One of the best-selling and most influential rock albums ever, I feel this article is now close to, or worthy of, FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is really great and I think it meets the criteria. The only issue is the naming of the section "History". The section describes the events prior to the recording of the album. That is not really the "History of The Dark Side of the Moon". "History" would eventually be everything up to "LP packaging". I would rename the section to something like "Background". Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit of both really, but the point is taken and I've changed it to 'background'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The google links in the refs are missing access dates, & the URL's can be shortened.
Well this isn't something I've ever been asked to do in an FAC before now. The long url has been left in purposely as the scanning of the page numbers is poor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the google links should be changed to .com from .co.uk, and the only URL too long now is Echoes under the bib section.--Otterathome (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the links be changed to .co.uk? I've already explained why the long url exists.
You have a bad version of File:Dsotm20.jpg that needs deleting.
Support Overall a very well-written, comprehensive article it has become. I see no major flaws. All the reference links are in order linking to the bibliography section. In the bibliography section, all books, articles, etc. are cited correctly with the right format as far as I can tell. All images have Alt text. I think this current revision of Dark Side of The Moon should be promoted to FA status. Burningview (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the album sales are not sourced, only the number of shipped articles. These are not the same. 2001 (album) was certified 6 times platinum and sold 7+ million copied, while My December is platinum but sold about 800,000. I think the album sales should be removed where it isn't known and the UK sales should not be mentioned as "certified" on 14 June 2009 - certification dates are when silver, gold etc. are approved, not when the last sales number came in. Hekerui (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that—I don't think such tables add much to the article. If I moved the tables to the discussion page, and reinserted some of the correctly referenced sales/certifications (I must be honest, I don't entirely understand how those things work) as prose, would that be acceptable? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be done. Also, the professional reviews are better served by footnotes than merely url links, in case of link rot etc. This is strongly suggested by Wikiproject Albums ("Per Wikipedia:Citing sources do not add reviews without a citation.") Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Righty-ho, I've moved the album sales to talk for clarification. I also integrated the 'singles' section into the article as it repeated a little bit of information.
I'll have to address your point about the reviews later - some are in print format, but the important thing is that all were published well before the computer age, and all are linked to their offline versions - so I'm not quite certain if its necessary to cite them in full. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the reviews - I'm pretty certain that I've already met all requirements. All the reviews listed were originally published in print - web links are merely shortcuts. The Grossman review does not give a page number - but it does give a date, and I think it would be very easy to find the review in the magazine. Link-rot won't be a problem here, urls are a bonus, nothing more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted the reviews, there was a page btw, and added the Uncut review. Hekerui (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah those reviews - tbh I hardly noticed they existed, I haven't touched them. Thanks for the changes, I did however change to 'citation' to remain consistent. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Birds of a feather... I picked up the History of Dark Side of the Moon book in HMV for £2 thinking I'd use it to improve this article; evidently, I've been beaten to the punch! However, I have two questions:
Whatever happened to the "A Piece for Assorted Lunatics" subtitle? I only have a digital copy, so I can't check if it persisted up to the album's release, but I seem to remember reading that it persisted up until, at least, they went into the studio.
On my copy of DSOTM, at least, "Speak to Me" and "Breathe" are merged into one track. "Breathe (Reprise)" is on the end of "Time". On my copy, it is merged and Brain Damage/Eclipse are not, but I seem to remember hearing about versions where the opposite prevails (though I'm not sure). However, none of this, especially the verifiable existence of "Breathe (Reprise)", are mentioned in the track list. Please address this issue. Sceptre(talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A piece for assorted..." is mentioned in the article, at the premiere of the new material in the Rainbow Theatre. I'm not certain when that was dropped, but I'll scan through the books I have to see if I can clarify that.
