Talk:Dark Magus

RE: Tingen book
Bill_E_Bailey, in response to this, sure, feel free to add new information to the article, but please use the talk page here rather than the GA Review page. Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dark Magus was received ambivalently
The source says, "Critical reaction at the time was mixed," so why not just repeat that? Ambivalent means especially strong reviews in both directions, as in many critics loved it and many hated it, but that's not what the source says, which sounds more like lukewarm than ambivalent. I would make the change myself, but Danny56 would prolly just revert it, so I was wondereing if anyone else agrees that we should prolly avoid "ambivalent", that is, unless/until a reliable source states this explicitly. Harmelodix (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dark Magus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sundayherald.com/bestalbums.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dark Magus. 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 //www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/davis_miles/dark-magus.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dark Magus. 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 //www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/davis_miles/dark-magus.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dark Magus. 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 //www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/davis_miles/dark-magus.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bold edits to lead reverted
, your revision to Dark Magus is reverted, because it, along with adding new content unverified in the article ("spanning different eras … an afteroon show recorded in Japan during February of 1975 … recorded at that same day's evening show"), goes off-topic from the article's topic, i.e. Dark Magus. The topic of the article is not the release activity of Columbia Records in the period of Davis' retirement, but your style of writing and expansion on that topic appears to treat the lead as if it is the topic of the article. Per MOS:INTRO, the lead is meant to establish the noteworthiness of the topic, and "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Same in MOS:LEADNO: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Your edits introduced a discrepancy in emphasis of the topic of Columbia's release of other albums, so I reverted them in order to "harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." Following WP:BRD, at this point you should continue this discussion if you still desire changes to be made, instead of continuing to revert back to your preferred new version. isento (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)