# Talk:For Your Pleasure

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on For Your Pleasure. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220163221/http://moo.vivaroxymusic.com/roxy/album_list?who=RM to http://moo.vivaroxymusic.com/roxy/album_list?who=RM
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614125029/http://www.manzanera.com/RoxyArchive/foryourpleasure.htm to http://www.manzanera.com/RoxyArchive/foryourpleasure.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The article repeats the common internet assertion that Judy Dench provided the female voice on the final track. This may indeed be true, but the ref for the claim is weak - it's a Pitchfork article which is little more than a personal essay. We need a better ref if we're going to state that this is other than an urban myth. Ef80 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged it. --Ef80 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Ref now improved, thanks. Must be true then :) --Ef80 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:For Your Pleasure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'll review this article within the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, awaiting my firsts GA review (as a nominator) with terror and excitement! —LastJabberwocky (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
LastJabberwocky, a preliminary note before the full review: the article is very quote-heavy. The vast majority of the article should be written in one's own words. For example, Bryan Ferry wrote the "good portion" of the album within a two week writing spree doesn't need to be a quotation because you could write Bryan Ferry wrote most of the album within a two week writing spree. Compare ends with voice of Judi Dench saying "You don't ask. You don't ask why". where that really has to be a quote because the exact wording needs to be imparted. Would you be willing to go through and paraphrase most of the article's quotations (while also keeping WP:CLOP in mind) before I review the article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure, especially "background" and "production" sections (with music and reception would be more tricky). It' 22:35 my time so I would get to it tomorrow :) —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I rephrased some of the quotes mostly focusing on "background", "production" and release. If there any other quotes that feel awkward or can easily rephrased, let me know. Or if copyvios picks up anything. As a sidenot, I also want to add full record sleeve image, which will be the first image I'll add to wiki (so keep me in check :)). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Also I am aware about citation needed tags, I'll probably remove the info, but let me check another time if they are sources to support the uncited claims. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
A sizeable amount of the article is still quotations. Besides the article not being entirely written when it's substituted with quotations, extensive use of quotes is a copyright violation because they are non-free content. Right now I don't believe it qualifies as a GA. If you're willing to go through and write the article in your own words over the next couple days then I can take another look at it afterward, or I can close the review so you can take your time to make whatever changes you feel appropriate and then have another reviewer give their opinion. It's totally up to you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien:I rephrased all Pitchfork phrases picked up by copyvios and other adjacent quotes I grabbed onto; the blog with ~80% match is the wiki mirror. I really like to be closer to perfection, and it's slightly painful to ruin perfectly good sentence. BUT you don't need to explain the downsides of copyright violation :). I hope the changes are sufficient. We can further paraphrase if necessary. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on how an article has to be written to qualify as a GA. It wouldn't be fair of me to pull you through a WP:FIXLOOP, so I'm going to close the review and allow you to decide what to do with it. You're welcome to renominate it at any time you feel it meets the GA criteria, and a new reviewer can provide their own opinion on the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I was really excited to work with because you seem to be picky. I'm also picky and often feel as if I bothering nominators with perfecting and polishing. In this case maybe you was too picky with the amount of quotes capped for an album article. They unavoidably OR should be investigated on a case-by-case basis with more patience. For example here are random approximately equally-sized good article (not only in name) by the number of question marks because I'm lazy to count quotes: Ghost in the Machine (song) (272), Autobahn (album) (332), "Heroes" (album) (585; and it's larger than FYP but not much). For Your Pleasure got 268 quotation marks. I don't the copyright policy is unreasonable, but if copyvios doesn't pick up anything and the quotes doesn't ruin the reading experience, I don't think it's major problem (especially with something that abstract as music). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

LastJabberwocky, note that most of the quotation marks in those articles are from reference formatting or from the titles of songs. If you disagree with my assessment of the article, you can appeal it at WT:GAN or renominate it so it can be evaluated by a different reviewer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I'm not disagreeing, I just don't think put due weight into an appropriate amount of quotations in a music-related article. Obviously some of the quotation marks are songs and refs, like with For Your Pleasure, and obviously almost all of the quotes can be paraphrased but in music the quotes are really important to carry not just a fact but a feeling of a song/album/performance nicely captured by a music reviewer who knows how to wield words. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)