The track listings are based on the original vinyl release. Track lengths and titles have been changed since then, most especially on the CD releases. "Breathe (reprise)" is not a separate track - it starts about 6 minutes into "Time", and lasts about a minute. It is included in the song book (I have this book and can demonstrate with a pic, if required). I'll have to think about clarifying this issue - there have been many versions of this album over the years, some in error. Sourcing may be difficult. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this may be of interest. I've asked the user that created it for help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know "Breathe (Reprise)" isn't a separate song on the vinyl. However, is it listed in the liner notes for the vinyl as "Time/Breathe (Reprise)" or similar? Sceptre(talk) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC):::::Its hardly reliable but this would suggest not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked about the chart with multiple timings. I did not create it, but I did copy it from an old version of the article, to the talk page. I believe the reason for creating the chart, is that we frequently had users come in to change the article to reflect the timings on whatever CD edition they possessed, and we hoped that printing a chart showing various edition timings would discourage this. After the chart was removed from the article (since this was not a good reason for having it), this activity resumed, so I restored the chart to the talk page, and suggested users seen changing the timings could be pointed to the chart as an explanation that many timings exist. But since then, it has been hidden away again, in an archive page. Sorry for the long boring explanation. Regarding the question about "Breathe (Reprise)", it is not in the track listing, but it is a heading in the lyrics printed on the inner gatefold cover. I feel it is best to not show it in the track listing. Regarding the merging of the first two or last two tracks, I suspect all vinyl copies list them as separate on the label and cover, but some copies may lack a band separation. There is nothing official about that; it just means the disc cutting engineer missed the right spot to push a button to create the separation. Given the quantity of sales, a new cutting could have been made about once a year, and every country that manufactured the album made their own cuts, so there could be hundreds of examples of a cut of the album. Finding a copy with a missing band separation, means nothing to the track list as a whole, because it's just a temporary situation until the next recut. Hope that helps! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this, I've copied that table into a FAQ on the article's talk page. I've also added a note to the tracklist explaining the absence of "Breathe (reprise)". Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (obviously, the hatnote doesn't need to be fixed) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is a new problem, but at the end of the Sales chart performance section, a chart name is missing.--Otterathome (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely happy with any of the tables in the article, and the content of 'singles' already exists as prose, so I've moved it to the talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. this has to be one of the best most comprehensive articles about an album or cd on all of wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.124.52 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments— The article is very good, but
while the lead is functional, I feel it doesn't capture what is special about the album and so many fans consider it to be magical. Maybe expanding the lead to include another paragraph that discusses the music and recording process more would help; you can include a quote or two as well.
Have a look at this - bear in mind it may be copyedited slightly after the time of posting. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article suffers from too many blockquotes, which are often far too long. For example, the first one is too long (maybe convert some of it to prose?), and the second one is largely redundant to the lines "On discovering that that title ... reverted to The Dark Side of the Moon." Also, these blockquotes serve to give too much attention to the artistes praising their own work; it seems to take away a bit from the neutrality of the article.
I've chopped one up, and moved another to the notes (the bit about Medicine head). I tried to use the Medicine Head quote to demonstrate the band's annoyance but couldn't really fit it in. I'd like to keep it in the notes section though. See diff. The other quotes - well, I think its important to include the thoughts of the main contributors (Waters has been somewhat disparaging of the album, of late, calling it a bit "lower sixth").
I know WesleyDodds and I were overruled by consensus about this matter on the talkpage (so its not a dealbreaker for me), but I still don't see why those reissue album covers are included. They are highly similar to the original one, and there is simply no discussion about them in the article, meaning they fail WP:NFCC #8. Aesthetically speaking, they make the infobox too long, and their absence serve to further highlight the stark minimalism of the original image. indopug (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the discussion on this my view hasn't really changed, but I'm not really fussed about it. I'm still on the hunt for more images I can use, they'll be out there somewhere. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments, I fully agree with indopug on all points. This article has been on my watchlist for quite some time and I think it is close to FA standard. As a life-long fan of the Floyd, I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness of the article—I have read the sources used—and I am impressed. I have a few minor quibbles:
Does London have to be linked? Readers have already been told that Pink Floyd are a British band.
People link and unlink things, generally I have little preference either way for such things. I'll not mind if someone unlinks it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph of Background readers are told (twice) that the band returned to recording the album. I think it should say where they returned to, since it is much later in the article when we are told where the album was recorded.
This needs a solid reliable source "Mason created a rough version at his home, before completing it in the studio." It has been a subject of much debate as to just how much influence Roger Waters had on the opening and he has been known to claim much of the credit.
