Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Side of the Moon/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009.

The Dark Side of the Moon

 * Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The last time this was nominated, most of the discussion centred around the use of NFCC content. I'm renominating now because the other issues within that FAC have been addressed, and all that now remains is discussion of the NFCC images used (and for some users, perhaps the audio clips also). One of the NFCC cover images has since been deleted. All NFCC content is referenced and discussed within the article, and I believe its presence is more than justified in an article about one of the most famous and biggest-selling rock albums in history. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I will not be reviewing, I'd just like to see the description for the mobile fidelity CD changed to fair use. It will undoubtedly be brought up if not. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be fair use, as the point of that image seems to be the copyrighted material (and perhaps the gold-plated-ness, which is a bit hard to make out there with the disc art anyway). If I knew how I'd quick-move it out of Commons and to en.wikipedia for shrinking and FUR-ing and whatever.  Parrot of Doom is very much not "the copyright holder of this work", as much as this free content fan would like him to be. :) --an odd name 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on copyright or images. Can anyone help fix whatever is wrong with this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The commons image must be deleted (No fair use at commons), so I had to upload the image to wikipedia under a new name. The article has been updated to the new image. You may wish to check it out to make sure I got the information correct, as I don't own this version of the cd. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The resolution on the FUI one is just right; any smaller and the gold-ness and general design would be tough to discern. --an odd name 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Source comments: What makes these reliable?
 * http://www.highfidelityreview.com/index.asp
 * Tried and tried to find a better source, couldn't, so moved the relevant entries to talk. No longer a problem, it wasn't critical info anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.thesquirrels.com/poplust/newcd.htm
 * I think we can trust the website of an artist which released a cover of DSotM. The reference doesn't do anything but demonstrate that their cover is available. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.poormanswhiskey.com/whiskeychronicles/7393826.html
 * As above Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/index.php
 * Probably the largest Pink Floyd fansite on the internet. It contains reviews with band-members, done for the site.  The information contained within is, I have found, completely commensurate with the published material I have used for this article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. It cannot be included as it "Lacks a page describing how information is gathered, or is a fan or contributor site". I'm sure you can source the info you got there from reputable sources. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in the first instance the interview was conducted by John Harris, author of one of the main sources of information for this article. This interview can only be in one other book, Blake's Comfortably Numb, but tbh I'm knackered so it'll have to wait until tomorrow night now :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. If the book is found then great, otherwise it has to be removed. Also you have yet to reply about the first source highfidelityreview.com. RB88 (T) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Brain-damage is now an ex-ref. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's expired you might say. Well done to you on behalf of dead tree fetishists everywhere. Now just comment on the highfidelityreview link. RB88 (T) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.ytsejamrecords.com/faq/?fldauto=1
 * As per squirrels and poormanswhiskey Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dabs and links All fine. RB88 (T) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * http://www.everyhit.com is not considered reliable. Use http://www.acharts.us instead.
 * Well if I did that, I'd have to explain why acharts.us is reliable considering it isn't included in the list of review sites at WP:ALBUM. Actually though I don't mind deleting those table entries that use this reference, as they add little to the article.  I've moved them to the talk page until they can be more reliably referenced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * acharts.us is reliable per WP:CHARTS. You can use it without fear. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For refs 130-132 and for chart placings in general, use this.
 * Ditto the above really. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultratop is the Belgian chart body. The website is the most comprehensive available for EU/AUS charts. Again see WP:CHARTS. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - with regard to criteria 1a-e, 2a-c, 3 and 4. There are no facts that are likely to be contested. The nominator has bent over backwards to reach a consensus, both here and at previous nominations. This is the best article about this ground-breaking album on the internet. A few choices of prose style remain, which I would not use—such as "The Dark Side of the Moon builds upon previous experiments Pink Floyd had attempted in their live shows"—but I fully support this candidate. Graham Colm Talk 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also written a detailed rundown on referencing on the talk page here. RB88 (T) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied to that rundown on that page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comments there. RB88 (T) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)''

Support (1a). Looks well-written.
