Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Good Vibrations

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Good Vibrations

edit
(
)
  • ... that "Good Vibrations" was recorded over a dozen sessions at four different Hollywood studios, requiring over 90 hours of magnetic tape?

Improved to Good Article status by Ilovetopaint (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 04:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC).

  • ALT1: ... that the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" was the most expensive single ever produced in its time, requiring over 90 hours of recorded tape?
or
I prefer the second, since it establishes much more notability. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article was Listed as a Good Article on 03:59, 08 July 2016
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 39134 characters
    • ✗ Paragraphs [36] (Live ... (2002).) in this article lack a citation.
    • ✗ This article has the following issues:
    • ✗ There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 58.1% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 133 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 134 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 147 characters
    • ✓ Casliber has 649 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Gale Sears was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • This newly promoted GA qualifies for DYK on the basis of newness and length. Approving the original hook which has an inline citation. Not approving ALT1 or ALT2 which are a bit nebulous, not cited inline, not included in article or dubious (the "expensive" claim). The article is neutral and, with many of the sources being unavailable to me, I did not detect any policy issues. I removed a couple of unnecessary tags. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Striking the unapproved hooks to prevent them being accidentally promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Not sure I understand — both claims are sourced in the article and the "dubious" call is without merit. The "expensive" claim is common knowledge and there is nothing "dubious" about it. See #Modular approach and #Influence and legacy. I really don't think the original hook is that great when there is so much more to the subject than "it took a long time to make". In 2016, there is nothing special about a single having a long recording span. In 1966, it was rare for a single to have more than one or two sessions, let alone the 17+ required for "Good Vibrations".--Ilovetopaint (talk)
  • It's up to you, of course, Ilovetopaint, but Cwmhiraeth's review specifically said it was approving the original hook only, so that's the only one that can be promoted. If you're going to insist on removing the strikes for ALT1 and ALT2, which were not approved, so that they might accidentally be promoted despite what Cwmhiraeth said, I'm going to have to withdraw the overall approval until this matter is settled. (I've taken the liberty of labeling ALT1 and ALT2 for clarity.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to ping @Cwmhiraeth:.--Ilovetopaint (talk)
FWIW, I do think ALT1 and ALT2 are more interesting hooks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, ALT2 is definitely not borne out by a sentence with an inline citation in the article. ALT1 has a source which mentions an estimate (by the producer) that the song cost $50,000 to $75,000 to produce, "then an unheard amount for one song". I am not prepared to equate that with "the most expensive single ever produced in its time". Someone else can approve ALT1 or ALT2 if they think fit, I don't. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
My impression is that then an unheard amount" equates to "the most expensive (±by far)" but will wait to see what consensus is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But this was a boastful comment by a producer who didn't even know how much his own recording had cost. Not exactly a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's true that ALT2 is more like a summary of everything written in the "Advancements" section of the article. On ALT1, sources commonly cite the budget to at least $50,000 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Many cite it as the "most expensive single" ever produced in its time [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The average budget of each Pet Sounds track was about $5,400. This was "unheard of" in 1966. If "Good Vibrations" cost roughly 9~12 times more than that amount, is the claim really that dubious? It's not hyperbole to suggest that the making of the song was like the recording of a full-length album. Even the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper had a total budget of £25,000 ($59,000), and that was supposed to be the most overproduced album ever.--Ilovetopaint (talk)
  • Now that you have added a reference to a reliable source for the "most expensive single" fact, I have no problem with ALT1. So now both ALT0 and ALT1 are approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Good_Vibrations&oldid=960398167"