Talk:Sea Change (album)/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:BeckSeaCh.jpg
Image:BeckSeaCh.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sea Change 04.jpg
Image:Sea Change 04.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 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 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sea Change 03.jpg
Image:Sea Change 03.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 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 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sea Change 02.jpg
Image:Sea Change 02.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 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 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indie?
Sea Change is hardly indie, as it was released on a major label. I'm changing the tag to "folk rock."

Maybe this is news to you, but indie does not equal folk. This album is hardly folk rock, it is fairly electronic. I'm changing the tag to "alternative rock."Tintagel555 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the article
In the interest of facilitating discussion and getting improvements done to this article, I'm going to list the problems as I see them.

Sea Change'' features ornate string arrangements and soft acoustic guitar finger-picking. Much of Beck's trademark recondite, ironic lyrics are replaced by more sincere, simpler lyrical content. On Sea Change, Beck eschews the heavy sampling of his previous albums for real, live instrumentation. In interviews, Beck cited the breakup with his longtime girlfriend as the major influence on the album. With its lovelorn lyrics, critics have compared Sea Change to Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks and the works of Nick Drake. "Paper Tiger" draws inspiration from Serge Gainsbourg, in particular the groundbreaking 1971 album Histoire de Melody Nelson.


 * No sources are provided for any of this information. See WP:CITE for how to do inline citations and WP:Verifiability for why they must be added.
 * Weasel wording: "critics have compared..." - which critics? Name a critic, and provide a source - or provide multiple sources which make that comparison.

Sea Change'' peaked at #8 on Billboard's Top 200 chart and was eventually certified gold in March 2005. In the UK charts, it peaked at #20.''
 * Sources should be provided for these statements.

In 2002, Sea Change was one of only two albums to receive Rolling Stone magazine's highest rating - five stars - the other being Bruce Springsteen's The Rising''. In 2003, the album was ranked number 440 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. ''
 * Unsourced, again

Sea Change'' was released with four different album covers, each version containing distinct artwork on the CD and the booklet. There are also different hidden messages (lyrical snippets) written under each version's CD tray.''
 * Unsourced, again

The Sea Change album covers can be downloaded from Beck's website as PC wallpaper.
 * This could presumably be sourced to the download page of "Beck's website".

According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain informtion (see WP:BURDEN for more on this). All of the material above could, therefore, be removed unless a source is provided, and any editor wishing this material to be retained should provide sources for it. For now, I'm prepared to leave the material in the article as a courtesy to other editors, but this situation won't continue indefinitely. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

 * Stan Simmons keeps removing the ww tag from the end of the intro to the article, but he isn't actually removing, re-wording, or providing sources for the statement. I realize he's a new editor, so I guess I can let that slide, but the reason why I didn't reinstate the tag is because I don't want to be accused of starting an edit war.
 * Thoughts? Anthony Rupert (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a "weasel word" when every review of the album concurs with the statement. Stan Simmons (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a weasel word when you don't provide sources. What don't you get? Anthony Rupert (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are already in the article. Stan Simmons (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This really isn't that hard to understand. I guess I'll have to go to WP:3. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw this on WP:3, and while this doesn't seem like a terribly active dispute, I'll give my 2 cents. First, I added ww back in the article, as those are clearly weasle words because the last sentence of the lead states that it is notable and important, but doesn't specify why or give reliable sources to back it up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but they're not "weasel words" when the majority of the album reviews linked in the article concur with the statement. Stan Simmons (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are these so-called "links"? Are you purposely missing the point? Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you're new, but two editors have already explained what the problem with your reasoning is, and why the statement still amounts to weasel words. Either you don't get it or you just don't care. In any case, if you continue to behave this way, I'll have no choice but to turn to an administrator. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's it. You just changed it again. I'm talking to an administrator. Anthony Rupert (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can spell this out for you - you're obviously less interested in actually editing the article, and more interested in turning Wikipedia into a schoolyard, with the obligatory tattling. Stan Simmons (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can spell this out for you, Stan. Simply listing publications that may agree with the questioned statement isn't enough. You must actually cite said sources in order to back up your claim. If you don't know how to do this, either look here or ask someone else for help. But as it stands now, the statement on its own qualifies as weasel words because there are no sources to back it up. And just so you know, admins already know about the situation, so unless you or someone else add reliable sources to back up the statement, I suggest you stop removing the tag. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You really don't think that's the point, do you? (And as far as "tattling", well, you provoked it by not following the guidelines.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7qotk6kxtkrd
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7qotk6kxtkrd