Its referenced by Mason's autobiog, which is considered a reliable source. I don't think that any contentious claims are being made; he must have made a significant contribution to have received a credit, and in his autobiog he describes his involvement in detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "sounds" would be better than "noises" here, "The band also devised and recorded unconventional noises"
This might be a point of view, "Perhaps one of the less noticeable aspects of the album is the ability of Richard Wright and David Gilmour to perfectly harmonise with each other". It was very noticeable to me when I first heard the album all those years ago. It is also very noticeable on their previous album Meddle.
Here "The heartbeat is most audible as the intro and the outro to the album" - audible does seem quite the best word; perhaps "prominent" might be better.
Possibly but it is a good word to describe "a lot of clocks", especially when its difficult to know exactly how many there are. Just a lot. I've not changed it, but don't mind if others do. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: 9 images in article, 4 of them are non-free. for reference: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. '...used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'
the rainbow theatre image seems to me to have dark contrast in its bottom half, probably better to remove till we get a better version.
Once removed, it'll never be improved - I'd do it myself but I live 200 miles away. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think we can justify including Alan Parsons one in terms of significance; appreciate the innovative use of technology is significant but i don't think this shot of a bloke in front of a console can be justified in terms of adding to reader's understanding, perhaps use a free image of Parsons.
the one alt text i've looked at so far needs to be briefer, it goes into the colour of Torry's jeans, i'll try and copyedit this and others down as necessary.
There are so many conflicting opinions on the use of alt text, your comment unfortunately contradicts comments I received on a previous FAC for another article. Its confusing to say the least, but I'd much rather there be too much detail, than not enough, so I've restored some of the deleted alt text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to edit/add to these comments Tom B (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The music clips aren't free as well. The anniversary covers don't seem to have much associated text, and don't seem very different from the original cover which does have a lot of discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Peregrine above; the reissue covers can probably be safely cut, as I very much doubt there's any sort of critical commentary that justifies their inclusion. File:Parsonsquad.jpg is a great illustration, but it's not really adding much beyond a "look, he's mixing it!" to the article. It's not a significant increase or detriment if cut. So in short: axe everything save the album cover, 'tis all you need. (meep, 68.50.242.207 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There is a discussion about the cover images on the article's talk page, a consensus supported keeping them. I'm not going to change my vote on that matter just to pass this review - however if that talk page consensus changes then I'll of course abide by it. The Parsons file - I tend to agree, and have removed it. As for the music files, the fact that they're not free is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Plenty of other FAs contain non-free music clips and they should remain, in fact they're essential elements in articles like this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, holding off on the audio clips, I don't think this article can meet the strict FA image requirements and have three album covers that aren't each discussed a bunch. Sometimes, you have to choose between the star and the non-free images. Not that it matters, I'd change our rules to allow the non-free images, but that's a losing battle so I abide by them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think then that perhaps you might put your comments on the article's talk page here - that way, there won't be any confusion about removing things against consensus. I can't simply remove the images based on comments here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per image criterion. If Parrot is talking about this discussion, I see no evidence consensus was reached or cogent arguments put forth. One editor said that "Each re-imagining of the prism design is sufficiently different to make them notable and recognisable", but provided no evidence this was so. Another said "Each re-imagining of the prism design is sufficiently different to make them notable and recognisable", which flies in the face of WP:NFCC. If they aren't discussed in the article beyond a line or two, removing them is not detrimental to reader understanding and they don't meet NFCC, enough said. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does one provide evidence that they're different, other than actually looking at them?
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. A significant part of the charm of this album is that it maintains an almost constant position in the charts. Its been knocking around for over 25 years, the alternative album covers reflect that, and so does the article by describing that longevity, and the re-releases. Its an enduring symbol.
