This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is not an EP, it is a compilation. EPs would be vs.GOAT, and Vitus Tinnitus Umlaut3 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious as to exactly why this has been added to the list of articles needed to be cleaned up. As an avid Archers fan, I see it as brief but informative, but to me it is accurate.
Maybe the problem is that you're an avid Archers fan. From my perspective, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry so much as it reads like a fan letter. Drysarcasm 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be cleaned up. Currently, it's very....subjective. I've actually been accumulating interviews and articles for the past couple of months now, and I hope to make the article much more full of information by the end of the summer.
It needs sources. The descriptions of the different albums come across as an original review. I'll keep an eye out for things as well MrDre 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I added a few sources and cleaned up the grammar some. I think it looks good enough to take that banner down Sven loreburg 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this interview with Eric Bachmann that we just posted to the site. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the interview and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. In addition to discussing his recent work as Crooked Fingers and under his own name, he also talks about his time in Archers of Loaf. I appreciate your time.
Crawdaddy!
[1]
Mike harkin (
talk)
16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The link referenced for Eric Johnson studying law points to the myspace page for Spookie (Johnson's music project). There is no mention of law on his profile. I did find a mention of law on another myspace page of his [1]; however, I doubt even referencing that cuts the wikipedia guidelines mustard as a valid source. Pklala ( talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
References
Apologies for making an issue of this but the phrase is always a bit meaningless at the best of times – yes, some albums get generally panned while some fare much better but in fact most are usually released to a mixed critical reaction. Some writers love an album, some don't and some think it's simply OK. What's the critical mass of broadly favourable reviews that allows us to make such a prima facie POV statement in WP's own voice? And there's a more direct problem here. The sources being used and now added to justify retaining the term are: 1) the (undated) Christgau review, which is already now noted in its right; 2) a 10-year retrospective on the album in a student newspaper; and 3) a Rolling Stone review of a reissue of the album nearly 20 years on. Even combined, these do not support a judgment that it "was critically well received", ie at the time of original release, which is what the text claims. And btw I'm not asking for yet more sources/reviews to be researched and footnotes appended to the phrase. I just think we're better off singling out a couple of verifiable accolades and leaving it at that. N-HH talk/ edits 10:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Archers of Loaf. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)