Jump to content

Talk:Archers of Loaf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speed Of Cattle

[edit]

It is not an EP, it is a compilation. EPs would be vs.GOAT, and Vitus Tinnitus Umlaut3 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

[edit]

I'm just curious as to exactly why this has been added to the list of articles needed to be cleaned up. As an avid Archers fan, I see it as brief but informative, but to me it is accurate.

Maybe the problem is that you're an avid Archers fan. From my perspective, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry so much as it reads like a fan letter. Drysarcasm 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be cleaned up. Currently, it's very....subjective. I've actually been accumulating interviews and articles for the past couple of months now, and I hope to make the article much more full of information by the end of the summer.

It needs sources. The descriptions of the different albums come across as an original review. I'll keep an eye out for things as well MrDre 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few sources and cleaned up the grammar some. I think it looks good enough to take that banner down Sven loreburg 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this interview with Eric Bachmann that we just posted to the site. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the interview and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. In addition to discussing his recent work as Crooked Fingers and under his own name, he also talks about his time in Archers of Loaf. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Johnson law school

[edit]

The link referenced for Eric Johnson studying law points to the myspace page for Spookie (Johnson's music project). There is no mention of law on his profile. I did find a mention of law on another myspace page of his [1]; however, I doubt even referencing that cuts the wikipedia guidelines mustard as a valid source.Pklala (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=1811162&blogId=373394090

Icky Mettle "critically well received"

[edit]

Apologies for making an issue of this but the phrase is always a bit meaningless at the best of times – yes, some albums get generally panned while some fare much better but in fact most are usually released to a mixed critical reaction. Some writers love an album, some don't and some think it's simply OK. What's the critical mass of broadly favourable reviews that allows us to make such a prima facie POV statement in WP's own voice? And there's a more direct problem here. The sources being used and now added to justify retaining the term are: 1) the (undated) Christgau review, which is already now noted in its right; 2) a 10-year retrospective on the album in a student newspaper; and 3) a Rolling Stone review of a reissue of the album nearly 20 years on. Even combined, these do not support a judgment that it "was critically well received", ie at the time of original release, which is what the text claims. And btw I'm not asking for yet more sources/reviews to be researched and footnotes appended to the phrase. I just think we're better off singling out a couple of verifiable accolades and leaving it at that. N-HH talk/edits 10:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's brevity, and there is specificity. The two are at odds. If you want to restrict the number of referred-to reviews, well, a simple Google search will blow that number out of the water. Hard to find a bad review, really. If you want to state that CMJ ranked it fairly high, and that a number of retrospective reviews appreciated it, I suppose that's alright. I'm just not sure what you want. None of it seems like blather, we either quote or paraphrase, yet you call it all fluff. It wasn't an obscure or unknown album - are you trying to relegate it to insignificance? The sources don't support that. --Lexein (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the page on the album itself, there's more justification for citing a lot of reviews. On this page, as I say, it might be worth highlighting one or two specific ones in passing and leaving it there. But either way, I'm always wary of vague descriptions such as "critically acclaimed". It's simultaneously boastful and uninformative due its subjectivity. I'm not trying to make the album look insignificant – I'm saying we should not be trying to big it up or to relegate it through generalisations of any sort. "In 19XX, Band Y released their first album, which topped the Pitchfork Albums of the Year poll and was voted best debut album of the 1990s by the readers of NME" seems fine to me in this kind of context. Those are the facts without any subjective overlay or analysis. And in fact of course, FWIW, outside of fairly limited circles, it was relatively obscure and unknown. Most people will never have heard of the band or the album and most critics won't have commented on it at all. N-HH talk/edits 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your last point is telling - the band was well known in indie rock circles, pretty much no doubt about that. But I appreciate and support your bolded-by-me point above, given that one of the sources was CMJ. --Lexein (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see what my last point tells particularly beyond the point it was meant to make or how "given that one of the sources was CMJ" is relevant to the now-bolded point either. Anyway, we haven't really resolved the use of the general judgment "critically acclaimed" even if we both agree on citing a couple of specific accolades. N-HH talk/edits
Facepalm Facepalm . --Lexein (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That certainly clarifies everything. What exactly was the point of that response? N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because my comments in context were crystal-clear and unambiguous. No need for ongoing questioning and misinterpretation. --Lexein (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly they weren't, were they? And they're still not. Just because you know what you meant doesn't mean everyone else will. Even if you think the fault for that lies with the other person, you could at least indulge them a little. And if you don't grasp, to take just the first half of your comments, that describing someone's point as "telling" can be read either as saying that it is a valid point or, conversely, that it reveals something negative about their underlying understanding, then no wonder you find communicating difficult. N-HH talk/edits 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've made no effort to understand anything in context, so now you're just trolling. Read for comprehension, please, and move on. --Lexein (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you would write for comprehension and act like most reasonable human beings would and actually take two seconds to answer people's polite queries when they have genuinely not understood the points you are trying to make, I might take you and your bizarre accusations of "trolling" seriously. Anyway, as you suggest, in the face of this kind of stubborn obtuseness there's no point sticking with this one, even if we haven't actually resolved the main point I originally raised about the use of the phrase "critically acclaimed". N-HH talk/edits 10:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Archers of Loaf. 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) 14:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archers_of_Loaf&oldid=1257159754"