say "The new post-Harvard material as eventually released as Pinkerton (with link) on September 24, 1996"

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and finally altered again for Pinkerton." - I don't think the "for Pinkerton" is needed here

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demo releases

""it wouldn't really stand up, like it wouldn't be a very good listen." - as an audio citation, this podcast interview could do with a location as to where Cuomo says the quotation cited, otherwise it's like looking for a needle in a haystack!

Not done A needle in a haystack indeed. I loaded up the podcast on the page but realised the embedded media player doesn't display timestamps. Can you think of a way to export the file into something that does, or another solution? Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

As mentioned in the lead, the Rolling Stone quotation needs a citation.

Done Popcornduff (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There doesn't seem to be too much wrong with this article, mainly just some tidying up in verification. Prose is generally good. I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review - I nominated it months ago! I'll start making changes. Popcornduff (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made some of the changes, but I have to get on a plane now. I'll pick it up on the other side of the world. :) Popcornduff (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call "going the extra mile" ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here I am back home, and I've responded to all the issues as best I can. I'd appreciate your advice about what to do next. Thanks for all your work so far - it's been great to have a second pair of eyes on this. Popcornduff (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done as much as I can, and I think the one outstanding issue now is the riverspodcast.com audio source. As this is a direct quotation, it has to have an inline citation to meet the GA criteria, but there's nothing in Wikipedia:Citing sources that says a specific time must be included, merely that it is common to include it. I'm not sure whether the article passes GA or not because of this, so I'll get a second opinion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if it's a dealbreaker, it can just be removed. It's not a critical detail. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know an answer to the general question, but if I don't get one in 24 hours I'll remove the quote and pass the review. How does that sound? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very reasonable. When/if I get round to identifying the timestamp I can just re-add it later. I appreciate your thoroughness. Popcornduff (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at this again, I'm not even sure it counts as a reliable source. It's certainly Cuomo speaking, but the website seems to just be some fan collection of Cuomo interviews, and the "podcast" itself is just a bootleg recording of a Q&A session. Where does this fall under reliability guidelines? Popcornduff (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to stop the logjam I've removed the quotation. It does leave a dangling unsourced end of paragraph, but as that is merely a list of songs, reproducing information already talked about and verifiable elsewhere, I'm happy it does not come under the criteria of "information challenged or likely to be challenged". So I'll pass the review now - well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the quote is a sensible solution. Thanks so much for all your hard work on this! :) Popcornduff (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Songs from the Black Hole. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://classic.weezer.com/info/recording/WeezRecHist8.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://altpress.com/features/111.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Songs from the Black Hole. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://classic.weezer.com/info/recording/WeezRecHist7.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover from The Pinkerton Diaries

I think that the placeholder image used in The Pinkerton Diaries would be a fitting image to use in the info box for this album, especially with a caption explaining that it is a placeholder cover from the book. While this particular scan is sourced from Weezerpedia, which is not a reliable source according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, the image itself comes from Rivers Cuomo's self-published book about his own work, which is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia. If the scan coming from Weezerpedia casts doubt on its authenticity then perhaps we could get somebody who has a copy of the book to upload a better scan to use. --Hostagecat (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the book. However, I think using the image is misleading, as it suggests it might have been considered for the album cover, or that it was once used as placeholder album art by Cuomo or Weezer (we have no evidence of this). I also don't really see the point... there was no album cover for this album, so surely the most honest and informative course of action is to put nothing there? Popcornfud (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: What context does the book give for the image? --Hostagecat (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my copy with me now, but from memory, it's just a sort of logo at the top of a page somewhere. I think the image from Weezerpedia used that same text and font, but then cropped it and possibly added more text or altered it in some other way. Popcornfud (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it (low-res) in this promo image of the book. Popcornfud (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I was under the impression from something I'd read a number of years ago that the book specifically named the image as a placeholder/suggested cover for the album. If that's not the case then it might not be right for the album's info box. --Hostagecat (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have any easy way to check right now... with the pandemic on, I won't be able to get hold of my copy very easily. But I think I'll be able to check in a couple of months, maybe.

Looking at the image you provided, which is just an off-kilter scan or photo from the book, I don't think this is actually exactly the same image the previous editor provided - from memory the other editor had a more tidied up kind of fan recreation of that same logo, or something like. I'd maybe be OK with including it with a caption saying it was a logo from the book, but we can't say it was placeholder artwork or anything like that - until we can check the book, we have no way of knowing how placeholder it was, or whether it was meant to be artwork, or whatever, so that would be original research. I'm also still kind of uneasy using the album artwork field for this logo, because... well, it's not album artwork.

But you could ask over at WP:ALBUMS and get some more opinions; I'm open to persuasion. Popcornfud (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hostagecat, on reflection, I think I was being overcautious here. As long as the image isn't presented in the dimensions of an album cover (as IIRC the previous submission was), and as long as we have a caption explaining that it's a logo taken from the book, then readers are unlikely to mistake it for album art. I'll go ahead and restore your edit, though feel free to revert it back if you've had second thoughts or whatever? Popcornfud (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]