Jump to content

Talk:...And Then There Were Three...

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phil wink (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 29 April 2018 (→Little Nemo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:...And Then There Were Three.../Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Red XN A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year

Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Album's Status as a Progressive Rock album

Alright, Since someone doesn't feel that this album is a progressive rock album, and deletes all edits to show that it is, citing them as "unsourced and undiscussed" even though I've not seen any discussion or sources he's used to support his edits that say it isn't one, lets discuss it now. I want to know what qualities this album lacks that prevent it from being a Progressive Rock album, or what qualities it does have that disqualify it from such a genre classification.

Is it it's lack of longer songs? that can't be it, because then why is Yes's Tormato album considered Prog when it only has songs ranging from 2 to 7 minutes, or Kansas albums such as Point of Know Return, or Monolith, or even Audio-Visions which none of those albums have songs that pass 7 minutes and 20 seconds. or Gentle Giant's Octopus album, without one of the shortest prog albums, clocking in at just under 35 minutes long with songs that range between 3 and 6 minutes.

so what else could it be? Could it be the albums fair share of pop songs (and I use that term loosely, I consider them more rock than pop) and to be fair it does have a couple, "Follow You Follow Me", "Many too Many" come to mind. and I would never argue that its a purely progressive rock album. Its definitely not. But you give me "Follow You Follow Me" as a reason why ATTWT is a pop album, and I'll point to songs like "Down And Out" which, while the song does have some more commercial pop tendencies, it also has an odd time signature that is very much qualifies it as a prog song in my eyes anyway, and if you disagree, I recommend you hear the song again. On top of that, I'll also point to the song Ballad of Big, while its not my favorite song on the album, Its still definitely rooted in the Prog genre, the differences between the verse melody and the chorus, its absolutely a prog song. And there's plenty of other examples of prog on this album, "Burning Rope", "Deep in The Motherlode", "The Lady Lies", and even "Say Its Alright, Joe". They're all very much prog songs, albeit more on the poppy side of Progressive rock, but still very much on the more progressive side.

And if the reason that the album isn't classified as a progressive album is because of its more pop leanings, then why is Duke, an album that is arguably even more of a pop rock album than this one still classified as Progressive rock? (which I agree with, Duke is definitely still a progressive rock album, but that's not the point) Also, I can point out bands like Asia who are very much Pop rock/hard rock in style, but still considered progressive rock, and their music is a lot more pop driven than this album. Also Styx albums like Paradise Theater, and Kilroy Was Here. While I once again agree with them being considered Progressive rock, Much of their music is rooted in more of a pop rock sound, again, even more so than this album.

I could go on and on, but I'm going to stop there for now, and ask the question that I posed in the beginning of this post again. What about this album disqualifies it from being considered Progressive Rock?

Sovphil13 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Let's be clear here: You made changes to genres without discussing the issue or citing reliable sources. Do not change genres without discussing the issue or citing reliable sources. You've been given consensus warnings on that repeatedly. The warnings reflect Wikipedia's policy on this issue, as does WP:GWAR. No, I do not need to demonstrate/prove that your opinion is wrong. No, I did not say that your opinion is wrong. I said -- as others have -- that you must either discuss such changes to establish a consensus before making the change or cite reliable sources for the change.
If you have reliable sources calling the album progressive rock, cite them and you're done.
If you don't have such sources (can't find any, don't want to look, whatever) discuss why you think it is progressive rock. ("What else could it be?" is not a meaningful argument, BTW.)
The fulcrum of the question is that you are discussing a turning point for the band. Few would dispute (and sources fully support[1]) that the Gabriel years are the definition of progressive rock. Few would label the mid-80s Collins years as progressive rock. This album -- post-Gabriel, post-Hackett -- needed to generate bank for the band, and it did. It kept the group together. Is there some progressive rock in some of the songs? IMO, sure, but that doesn't make it a progressive rock album any more than "Follow You Follow Me" makes it No Jacket Required. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