I'm also slightly confused about how this works. I posted a question on the article's talk page, as one should, as the presence of these images was threatening to descend into an edit war. Various people responded, and a majority voted in favour of retaining them. And now, I come here, and see objections to their presence - that's fine, I've already said if a majority don't want the images I'll go with that decision - as is proper. But how can I be expected to just arbitrarily remove them without further discussion? Why can't people who object here, use that talk page discussion and change that consensus, and then just remove them? I don't feel its correct to remove them myself based on comments here, that would seem to many as though my only goal were to gather bronze stars, and frankly I can do without that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote. One good argument outweighs any number of bad ones. We're discussing the images here because that's what an FAC page is for—discussing whether an article meets FA criteria, which happens to include compliance with WP:NFCC. In re to your comments: "a significant part of the charm"... unless you have sources that say "the album's longevity is reflected in its album art" and then proceeds to wax poetically about the differences between them, I fail to see how multiple iterations of the same basic theme is significantly increasing my understanding of the topic when the article doesn't go into detail about it. You prove its significance with sources and critical commentary. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who gets to judge a good argument from a bad one? I thought that was the reason why this was a consensus-led project? Anyhow, I've added a reasonable description of the continuity of the album design hereParrot of Doom (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove those images and provide a link to this discussion on the talk page, I guess. Now, let's talk about the non-free audio clips. My browser won't play them, but I see quite a bit of associated text. But, why is it necessary to have two versions of Money? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is a demo version (essentially a rough cut), the other is the actual album version. There's plenty about the songs, but (correct me if I'm missing it in a cursory examination) there's nothing about the difference between the demo and the final (as far as I can tell, Waters' demo of "Money" is not discussed at all, while the final version is.) 68.50.242.207 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the album is probably an incorrect place to discuss the evolution of a single track. Suffice to say the file exists as a demonstration of Water's early demo recordings, which are mentioned in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the sound file belongs in Money_(Pink_Floyd_song) where it can probably have a more defensible fair use rationale, but as it stands now there's not enough content to justify it per NFCC. 68.50.242.207 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree. "Money" was created for this album. The inclusion of a demo track demonstrates the evolution of the material on the album. I have another example, but Money was what I chose. Its a short excerpt of a song recorded specifically for this album - it isn't like numerous other albums, which are merely compliations of work - DSotM is a concept album. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps for the third image. It's still a bit borderline, but I'll let others decide on that one. As far as who decides, I think it's whichever uninvolved editors show up to the FAC. The closer also decides, when they look over the discussion and decide to promote or not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add this link to this discussion. It's quite pertinent. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple supports without a sourcing check: did all of the supporters review sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some sources. I'm not saying they aren't reliable, but why are these sources reliable. If the previous FAC determined they were, that's fine.
I don't have the magazine to hand and Wikipedia policy suggests that I cite information from where I saw it. How about this instead? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well lack of an article is no indicator of a lack of notability, but the album certainly exists [2]Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.everyhit.com/ and the other three charts references. I don't much about WP:BADCHARTS or whatever. Are they all reliable sources for charting?
Other than that, it looks pretty good. Mostly books and magazines, which are fine for an album of this stature. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the rolling stone list, you might just fill in cite journal with what you know. I don't know what people prefer. A link to a possible copyvio (it's not clear that they are, they may have permission, or it may be uncopyrightable) or a ref that doesn't have a page number. I wouldn't oppose over a page number, since it's a magazine which will have the page number in the TOC, or maybe even on the cover. I asked about the charts.[3]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user who knows the chart stuff well says all the chart refs are OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment on sources. Perhaps my comment about the sources in my initial review above was not very clear. In my view, the article is primarily sourced to the following books:
Harris, John (2006), The Dark Side of the Moon (3 ed.), Harper Perennial, ISBN9780007790906
Mason, Nick (2005), Philip Dodd, ed., Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd (Paperback ed.), Phoenix, ISBN0753819066
Parker, Alan; O'Shea, Mick (2006), And Now for Something Completely Digital, The Disinformation Company, ISBN1932857311.
