Template:Did you know nominations/AVI Records


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

AVI Records

 * ... that AVI Records was the second record label to use expanded grooves, after Motown?


 * ALT1:... that AVI Records expanded their gospel offerings after agreeing to acquire Nashboro Records?
 * Reviewed: Sleaford

Created by 78.26 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hook seemed good and short. The article is new enough, long enough, zero close paraphrase. Can anyone source the introduction section? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually the leads aren't cited, as they summarize the information found in the article body. I believe it does so, but that doesn't mean not I'm missing something.  Which claim in the lede are you concerned about?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's mandatory and the sourcing might not be necessary but I will keep this open for further review. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD, "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Accordingly, the lead should not normally contain any citations. Edwardx (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 78.26, what I'm seeing in the lede is two claims that this was an independent label without any mention of same in the body, and also that it was a "more important" independent disco label, ditto. (For an assertion of "more important", sourcing is certainly called for; the body of the article merely alludes to success in that genre.) If you added these facts in the body and sourced them there, then they wouldn't also be needed in the lede. I think it would help if the body of the article was not a single long paragraph, and if a bit more explanation was included ("case-by-case basis", for example: artist, album, single, genre?). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BlueMoonset. I have fixed the lede in more ways than one.  Regarding "independent", that claim is in the article body as AVI had laid the foundation for their own distribution... and also that they were distributed earlier by numerous other distributors.  I have added a link to "independent record label", as I forget that most people aren't familiar with the concept.  I have removed "more important".  This is somewhat self obvious to me, but I had gotten the phrase from a source I chose later not to use, as I deemed it not of sufficient reliability, but I never removed it from the lede.  I replaced it with a statement more in line with the article body.  I hope you view the changes as acceptable improvements.  I truly appreciate your assistance.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 78.26, my apologies for being so long in getting back to this. We're much closer, but there are two things I'm wondering about. The first is the new "technology leader" claim in the lede, which doesn't seem supported by the body. The expanded grooves that they used, which is the only thing I see that might fit, is something they did second, so they can't be considered leaders there. You might want to delete "in part as a technology leader", which had been added in your recent edits; if not, you'll need to supply a reference to replace the "citation needed" template I placed there. The second is the final sentence of the article, which doesn't seem to be confirmed by the source: it doesn't mention that they were located in Santa Monica in the mid-1990s, but more important, the Billboard article says of AVI's Rare Surf set: "the records consist of transcendent instro music that's 98% previously unreleased", a direct contradiction of this article's claim that AVI was "limited to re-issuing previously released material". The article's sentence needs to be revised, and should be careful about generalizations if the only 1990s information you have is this one source. Also, if you have any information about when the label ceased operations—the intro uses past tense, so it presumably has done so—it should conclude this paragraph. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks BlueMoonset, no worries. I'm on limited internet access myself right now, so it will be I who will be begging patience.  I'll address the second issue first, because it is easier.  The source does mention Santa Monica etc, but you have to pay attention to the citation, not to the page Google Books directs you to.  It is on page one of that issue of Billboard, where the article starts.  However, you made a great catch, and I've modified the verbiage to more accurately reflect (I hope/trust!) what the source actually says.  Regarding "technology leader" I didn't say it was the technology leader, rather a technology leader.  I put this in because the label received industry notice for its formatting developments and early adoptions as compared to most other labels.  I don't have any desire to argue semantics, I'm not very good at it.  I am quite open to suggestions that may be more accurate, while continuing to reflect that this label did have some influence on the formatting of disco singles, because I think that is the main claim of notability for this label.    78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion here: "technological leader" is the kind of promotional term that I'd expect to be quoted from someone else, not based on our own conclusions. If there are sources that use the term, fine. If not, we shouldn't use it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some material, and changed the lede.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see (and based on your edit summary, seemed to expect), I had issues with the replacement lede material, which made an unsourced claim. I've done my own replacement, which is based on sourced material in the body of the article. If you're okay with the changes, 78.26, we can call in a new reviewer to finish this off. If you're not, then more work is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely edit, and I'm perfectly happy with it. Regarding my edit summary, I was referencing a word I removed that may have seemed "promotional", not that I thought you'd find issue with what I wrote.  Keep in mind I'm a record collector and researcher, and this label made some technical innovations that I think are noteworthy in my field of study, but I truly enjoy collaboration, and I'm not at all wound-tight about people editing my prose!  Thanks for all the time you've spent on this.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to recheck the article after recent edits, and do a specific review of the two hooks (original review was unclear on which hook was reviewed). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article seems long enough with no apparent copyright violations. I found inline citations for both hooks. Does the information provided in the hook need to be written in one sentence? In both cases, the information is divided into two sentences: "One of his initiatives was to court disco DJs by introducing expanded grooves, visual cues at key points in the recording accomplished by increasing the width between grooves. They were the second label after Motown to do this." And "AVI Records agreed to acquire Nashboro Records in 1979. As a result, AVI made a concerted effort to expand their gospel efforts by releasing new material as well as reissuing Nasboro recordings." The references make sense to me, but I'm new to reviewing and wanted to double check. SojoQ (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fine for them to be in different sentences, so long as all parts of the hook are referenced. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg you for the clarification. Both hooks, then, have inline citations. As far as I'm concerned, this is good to go. SojoQ (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)