# Talk:Summerteeth

Found it in a collection of images here: http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/2009/09/shutterbug-friday-3-john-g-moebes-and.html
Anyone want to track it down and include it in the article?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismol (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 

I remember hearing that Summerteeth was originally rejected because the record company didn't think it had a marketable single,  so the band added Can't Stand It.  Can anyone else corroborate this?

Hey there! Whilst some really good work has gone into this article, I am afraid I am going to fail it for the time being. More detailed comments come after the template:

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

From the lead: "Released through Reprise Records on March 9, 1999, the album was heavily influenced lyrically by twentieth century literature and singer Jeff Tweedy's marital problems." Highlighted the part that doesn't make sense.
General prose issues, for example:
"The album sold approximately 200,000 copies, a modest number compared to 1996's Being There."
would be better as:
"The album sold approximately 200,000 copies, a modest number compared to the sales of 1996's Being There."
I added a {{Fact}} tag to: ""A Shot in the Arm" was released as a single, but also failed to cross over to an alternative rock audience.". Not only do you need to provide a citation, you need to say something like "Tweedy hoped it would cross over to an alternative rock audience" (or whatever) to show why this is significant.
The paragraph about the reviews needs to be split up into 2-3 paragraphs for readability. It would also help to trim some of the quotes and leave only the most relevant & significant comments. Quotes that are 2-3 lines long shouldn't be in the middle of a paragraph.
You would do well to split the text about charting and accolades (for ex. the Pazz & Jop poll) from the text about reviews.
A section with it's chart positions would be nice (most album articles include those).
I hope these comments are constructive rather than unhelpful :) Don't be discouraged, you have a really good start here - you just need to push a little bit further to get to GA. I would suggest asking someone uninvolved to copyedit for you as a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful in identifying weak areas. Kamryn · Talk 07:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK The guardian gave this album five stars on its release. I bought it on the strength of that review - thanks, the graun!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.201.42 (talk) 14:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 

This has clearly had a significant amount of work put into it since the last GA review failed, it's great work.  My opinions:

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
I made a couple of minor adjustments, a spelling mistake and a wasn't instead of a was not... But I'm happy to raise the article to GA.  Well done. The Rambling Man 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has just undergone a reassessment in accordance with the GA:SWEEPS task force. The review identified problems with referencing which preclude the article from meeting GA standards. However, most significantly, one section is completely lacking in sources and has been tagged since May 2009, with no signs of improvement evident. Such an issue would qualify for a "quick-fail" under GA standards. As an identified problem with the article has not been addressed over the course of the past 8 months, there is little indication that the issues identified in the reassessment would be rectified in a 7 day period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity regarding this article, and given that it is listed under 2 wikiprojects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed within the next 7 days, I will undertake a GA review to immediately relist the article. The reassessment can be viewed here. If there are any questions or queries please feel free to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the problems outlined in the review were addressed within 7 days, the outcome of the reassessment has been reversed, and the article keeps its GA status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Summerteeth. 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/20070504044117/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/36737-staff-list-top-100-albums-of-the-1990s/page_7 to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/36737-staff-list-top-100-albums-of-the-1990s/page_7
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) 07:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)