Talk:Smiley Smile

Release date?

Not to quibble, but wasn't this album released on Tuesday 9/5/67 in the US, not Monday 9/11/67? As I recall, street day is usually on a Tuesday. I believe AllMusic may have it wrong. swinterich 2/20/06 11:30 am EST

Protected

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(From the response I gave to another editor who felt my edit was too drastic): Please take a look at the changes more carefully. What you call "the body of the article" is an extended, unsourced/unreferenced/unverifiable personal commentary that violates Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, NPOV, and no original research. Some sections of the article were unsalvageable.

Such phrases as "infamous album," "notoriously under-produced," "bizarre quality," "the turn of events were indeed puzzling," "albeit with a lack of ambition never seen before in him," "sticks out like a sore thumb in this over-simplified atmosphere," "Without a doubt the strangest album ever released by a major group," and "its enduring strangeness" are subjective statements, personal opinions at best, that have no place in an encyclopedic article. The extensive, completely unsourced and mostly if not entirely unverifiable about the motivations of Brian Wilson and other musicians are clear violations of Wikipedia content policies.

This is part of a set of running disputes between user:BGC and other editors (e.g., myself, Mel Etitis, Hapsiainen) over various matters related to popular music pages, and BGC has been warned by several admins that his conduct with respect to the articles is unacceptable. He has responded by removing the earnings from his talk page and describing the admins as vandals in his edit summaries.

I recommend taking a look at this page [1], particularly the early section, for some background to this dispute. Monicasdude 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I recommend looking at Monicasdude's TWO RfC pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2 to get an understanding and background into his character, which is most evident on his editing practices on this page and MANY others. BGC 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this article because there has been no discussion in ten days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nick Kent

Music journalist Nick Kent described the album as "do it yourself, acid casualty doo-wop music."

Is there a citation available for this? Presumably he didn't say it when the album was released - he'd only have been 14 or 15 then. BTLizard 10:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's probably from the big article he wrote about Brian Wilson in the NME in the mid-1970s; the phraseology would seem to indicate in that direction. A version of the piece later appeared in his book "The Dark Stuff", but I can't confirm because I haven't access to either version. BTLizard 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was not a description contemporary to its release (Kent was not a published journalist till 1971/72 era) - but a comment from a writer long after the release - its significance is far less valuable. It might belong alongside a series of critical references to the album over the years. But it has no merit to the article in the prominent position it holds. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Opinions vs. Facts

There are several things in this article that seem to be just opinions, not facts. For example:

"Smiley Smile is an infamous album by The Beach Boys, issued in 1967. Released in the place of the much-touted Smile, and notoriously under-produced, the album was received with indifference and confusion upon its unveiling. However, Smiley Smile has managed to grow in stature over the years to become a cult favorite, in spite of its bizarre quality."

"the atmosphere is often perceived as eerie, disturbing or frightening, constrastive to earlier Beach Boys material which is most often experienced as warm and inviting."

This is an encyclopedia article, not a review. So I think those should be removed.

Roope 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I toned down some of the NPOV - some of which, by the way, was not written by me. BGC 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the "Paul McCartney plays the carrot" idea?

It says in the booklet to the album, by David Leaf perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.186.45 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmileySmileCover.jpg

Image:SmileySmileCover.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I had this album at one time and the cover was completely different. It was a digital drawing of a smiling face (?) enlarged to the point that the individual square pixels were, eh, I don't know, a half an inch across? I acquired that record cover long ago and I suggest that it is the original cover. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Eric

Copy editing "Live Performances" section

PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Personnel

Have removed Glen Campbell, as he didn't play on any BB sessions post-PET SOUNDS. I'm assuming his inclusion was down to his claiming to have played on "Good Vibrations". He didn't: not listed on any AFM contracts.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Fall Breaks and Back to Winter" uses a similar bass line as that of "The Elements: Fire";

"Fall Breaks and Back to Winter" uses a similar bass line as that of "The Elements: Fire";"

I know this is what David Leaf wrote in his liner notes for the "Smiley Smile/Wild honey" twofer CD, but now that Brian Wilson's "Smile" has been released, it's apparent that "Fall Breaks and Back to Winter" uses a similar *vocal* line as that which was to be used in "The Elements: Fire".

Done.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Smiley Smile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060630150149/http://blender.com:80/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2244 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2244

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smiley Smile/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ilovetopaint: I'll be reviewing this article over the next few of days. I'd hope to get the bulk of the review done by tomorrow night, but straight off the bat there are a couple of issues you might be able to fix. There's a one-sentence paragraph in the Differences from Smile sub-section (perhaps you could re-arrange the section to incorporate three fuller paragraphs?); and the Personnel section is tagged as being incomplete, which needs to be removed one way or the other. If you could fill it out, cool, but looking at both Discogs and AllMusic, it seems that the album was originally released with little to no credit information, and that doesn't seem to have been rectified on the 2012 reissue. Overall, this looks like a good article, and should be no problem getting it to GA-status. I'll respond with (hopefully) my full review within 24 hours. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I've made this edit. Like I said before, this looks like a good article – and it is – I just made some tweaks to the prose in the body, namely:

• Overuse of the album title in the article: I realize there needs to be quite a bit of distinction between Smiley Smile and Smile, since the two titles are so similar, but there was a bit of overuse—I [sparingly, to keep confusion to a minimum] replaced some uses of Smiley Smile with "the album" or "the record".
• In Background, I also changed "Dennis Wilson called the album a product of its context,..." to "Dennis Wilson said of the album...", because the former didn't make much sense.
• I also removed the hidden quote from the composition and analysis section.

That being said, although the actual WP:BODY of the article is fine, there are some issues with WP:LEAD:

• We need to remove all citations in the lead. Just make sure what's cited there is included in the body.

Need or should? I'm not aware of any such guideline or policy - even The Beatles contains refs in its lead. (I've removed them anyway) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Need: see the Citations section of WP:LEAD: the lead should just be a summary of sourced information contained in the latter sections of the article. Exceptions are for quotations and potentially controversial/challengeable material. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• "the lowest chart placement the band had yet had for a record" - remove repetition of "had"
• "After settling payment disputes..." This isn't mentioned in the rest of the article.
• "Smile was left unfinished while the group embarked on new projects." - Again, this isn't mentioned in the rest of the article.

This never came to fruition and, instead, the group embarked on a tour of Hawaii in August. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Carl Wilson famously compared Smiley Smile and Smile to "a bunt instead of a grand slam".[7][8]" - Again, not in body.

Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ilovetopaint: I'm putting the article on hold until you sort out the above issues in the lead. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that this article satisfies GA. Passing. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drive-by

A few things that should be fixed before any reviewer at FAC sees it, I imagine (it obviously didn't get too thorough a review for GA …)

• There are about 7 or 8 refs that don't carry a page number, even when other citations from the same source do.
• A few web citations don't include retrieval dates.
• A few of the refs that do show retrieval dates have them as dmy, whereas other dates are mdy.
• In the main text there are 4 types of dashes used: spaced ems, spaced ens, unspaced ems, and unspaced ens. It's either spaced ens or unspaced ems, according to the MoS, and only one type should be used throughout.
• The are some instances where MOS:LQ is not being followed, i.e. when quoted text doesn't amount to a full sentence.

I was going to add a couple more reviewer ratings, so I may well pick up the odd one of these as I go. JG66 (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hidden content

Seems there is some hidden content that creates an additional link break above the "Notes" section. Can this content either be implemented or removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two commented-out sections (Charts and Accolades) after the Personnel section with a line break between them. I've removed the line break. —Bruce1ee^talk 21:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)