Talk:Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Teemu08 (talk • contribs)

Contents 1 "ironic" statement 2 Streamed vs Leaked 3 Chart numbers for YHF 4 GA Status 4.1 Suggestions for improvement

[edit] "ironic" statement

isn't saying "ironically, Reprise and Nonesuch are both Time Warner companies." a POV statement? Why is this ironic? It seems simply to be the way things work in the land of giant corporations. Time Warner owns both companies because the two will make different decisions. It hopes both will profit. Both child companies attepmt to do different things to make a profit--namely, appeal to different markets and/or use differing advertising techniques to reach those markets. This all seems totally natural. — vijay (Talk) 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic because the same company paid for the same recording twice, which is illogical no matter how you look at it. It may be the way things work in the land of megacorporations, as you say, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable. I might also add that nearly all large record companies have so little brand identity anyway that the number of records sold would not have been affected by which company released it in the end. (This, of course, is not considering the subsequent publicity received by the album after Reprise rejected it, but I think you get the point.) — Fedallah 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Streamed vs Leaked

I think the history books should show that the decision for the band to stream YHF for free on their official web site had nothing to do with being dumped by Reprise - it was in direct reaction to MP3s of the album surfacing all over the internet. It was probably one of the most illegally downloaded albums on the web by the time they started streaming it. Please leave this in the article.

[edit] Chart numbers for YHF

The Wilco article claims YHF entered the charts at #12, the YHF article says #13 this should be checked and cited.

[edit] GA Status

This article is exceptionally detailed, well-written, and in my opinion meets all the criteria for Good Article designation.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

More chart information would be helpful (e.g. how the album fared in terms of sales in the weeks following its release). Additionally, while it is not necessary by any means, a table would greatly increase the visual appeal of the tracklisting by making it cleaner and more organized. These additions, in my opinion, would bring the article to a level where it is ready for Featured Article consideration.--NPswimdude500 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)