Talk:Tago Mago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Tago Mago has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
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. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance 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. |
|
Just created this page. It's my first article, and there isn't much information available anyway, so bear with me. As you can see, I plan to move the gray-boxed section on Tago Mago from the Can article itself to this page (also the image). --Demflan
[edit] Opinions on an opinion?
Regarding the following sentence in the article:
- "Tago Mago is generally considered the band's greatest album: it is groundbreaking, influential and deeply unconventional, based on intensely rhythmic jazz-inspired drumming, improvised guitar and keyboard soloing (frequently intertwining each other), tape edits, and Suzuki's idiosyncratic vocalisms."
Generally considered by whom? I thought Ege Bamyasi was generally held to be their best album. The description could easily be about either album. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Tago Mago is the most widely recognized as their "best album" (though the other two featuring Damo Suzuki, Ege Bamyasi and Future Days, are widely considered masterpieces in their own right). However, that sentence is a bit POV in tone, and there needs to be explainations as to why it was groundbreaking, who it influenced, etc. if the article is going to make such claims. —jiy (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- generally considered by pretty much everyone. 67.172.61.222 22:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
Looks pretty good! I have a few suggestions:
- SACD links to a disambiguation page.
- AMG should be spelled out, at least the first time it's mentioned.
- The music section is good, but I think it could be improved. Some comments should be included concerning the album's overall sound, not just select tracks. Also I'm sure the band themselves have described their music, so a few quotes from them would be illuminating as well. Lastly, a music sample would be a great addition, provided it's covered by fair-use.
- The lead is a little bit problematic. My main complaint is that in summarizing the reception section, it singles out one (very positive) quote. I would argue that the lead is a bad place to provide quotes of any kind, especially one that is so glowing. The reception should still be summarized briefly in the lead (per WP:Lead), but should do so in more general, less specific terms.
And that's it! I've put the article on hold, which gives you 7 days. Let me know when you think you've addressed my concerns. Drewcifer (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