 * "Mental illness" linked at the top? Which one was it? I think that link-target is dangerously general! Consider no link. Linking technique otherwise looks good, but not London, please (WP:LINKING).
 * Nobody really knows. Its impossible therefore to be specific especially as Barrett's unstable condition may or may not have been a result of his drug use.  The album is similarly ambiguous, and therefore I think its best the article is also so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "It would subsequently remain on the charts for 741 weeks (fourteen years)": Oh .. my .. god. Language: please consider "It remained on the ...". And see "Comparable quantities" at MOS?
 * This wouldn't really be appropriate, since the album has dropped out of the chart on a few occasions. In fact the precise chart history of the album is difficult to fathom as the chart qualifications have changed over time.  A joe-public version would be "It stayed in the charts for ages, longer than anything else, although sometimes it dropped out for a bit". Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Melody Maker was however less enthusiastic—"Musically, there were some great ideas, but the sound effects often left me wondering if I was in a bird-cage at London zoo." Perhaps a colon rather than an em dash?
 * Good point, since the quote is an entire sentence. I've changed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "upon"—consider plain English nowadays: "on".
 * I understand your point, however I am a fan of typically British words, and Pink Floyd are a very British band. Either usage is correct. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "turning point" – I think better hyphenated in that sentence. See what you think.
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "there are five tracks on each side, each one linked to reflect the various stages of human life"—not sure about "linked" ("each reflecting the various"?). Just after that, comma before "according".
 * With the exception of The Great Gig in the Sky and Money (split because of the limitations of the Vinyl format), each track segues into the other. Linked may be a poor choice of words, but they're all very much linked together.  Can you suggest a better word? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be reworded to say that "the album is one continuous piece of music that is split into two halves (Due to the technical limitations of vinyl records). Each half is further split(divided) into 5 tracks, each of which reflects various stages of human life." It's lengthy (and knowing me, a grammatical nightmare), but you can't fit so much information into a single sentence without it reading strangely -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Image sizes: can we have them a bit bigger? Try 230px for Abbey, and especially the detail in the synthesiser significantly larger. And that great b/w pic of the concert at Earl's Court: what a waste to shrink it to almost nothing. More generous sizes? I'd boost that one to see the detail: it's superb.
 * I'm not a fan of specifying image sizes, unless there's a particular reason. My preference is to use the default size, logged-in users can change default image sizes in the options.  While the images may appear small on a regular screen (say 1650px), on a laptop at anything below 1280px larger images take up a huge amount of space and lead to inconsistencies in the layout. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Torry. Torry"
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * —"I've been mad for fucking years—absolutely years". Again, please rethink the incoming dash.
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't link "United States", "UK", "Australia", etc.

Haven't looked at the bottom half, but I trust it already. You might arrange a sift-through by someone else, but it would be a quick job. Tony  (talk)  15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - As per the last FAC. Excellent work.  ceran  thor 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Looks good. I was watching this during the previous FAC but it was undergoing constant significant change which made it difficult to review. Seems to have settled down nicely now. Comprehensive with good prose. PL290 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "the album built on the ideas Pink Floyd had explored in their live shows and previous recordings, but it lacks the extended instrumental excursions that characterised their work following the departure of founding member, principal composer and lyricist, Syd Barrett." Currently this allows for Barrett having departed either before or after this album; suggest making it explicit (perhaps "that had characterised their work since 1968 following the departure...").
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Dark Side of the Moon was an immediate success, topping the Billboard 200 for one week. It would subsequently remain on the charts for 741 weeks (fourteen years)" - surely straight past tense is preferable in this case ("It subsequently remained...")
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dates in North America followed before the band flew to London to begin recording the album, from 24 May–25 June." - is "24 May–25 June" the dates in North America or the beginning recording? (Also could do with "to" instead of dash.)