First, I want to make it clear that I did not say "What else could it be" in a way that you seem to imply. I was not saying "If Its not Progressive Rock, what else could it be", which is what it seems like you think thats what I tried to use as an argument. Its not. I was using that as a segue into/introduce a new point for my argument, moving from the point about the song lengths to talking about the songs themselves.
Second, I don't see whats the importance of mentioning about the Peter Gabriel era Genesis being quintessential Prog vs 80's Phil Collins Genesis being pop rock, which honestly neither statement really has bearing on the status of this album. in fact, you specifically said Mid-80's Phil Collins-era. This album is not Mid-80's Phil Collins era Genesis. this is from 1978, I fully understand where you're coming from that after Steve Hackett left the band started to push for a more radio friendly sound, Its true, but at the same time, they didn't right away abandon Progressive rock. and if, for the sake of argument, they did, and this album shouldn't be considered Prog, then what about Duke, their 1980 album? That album is still largely considered a Progressive Rock album, their last Progressive rock album. (an assessment that again, I do agree with)
I also want to address the part where you say "Is there some progressive rock in some of the songs? IMO, sure, but that doesn't make it a progressive rock album any more than "Follow You Follow Me" makes it No Jacket Required" Okay. I originally wasn't going to bring this up, but I will for the sake of argument. Let's talk about the 80's era Genesis. While it largely became a pop act in the 80's, it would still not be fair to say that they 100% abandoned prog in the 80's either. notice I said 100% abandoned, because they largely did. but there's still 1 or 2 songs of each respective album like "Home by the Sea/Second Home by the Sea" off of their 1983 self-titled album, or the 10 minute "Domino" off of Invisible touch. Where I'm going with this is, while those 80's albums may have 1 or 2 songs that could be considered Progressive Rock, with And Then There Were Three, that's half the album (really more than half since 6 songs out of 11). So that should absolutely be taken into account when genre classifying an album.
lastly, I want to know what the significance was of comparing "Follow You Follow Me", to No Jacket Required, A Phil Collins solo album. because that made absolutely no sense to me.
Update: Checking the page history, I realize that it wasn't you who took off the Progressive rock genre label initially, and I apologize for assuming that maybe it was you. But before March, "Progressive rock" was one of the album's genre classifications on here.
Sovphil13 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


If you think Genesis ditched prog straight after Hackett left, listen to "Duke's Travels / Duke's End" to change your mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


We are not discussing whether or not one song is a particular genre. We are discussing the album. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


As much as I love Duke's Travels and the entire Duke album (Its my favorite Genesis album), and you are right, @Ritchie333:, that it is very much prog, @SummerPhDv2.0: is also right, its not relevant to the conversation about whether or not this album is prog. now if you want to comment about this album, you'd be very much welcome to discuss it with us.
Sovphil13 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I haven't seen much discussion here. I've been waiting for someone to try and counter what I'm saying. please. anyone can chime in at any time. Sovphil13 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


If there's a good source saying it's progressive, add it. Simple as! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I've been trying for a while, since this whole thing started, the thing is, what would be a suitable source? Like, a professional review wouldn't outright state that this is a prog album, and I don't expect them too. instead I see a lot of them say something like, and I'm paraphrasing here, the album "Blends their signature prog sound with a more commercial pop sound". hell, it even says that in the wikipedia article, either in the what I call the "summary" at the top, or in the Background section. I can't remember which. so if that's enough for me to cite to change the genre, I'll do it. But if not, what else can I use? would the website Allmusic work? in the in the album page for [...And Then There Were Three...], it has "Prog Rock" listed as one of the styles for the album, And on the Discogs website, it also lists "Prog Rock" as one of the styles for the album. If one of those works, then great. tell me and I'll cite it and change the page accordingly. -Sovphil13 (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It's entirely possible that there isn't a reliable source available.
Genres listed on Allmusic (i.e., the sidebar) are not considered reliable as they come from amazon and effectively have no editorial oversight behind them. The text at Allmusic generally is considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force.
Discogs is a user-edited site, so it fails under WP:SPS.
For older (pre-2000) albums and songs, the best I've ever found are career retrospectives in reliable sources (Rolling Stone is quite good for this) and periodic "best of genre" lists is similarly top notch sources.
Career retrospectives likely popped up with their Hall of Fame induction a few years ago.
If "Jimmy's Rock Blog" lists it in his "Best Prog Rock Albums of All Time" it's meaningless. If RS lists it as one of the "Top 50 Progressive Rock Albums of the 70s", I'm sold.
While looking for your prog rock source, please do add cites for any other genres you find. I'd bet my eye teeth there are just as many reliable sources for pop and art rock as there are for progressive. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I tried Rolling Stone before, but I didn't see any kind of review for it. I'm starting to think maybe they don't have anything on the album. even if they did, its probably them, bashing it, because why would late-70's Rolling Stone speak positive about an album from a prog band, or anything even remotely creative and outside the . I read the career retrospective, they named the album once, and mentioned that "Follow you Follow Me" was their first hit single or "pop hit" as they called it, but didn't even mention its stylistic shift from the previous albums. it could barely be considered a glance at the album.
As for the top 50 prog albums list, I don't see anybody anywhere putting this, or any Phil Collins-era Genesis album on their top 50 prog albums, aside from probably Trick of the Tail. Which is kinda sad, because the era Phil Collins-era from 1975-1980 is home to 4 really good prog albums, Including ...And Then There Were Three... though admittedly that's the weakest album of the 4, Still great though. but when people think Genesis and Prog, they think of the Peter Gabriel era first and foremost. and I totally see why.
and last, well I don't know if this is enough, but the Allmusic review, which by the way, most of these reviews are really short and barely cover anything. Its like one paragraph long. but it does state, basically the same thing I said it would before, That the album ventures towards the more straightforward pop sound that the band is known for in the 80s, without abandoning their prog elements. Not in so many words, but that's essentially what it said. If that's enough, let me know.
Sovphil13 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It's entirely possible that there isn't a reliable source available. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