Povey, Glenn (2007), Echoes, Mind Head Publishing, ISBN0955462401,
Reising, Russell (2005), Speak to Me, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, ISBN0754640191,
Ruhlmann, William (2004), Breaking Records, Routledge, ISBN0415943051,
Schaffner, Nicholas (1991), Saucerful of Secrets (1 ed.), London : Sidgwick & Jackson, ISBN0283061278
Whiteley, Sheila (1992), The space between the notes, Routledge, ISBN0415068169
I have copies, and I have read—some many times—all of these except for Parker and Whitely. I consider them very reliable sources and had no concerns over the two that I do not have after checking. Among the minor sources I saw were The New Musical Express, Melody Maker, (both reliable UK sources) and Rolling Stone. This is what I meant when I wrote above "I feel qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness of the article—I have read the sources used." Graham ColmTalk 18:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per non-free content issues. Three versions of the cover aren't necessary, especially when two of them are practically identical. Alternative non-free album covers can only really be justified when the covers themselves are notable (for instance Electric Ladyland). Also, two versions of Money aren't really required (though they'd probably be unexceptionable in the article Money (Pink Floyd song) where ironically there's only one!). Black Kite 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and, I think the article would look much better with just that iconic image of the first vinyl album cover. The others are redundant. To me it is like showing images of all the front covers of the paperbacks of On the Origin of Species or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. As for the sound clips, these too could be dumped IMHO. Clips are widely available. Graham ColmTalk 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Let me ask this on the article's talk page, and see what people say. As I've already said, if enough people want them gone I'll go with that, but personally I'd prefer they stay. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, the anniversary album covers should be kept. They are discussed in the text aand are covered by fair use, and are not redundant given that DSotM is not only one of the most important albums ever, but it is also more closely associated with its packaging than most albums are. Secondly, he sound clips absolutely should stay, regardless of how available they are. Actually, the very fact that they are so widely available is a testament to their importance, and given that they are relevantly described in the article there is zero reason to remove them. I am soon going to put some notes here as I review the article, but I want to save this comment first. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention this in my first comment, but I changed the formatting of web-based sources from ((Citation)) to ((Cite web)).
Sorry, I changed them back - templates shouldn't be mixed as per wp:cit
In retrospect, I should have asked first. But the only reason I did was because it italicized the titles of the sources which should have been in quotes. I don't know how else to fix that.
Any particular reason Andy Mabbett's book in the further reading section isn't formatted like all the other books?
Done
In the "Sales chart performance" (btw, "Chart performance" is more standard) and "Selected album sales" (which should be "Selected sales certifications") sections, the table formatting is really ugly. I'd recommend removing the line "id="toc" margin-left: 2em; width: 50%; font-size: 85%;" cellspacing="3"" from both.
I've changed the tables (I have not the slightest understanding of what those codes do tbh).
In the "Sales chart performance" section, there's a subsection indication for "Albums" (which should be "Album"), but either this should be removed or a subsection for all of the associated singles should be created.
Removed - there was a singles chart, but it was so small I turned it into prose.
In the "Reissues and remastering" section, it is said that DSotM was released on iTunes in 2007, but the source indicates that it was simply re-released onto the "iTunes Plus" store, as a DRM-free higher quality file. It had definitely been in the broader iTunes store previously.
The date was an assumption on my part, so I've reworded it to include information about the new DRM version.
While the Reception section does have some of the critical reception to the album, it should be titled Release due to the nature of its content and subsections.
Good point, done
I also notice that there are no retrospective reviews, all of the reception is contemporary other than a few lists. This article is also missing a Legacy section. Who did this album influence? See OK Computer for an example of retrospective reviews being incorporated into the reception section, and a Legacy section.
I asked this question on the article's talk page, almost a month back. I'm aware its important, but I don't have the in-depth musical knowledge that would give me a starting point. If you could suggest a list of works, I would be quite willing to write this.
This book seems like a good place to start, and at the very least should be in the Further reading section. Most of the book seems to be discussion and analysis of the album, but some of it appears to be about its impact. A lot of the material you would use to make a Legacy section is already there; for example, the impact its success had on the members is already in the Sales section. What it lacks right now are examples of specific musicians taking influence from DSotM, and its influence is enormous in progressive rock and otherwise. I'm sure some of the bigger neo-prog bands like Tool, Dream Theater, and Marillion have something to say about it, and Radiohead's OK Computer is very very frequently compared to it even though the members deny its influence. Probably a few prog-metal bands like, for example, Opeth, have something to say about it. Its success also contributed in a big way to the big anti-prog reaction when punk came along, which might be worth mentioning. The album surely made an impact in how sampling and other new audio technologies were used in recording, someone has something to say somewhere about that. Anything that would be a reaction to the album or an example of its enduring popularity should be in a Legacy section, which is much needed considering this album's monumental impact. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a legacy section, making changes to the layout accordingly. I'll add more to it as I go along. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "On 8 February 1995 the opening sequence of..." is out of place where it is right now. It would fit nicely, along with the mention of lists DSotM has appeared on, in a Legacy section.