 * Its a bit of a mouthful to phrase correctly, but is this better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "And if the band you're in starts playing a diff'rent tune" - should be "playing different tunes".
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The studio was capable of sixteen track mixes which offered a greater degree of flexibility" - greater than?
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "For several years Nick Mason had become increasingly responsible for the band's sound effects" - perhaps it's just me, but did he become it for several years?
 * I think I see what you're getting at - how does this read? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The album is a continuous piece of music split into two (because of the technical limitations of vinyl)." - I'm not sure about that. Would "Great Gig In the Sky" have segued into "Money" but for vinyl? Is there a source for this?
 * The sources don't say that the album would have been continuous but for vinyl, as there was no format at the time which could have catered for the full album (except perhaps long play tape), it wouldn't even have entered discussion. The sources I have do however mention the split.  Its probably stating the obvious, but its designed to reinforce the continuity of the music - it was rare at the time for tracks to be joined so, their previous album (Meddle) still splits each track, whereas DSotM sets the trend for every album they recorded thereafter. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I think the statement is WP:OR. (Also, I don't personally imagine "Great Gig" would have been segued with "Money", but that's my own WP:OR.) Given what you say above though, the point is that in contrast with Meddle etc, each side consists of segued tracks, so that's what should be stated rather than the (imo dubious) conjecture that it would have been continuous but for vinyl. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough for me. How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Several tracks, including "Us and Them" and "Time", are notable for demonstrating Richard Wright and David Gilmour's ability to harmonise their voices. In The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon, a 2003 DVD documentary on the production of the album, Roger Waters attributes this to the fact that along with their talent, their voices both sound extremely similar." - "ability" doesn't really convey what is notable; "along with their talent" seems superfluous.
 * I'll lose "along with their talent", but the 'ability' and 'voices sound extremely similar' are what is notable. They're just about pitch-perfect singing together. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "She declined the first offer as she was watching Chuck Berry perform at the Hammersmith Odeon, but arranged to return on the following Sunday." - a bit colloquial and perhaps inconsequential - possibly remove?
 * I don't agree - her performance is one of the most notable features of the album, I think its worth reinforcing that she didn't really think it was all that important. She didn't even like Pink Floyd much.  Its a nice progression from 'don't really care about recording it' to 'sued the band for royalties' (not that I'm casting aspersions on her character!) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken; it's just that the tone seems colloquial and could be made more encyclopedic. When was she watching Berry? At the time the offer was made? (Unlikely; not many mobile phones in 1972, but the person who made the offer could have been sitting next to her, interrupting the concert&mdash;no wonder she declined!) Is it significant that is was a Sunday she arranged to return? We aren't told what day of the week the original offer pertained to. Was it in fact a "return"? Who instigated the return? If it was her, was "the first offer" really "the offer"? Anyway, none of this is a show-stopper for me but if that sentence can be improved, great. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, how does this read? I like the 'Sunday night', its the early 70s remember and working on a Sunday was still frowned upon.  It lends a little occasion to the session. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2003 VH1 named the album's cover as their 4th-greatest album cover of all time" - should this be "the" rather than "their"?
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Founding member Syd Barrett had left the band in 1968, and the burden of lyrical composition had since then fallen mostly on Waters' shoulders" - can this reflect that we already know about Barrett and his departure.
 * Not sure what you mean, can you expand? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a suggested edit to show what I mean. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Dark Side of the Moon was released first in the US on 10 March 1973, and then in the UK on 23/24 March." - does this need a footnote explaining why the date is not certain?
 * There was a discussion about this - the sources vary on the release dates, chart history seems to suggest they're wrong. I can't find which source said 23 March though, so I've stuck it at 24.  If needs be we can just say "about a fortnight later". Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article can say "later in March", explaining about (and citing examples of) the varying release dates? PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...except I can't find whatever it was that made me think it might have been the 23 March :) I'll leave it at 24 March for now (btw you can see the discussion on the 3rd talk archive page).  Mason's book is probably the one I'd trust the most. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unusually, "Money" was released as a single on 7 May,[73] with "Any Colour You Like" on the B-side (in some countries—notably the UK—Pink Floyd had not released a single since 1968's "Point Me at the Sky")." - consider splitting sentence into two, so that it's clear what's unusual.
