# Talk:The Electric Prunes

This article states that the Prunes track on Easy Rider is an Axelrod track from the Mass... album, but stlyrics says it was their earlier hit single. Investigating; I saw the film many times but can't remember, and we didn't hear this hit at all in Aust, the first we really knew of the Prunes was Mass. Andrewa 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Aha! According to Amazon, there were two Prunes tracks used... Kyrie Eleison from the Mass, and I Had Too Much To Dream. Andrewa 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That is false.  "Kyrie Eleison" is the only Prunes track on the Easy Rider soundtrack.  The tracks on the bonus disc of the 2-disc reissue of the soundtrack LP aren't actually in the film.24.161.86.156 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

why are the middle names of some people just always so hard to find? 71.112.224.112 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dec1976prunes.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 Wikipedia: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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Album is a compilation album with 26 other bands, part of the 'Nuggets' series.
The proper name is "Nuggets: Original Artyfacts From The First Psychedelic Era 1965-1968"
The original release date was 1972 on vinyl, I'd assume the 2002 date refers to the CD release date Severndroog (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severndroog (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 
"Artifact" is nothing to do with "Nuggets". It's an album the Prunes made in 2002 after their reunion.80.189.53.137 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Electric Prunes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Garagepunk66 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am here to write review on the article, The Electric Prunes, which is currently being nominated for good article status:
CRITERIA: 

1) Prose is clear and precise. (yes) Complies with manual style guidelines for lead sections, layout, owrds to watch, list incorporation, etc. (yes)
2) Verifiable, with no original research. (yes, verifiable and no orig. research) Contains list of references and respects copyright laws. (yes)  Correct spelling and grammar. (yes)  All in-line citations are form reliable sources. (yes)  Contains no orig. research. (none)
3) Broad in its coverage. (yes)  Addresses main aspects of topic. (yes)  Stays focused on topic. (yes)
4) Neutral in tone. (yes)
5) Illustrated by images. (yes); Tagged w/ copyright or valid sues descriptions. (yes) Images relevant to topic. (yes)
REVIWER'S COMMENTS: I like the article a lot.  It appears not been evaluated for a long time, because it currently is still ranked in the Start Class, which is no longer a fair classification.  Over the years the article has grown exponentially and has been subject to numerous additions and improvements.  The article now displays all of the hallmarks that are required for G.A.:  It is now informative and well-written with smooth, clear prose, written in an interesting, yet neutral style.  All of its contents appear in my best judgment to be accurate, and the article is well-sourced from top to bottom.  I read through many of the texts of the sources and the article seems to go hand-in-hand with the way the various sources describe the facts.  The article is now comprehensive and aptly divided into appropriate sections and sub-sections, which are helpful to the reader.  The article discusses the history of the Electric Prunes with both depth and scope, and provides the reader not only with a thorough briefing about the history of their career, but also an understanding of their creative approach and the nature of their music. I highly recommend this article for G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
ADDENDUM TO REVIEW:  I was notified by Ritchie333 that there were some issues that needed to be resolved.  TheGracefulslick has gone in and made the necessary corrections.  Let me enumerate the issues raised, which have been fixed:

The word, "motifs" should read as singular "motif." (now fixed)
Album serial #'s must be displayed in citation. (now done)
Page #'s for booklets must (when possible) be shown. (now done)
Excessively long quote in first body paragraph. (has now been omitted)
With these changes now accomplished, the article should be re-classified as G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the first question that many potential readers of this article would ask is "where did they get such a stupid name?".  I tried to cover that by adding in the Jim Lowe quote here, but that has now been removed as over-long and a potential copyvio.  I still think that, in such a thorough article, more needs to be said than simply that it was originally a joke.  How about:  ...He suggested to the group that they change their name, and they considered a list of alternatives.  According to Lowe, the name Electric Prunes started off as a joke, but he eventually convinced other band members, saying, "It's the one thing everyone will remember. It's not attractive, and there's nothing sexy about it, but people won't forget it.""   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with the addition, I only removed the original quote per Ritchie333's suggestion, but I didn't have anything against a more thorough explanation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit that says that he died c.2016.  According to this interview with Mark Tulin, dated 2005: "Weasel just fell of the face of the earth and we just heard recently that he died."  So, c.2000 is a guesstimate, but it is published information.  I can't find anything on official death records to give anything more specific.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)