I agree, its a bit of trivia that could be used elsewhere.
The "Label" section should be called "Promotion"
Respectfully I don't agree. I'm working on WYWH and Meddle (in my sandbox), and the label section is a recurring theme. I don't feel its quite appropriate to discuss a lack of promotion in a section titled 'promotion'. 'Label' is slightly generic, whereas 'promotion' could suggest to the reader that everything was hunky-dory.
OK, sounds good.
Rateyourmusic.com is absolutely not a reliable source, as all the lists are user-generated. The Rolling Stone list no doubt exists, but in this case you're citing an unreliable fan reproduction. Find a way to source a more reliable reproduction, or the original list.
This has been raised above. Unfortunately I can't find the original Rolling Stone list. The shortcut would of course be to remove the url and 'presume' that the RS list is real, but WP policy rightly forbids me from doing that. I've had a look around though and it appears as though the link is incorrect (the correct position would appear to be #19), so I've removed it pending a reliable source.Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the article looks excellent, but the things I found were problematic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment All of my previous concerns have been addressed, and although I still think ((Cite web)) should be used because it formats the titles of sources properly I don't think it's a significant issue. The legacy section looks good for now. Given the difficulty I experienced trying to find specific testimonials from musicians about DSotM's influence on them, I think that it is as good as it can be until more relevant information comes along, which I trust you'll add to the article as you find it. Two other things: The article doesn't explain or even mention DSotM's re-release as part of the box set Oh, by the Way, and doesn't mention the tribute album Return to the Dark Side of the Moon: A Tribute to Pink Floyd, which actually features a ton of important Prog artists and is probably one of the more notable covers. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my points have been addressed, and I'm now confident that this article is ready to be featured. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am slightly concerned, as I detected minor niggles throughout the article. Otherwise, comments:
Guitarist David Gilmour, Barrett's replacement, would later refer to these instrumentals as "that psychedelic noodling stuff". - cite?
Oh no, hang on, it wasn't. It is now though, sorry. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The release of The Dark Side of the Moon is seen as a symbolic point in the history of rock music. - cite?
This is probably better off now in the newly-created Legacy section, but I could either copy all the citations from the professional reviews onto the end of the sentence, or I could just leave as is - I don't think its a particularly contentious statement, anyone who reads a little about the history, and delves into the sources, would certainly find it difficult to disagree with this line. Anyway, I'll move it to the Legacy section as its better there than in the Concept section (its existed there since before I took this on anyway). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The album is particularly notable for the metronomic sound effects during "Speak to Me", and the tape loops that open "Money". - cite?
Listen to the album, and read the sections of this article that discuss at length the sound effects used. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another roadie, Chris Adamson, was on tour with Pink Floyd at the time and recorded his explicit diatribe that opens the album—"I've been mad for fucking years—absolutely years". - cite after quote?
Following the completion of the dialogue sessions, producer Chris Thomas was hired to provide "a fresh pair of ears". - cite?
Someone changed those to quotation marks, actually its an idiom to summarise the page so I've changed it back. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Designers Storm Thorgeson and Aubrey Powell were able to ignore such criticism as they were employed by the band. - cite?
The mono side had the word "bullshit" removed from the song, leaving "bull" in its place, however the stereo side retained the uncensored version. - cite?
Possibly more later. ceranthor 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It appears that the article's referencing issues have been resolved. POD, if the article is promoted, please be sure to watch out for unreferenced information. ceranthor 16:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article has quite a few watchers, many of whom own copies of the sources used. Don't worry, this article won't be descending into trivia any time soon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two album covers and two music samples are the most I can support, per my intrepreation of NFCC. Cut it down to that, and I'd say it passes NFCC under a generous reading of the policy. If I were you (and I'm not), I would jump at the chance to have 4 non-free files. That's 3-4 more than a lot of FAs get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Zappa has eight non-free files. The matter is up for discussion on the article's talk page and only if enough people wish it will those images be removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really know anything about that article, but eight sounds like a lot. As you say, these things aren't up to just one person. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.