 * better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "It was something of a phenomena" - if Mason really said that, it needs sic
 * Google Books has decided I've looked long enough at Povey's book, so I'm unable to check if this is a spelling mistake or not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked for you: the book does say that, so I'll leave it with you whether you prefer to sic up the quote or substitute [...] for those 6 words etc. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to do that for me? It'd be better done by someone who can still read the quote. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. PL290 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "He praised the mix for other songs, particularly for "The Great Gig in the Sky"—"I tip my hat [...]" - perhaps -> particularly "The Great Gig in the Sky", saying, "I tip my hat [...]"
 * better?] Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some of the profits were invested in the production of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The members of Pink Floyd were reportedly fans of Monty Python, to the point of interrupting recording sessions to watch Monty Python's Flying Circus." Second sentence we already know and does not need to be restated in Legacy (where it currently breaks the flow anyway).
 * Gone Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "a common comparison is one made between Pink Floyd and Radiohead, specifically their 1997 album OK Computer. Although Robert Christgau commented that the album lacked "soul", calling it "arid" and "ridiculous" and comparing it unfavourably to Pink Floyd,[108] the two albums do however share a common theme: the loss of a creative individual's ability to function in the modern world.[109] Mungolian Jetset's Knut Sævik has mentioned drawing inspiration from the album" - needs reworking to be clear which of the two albums "the album" refers to each time, and whether two groups or two albums are unfavourably compared. Also "however" is superfluous.
 * better? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "In addition to its commercial success, The Dark Side of the Moon is arguably Pink Floyd's most popular album among fans and critics" - Are we looking for arguability, or WP:Verifiability? Perhaps this assertion doesn't really add value in the Lead.
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blockquote used several times for short quotes (only one, two or three lines in length) - WP:MOSQUOTE) states it is for quotes of more than four lines.
 * The MOS is however a guideline, and not policy. I quite like the quotes where they are, I think they add value and shouldn't be changed - WP:IGNORE Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a huge deal for me personally. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The light band emanating from the prism on the album cover is actually missing one color, Indigo. A normal prism would display a band of Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet." Perhaps too much spelt out? Judicious placement of the sentence nearer the preceding wikilinked word prism might be preferable.
 * I moved the link, and corrected the US spelling. I do think its worth pointing out though, its a curious anomoly not immediately obvious. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not convinced about the References/Notes/Footnotes/Bibliography structure. Is there a precedent for this? My thoughts are, (a) a footnote is a note at the foot of the page, and hence the Notes are footnotes too; (b) do the Notes really need separating out from the other footnotes?
 * I don't know, it isn't (IIRC) how I originally laid things out, but I do want to keep the written notes separate from the citations, if that makes sense. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the value of keeping them separate is, but not a huge deal for me either way. PL290 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns have been met. It's good to see an engaging and comprehensive article on this album&mdash;great work. PL290 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support igordebraga ≠ 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT The two principle reasons I believe that this should be a Featured Article are that it is well written (excellent grammar, not long-winded, but concise) and that it is extremely thorough and comprehensive. After reading the article, one comes away from the article clearly understanding the inspiration for the album, how the album was made, how incredibly popular the album became. The article offers all this and more. V Schauf (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The Dark Side of the Moon is not only my favorite album of all time, but also one of my favorite Wikipedia pages to read. I cannot think of another album article that can match how much information this one gives, or how well written this one is. I learned a lot from this one, and I hope that many other albums can have articles that reach this calibur of writing. The time for it to become a featured article is long overdue. Krobertj (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - What have you done to address the non-free issues from the last FAC? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.