Talk:Duran Duran (1981 album)

---

Extensively re-written - copyediting and comments invited. Catherine - talk 05:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duran1st.jpg

Image:Duran1st.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 Wikipedia articles 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 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duranduran1983.png

Image:Duranduran1983.png 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Sound of Thunder

It seems to me a note might be appropriate that Sound of Thunder was the name of the seminal Ray Bradbury short story (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder ). Darci (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Awyj9ke9t7q79#REV

--CactusBot (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duran Duran (1981 album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DaMNbmDo?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertifiedawards%2Fsearch.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Genre: A new wave band that didn't play new wave music?

The beginning of the article says that this is an album by "new wave band Duran Duran", but new wave was apparently removed as an inappropiate genre in the infobox (?) Surely there are sources to be found saying that this is a new wave-album. Disco and experimental music was influences on the album, but I doubt very much sources can be found that supports that as genres of the album. Edo (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I couldn't find anything saying this album is new wave. Only when researching Rio does the term come up. If you can come up with something reliable that says it go ahead and add it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Are discogs.com and AllMusic OK? Which sources say that this is a disco album and an experimental music album? Edo (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTRSMUSIC for more info. Discogs is not. If AllMusic says it in the review yes, but its genres are autogenerated and do not count. "Duran Duran was unabashedly pop ("Friends of Mine," "Girls on Film," "Planet Earth"), boldly experimental ("Tel Aviv" and its swerving, orchestral-like backdrop) and grasping at just-out-of-reach depth (the clumsy "To The Shore,"" Annie Zaleski. The disco part is from numerous references of that between reviews from both modern and at the time. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Zaleski also has "the idea of new wave (and New Romanticism) writ large." so I guess that works now that I think about it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work on the article, Zmbro. I noticed you removed synth-pop too, but in the music/lyrics section is a quote from Mallins which directly calls the album synthesizer pop which links to same. Would you say that was strong or unambiguous enough for the infobox?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I believe it does. I'll go ahead and make the changes. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 04:01, 26 June 2022 (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:Duran Duran (1981 album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Reviewing...

Looks pretty good, just a few minor issues that need to be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting to this sooner I had a very busy weekend. I will start on this tonight or tomorrow. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien Thanks for reviewing, I really appreciate it. I also appreciate someone not reviewing until after I did my much-needed prose edits. My replies are below. Thanks again. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Zmbro, the changes look good. Check the notes I left about the reception section, and make sure any claims in the article supported exclusively by primary sources (i.e. Andy Taylor and John Taylor) are attributed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the changes you've made to this point, and I think it's sufficient for the good article criteria. I made one change to attribute an opinion in reception to the specific authors, but as always, feel free to change it if you think there's a better way to approach it. With that, I'll pass the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

Prose:

• Duran Duran boasts a mixture – "boasts" seems vaguely promotional/informal

• Fixed

• Duran Duran agreed to credit all songs to the band and split all earnings evenly; John credits this – using "credit" two different ways in the same sentence is distracting

• Fixed

• and what became "Khanada" – why is this one singled out?

• Fixed

• with Thurston on Boxing Day – is it significant that it was Boxing Day?

• Nope

• heavy blues rock bands which included AC/DC and Van Halen – are these bands known for their blues rock?

• Simplified to rock

• which Rhodes later called a form of irony – elaborate.

• Done

• The "Reception" section is well organized, but it does suffer from "[reviewer] said [quote]" format. Paraphrase and summarize over quote when possible. As always, I defer to the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION.

• I always struggle with that. How's that look? I assume good enough for GA? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Looking better. My main concern is that it falls into WP:WEASEL a little bit, which is easy to do with reception sections. Any time "critics" or "some critics" say something, we should get an idea of who is saying that. This is especially true if the sources just provide the opinions of one or two people instead of explicitly supporting the claim that "this is a widely held opinion". The only prose issue is that Some reviewers were positive towards the music reads strangely to me, as it seems redundant to say that the reviewers are talking about the music. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to trim and/or paraphrase more of the quotes, but I also realize I'm more of a stickler about quotes than most reviewers, so just consider that a suggestion rather than a GA requirement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• the band's current single – This makes it sound like it's the band current single today in 2023. Clarify the time period.

• Changed it to "then-current"

• The remastering had a negative reaction from fans as a victim of the loudness war. Listeners particularly cited "Girls on Film" as containing a defect which is not present in any other mastering of the song. – I suggest rewriting these sentences. They're stilted and difficult to read, especially with the passive voice.

• How's that look?

Manual of Style:

• Empty "notes" section

• Is this a question to a statement? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was referring to the second level Notes section above References. But it looks like you got it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Just a thought, but enough is said about "Planet Earth" that it might justify having its own paragraph.

• Done

• "Release and promotion" is a bit long and might benefit from subsections, if there's a reasonable way to divide it.
• Is it possible to turn the "notes" list under "track listing" into prose?

• Done

Verifiable with no original research

• Sources by Andy and John are not independent and should be used carefully. Most uses are attributed, but I suggest removing any instances where they are not.

• I was afraid of that. I tried using Malins and Davis as much as I could and have the other two fill in the gaps. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• They still look usable. Just make sure they're attributed if they're the only citation supporting that claim. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Took care of the ones that weren't properly attributed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm noticing the article is a bit quote-heavy. I don't think it's quite to the point where it's a problem, but it's something to keep an eye on.
• Critics felt the band lacked the skills needed to separate themselves from other New Romantic artists. – I can't access the sources for this. Do they say that critics in general felt this way, or are they specific examples of critics making that point? If it's the latter, it should be attributed.

• The two critics that are sourced both say that (Robbins and Bohn) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• Zaleski (2016): Checked all four uses. Was this the 40th-anniversary retrospective, or was this confused with the other Zaleski source?

• That's my bad that was a small confusion. Fixed.

• Evans (1981): Good.
• Shuker (2001): Checked both uses. Doesn't support that "Girls on Film" was filmed in August or that it was banned on the BBC.

• Fixed

• Tebbutt (1981): Good.
• Michaels (2010): Doesn't support relevance of the "loudness war" or the quote "by far in the minority".

• Tried to reword the best I can. The only other source I can seem to find is "Slicing Up Eyeballs" which doesn't strike me as reliable so I'm not sure how much else I can do.

• Malins (2013): Checked all uses of the first three chapters. Seems to slightly contradict developing their sound with occasional live performances, as the source says they did their performances first, then had the writing period with only one live performance during it.

• Removed the live part.

Broad in its coverage

It might be good to expand on the lyrics a little bit, as most songs only get one sentence or even less. Especially if there's anything that could be said about the direction they took "Tel Aviv". But coverage is sufficient for GA.

• I tried to as much as I could but unfortunately couldn't find too much. I've found Duran Duran doesn't get near enough coverage in reliable sources in modern times. You could find swaths of blogs and the like reviewing the albums but they're all unreliable so I had to make do with what I could. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

The opinion of Malins is given a lot of weight throughout the article. A little opinion is fine, but try not to use Malins's more than that of other sources.

• Think I took care of this. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Stable

No recent edits except by nominator, no talk page disputes.

Illustrated

All images are relevant and suitably captioned. Album covers have valid non-free use rationales.

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.