Talk:Earth Angel

Untitled

The song's use in Back to the Future is worthy of a mention since it is prominent in a pivotal scene. The article isn't exactly overcrowded, so I don't see the harm in mentioning it. For many people, BTTF will be from where they know the song. The JPS 21:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there was no reason to revert my other changes. In any case, I don't think it's important enough to be in the second sentence so I've moved it to the bottom and added some details. Gamaliel 22:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I like this new version. Sorry about the revert — unless I missed anything, I didn't think i was removing anything you added. Anyway, no offense intended. The JPS 22:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No big deal, I had just reworded the intro a little. Anyway, I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this. Gamaliel 22:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

JPS, I believe I have found the source under Authorship for the line "One source states that ""Earth Angel" was a pastiche of everything that was floating around Los Angeles" to be honest I am not comfortable with editing as I am not coding savvy. The website that I found that exact line is; http://electricearl.com/dws/earth-origin.html Hope this helps. RedDiva256 (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)RedDiva256

The introduction needs some clarification. The second sentence changes the focus to the Crew Cuts making the next paragraph unclear as to who recorded the demo in Ted Brinson's garage. In paragraph 2 instead of saying "The song was originally recorded as a demo ..." it should say "The song was originally recorded by the Penguins as a demo ..." This reiteration would not be necessary if the statement about the Crew Cuts was moved to the end of the introduction. MisterHOP (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC) I rearranged the text in the intro without adding or deleting a word. It is a little clearer now.MisterHOP (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been reviewing this article, and will be done by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here are my comments and suggestions:

• All the media (clips, images) look great.
• The lead is really great. Good job.
• The reference formatting is good, too. I'm especially impressed with the convenience links coupled with dead tree references. The only thing I noticed that needs to be corrected is references that look like this: "85 (19). Billboard. p. 10." THey should actually look like this: "Billboard. 85 (19):10." Please fix those.
• Under "Charts and certifications", the references are a little hit and miss. There should be references for all of chart positions.
• "Penguins — composed"—There shouldn't be any spaces around an emdash, per English grammar and the policy MOS:EMDASH. Fix all of those.
• "It made its another appearance"—remove "its"
• "By mid–January"—That should be a regular hyphen, not an endash.
• "widely considered one of the first mashup songs,"—I looked up the reference at the end of the entire sentence, and it was too old to support this, since it predates the "mash-up" phenomena. I don't think it even claimed this anyway. Since this statement is an opinion, it needs to be substantiated by a reputable source, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE.
• The sections "Cover versions and in popular culture" and "Legacy" both look really good.

I have to commend the editors for really strong work on this article thus far. One of the best I've seen lately. I'm placing this article on hold until the necessary changes are made.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Response

Hey there, thanks for reviewing. Some notes:

• In the reference formatting, I’m not quite sure how to update those - I used the cite journal template, and it doesn’t appear to matter which order the volume, issue, date, etc are in. If you know how to fix those links let me know how and I’ll go back in and fix them all.
• Updated all the charts. When I wrote the article, I wanted to keep things rather consistent in terms of what the charts were titled when the song hit big in the 1950s - for example, there was no Hot 100, but an “Honor Roll of Hits", etc. I’ve gone back to the magazine links for those, but linked all the others to Billboard’s regular site, post-1959 (when it was retitled).

Thanks again! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at the references and fixed them. The name of the journal or newspaper should not go in the "publisher" field. The publisher is like the company, like CondeNast for Cosmo Magazine. I changed the field names, and it rendered correctly.
• The references for the charts all look good.

Everything else looks good. I'm going to promote this article. Great job!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Record Shop(Inside).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)