So, I guess this brings us back to discussion. If there's no sources, then lets continue to talk about it and come to some kind of consensus. unless one of us manages to find something to support either case. -Sovphil13 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added an additional space between everyone's messages in this section to make it look more organized. I hope that's okay. feel free to revert it if it isn't. Sovphil13 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there is no consensus that I can see.
Additionally, I don't see any source of new information that here to change my mind. IMO, this album straddles the line. It has some progressive rock and some pop songs. I don't feel the album is progressive rock. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, its definitely not a purely progressive rock album, and I'm not trying to argue it is. but that's why Wikipedia's genre section allows for more than one genre, as poppy as it is, Its still 50-60%% prog, I think that should count for something. the album does walk the line between pop rock and Prog, so does their album, Duke. so why not, as with Duke's article, classify it as both? Progressive Rock, Art rock, Pop rock. it doesn't even matter the order. Sovphil13 (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found a good compromise. If you're hesitant to call it Prog rock, What about if I label it Progressive Pop instead. like albums such as Supertramp's Breakfast in America, or ELO's Out of the Blue have been labelled by wikipedia.Sovphil13 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a genre different that the one you wanted and I disputed is a "compromise". (If you think we should go to Albuquerque and I don't, that doesn't make Montreal a "compromise".)
I don't think it's a "progressive pop" album. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GA nomination failed because not everything was sufficiently addressed in time, primarily the section for critical reception. Commercial performance could've also used some elaboration. Feel free to renominate once everything listed here has been improved upon.

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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:...And Then There Were Three.../GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Mine! Expect initial comments within a few days. Ping me if I don't have anything up by the 17th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh crikey, a Snuggums review, this'll be detailed (I remember Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1) - still it'll make the article much better so I'm not going to complain.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It most definitely will be very detailed! You shouldn't have nearly as much to worry about here, though, when this article is far shorter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's kick it off with the infobox and lead.....

Infobox

I only have a source for month / year, and have added that. Editors come along all the time and add the full dates without sources; if just one of them would add a source, it would be a miracle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • If the exact release date for this album is known, then I would include it
I don't have a source beyond month / year - LowSelfEstidle, have you got anything suitable? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir! I'll have another look around, but as far as I can remember a specific date was almost impossible to find. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just found March 31st here! Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, nice find! Is it fine to have a source dated before the album was released? It's still not concrete proof it was released that day. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find anything that indicates a later release, it's perfectly fine, also there is proof either way of a 28 March 1978 in the US and earliest release should be mentioned in infobox and lead even if it isn't one's home nation.
  • Not sure whether use of slashes is appropriate here per MOS:SLASH
Not a clue - The Rambling Man would probably know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's consistent within the article, always spaced or always unspaced, it's fine. It's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "commercially accessible music" supposed to mean?
Changed to "chart friendly" ie: poppier music that was more likely to appeal to a wider demographic and hence hit the charts; something unlikely to happen to "Supper's Ready", for example
  • The use of "with a peak of" from "since their formation with a peak of number 7 in the UK and number 23 in the US" feels off when there's multiple nations mentioned, maybe by peaking at would be better
I've reworked this sentence a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to note that Phil started writing more of the songs here? That doesn't seem nearly as prominent as him taking on lead vocals.
He'd never written much of Genesis' material at that point. He joined the group very much as a player, it was only when they were reduced to the core trio that there was enough space for him to contribute anything. It's one of the reasons Steve Hackett left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more later. Probably going to do this section-by-section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Background

  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "he" is repetitive.
  • "felt his desire to work on a solo career had outgrown his need to work as a member of the band" is rather wordy, and I feel something like became more interested to work on a solo career than with the band sums it up more succinctly
Both fixed by rewording Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they had finished recording and were mixing ...And Then There Were Three..., on 8 October 1977"..... No; they had finished the album entirely
Tweaked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

Tweaked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how Phil Collins writing more of the songs than before is worth noting, and it's not even suggested here that he became more of a songwriter anyway (only notes he wrote three tracks though that bit is fine to have)
See above, but copyedited. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its ref still doesn't have any comparisons to his lyrical involvements in past albums or mention any ideas of his, so you'll have to cite something else for such detail (yes I'm nit-picky like that) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bowler / Dray biography mentions the opposite, so rewritten for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the tone of "a hit single was missing from their repertoire" questionable, maybe "they had lacked successful singles" would be better
Reworded all of this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to come in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songs

  • Non reviewer comment: Minor question under Songs subsection it states of Follow You Follow Me that Rutherford wrote the lyrics in "about ten minutes" whereas the Follow You Follow Me article has the song's lyrics written in half that time - "about 5 minutes" (unreferenced). I didn't have access to this article's reference to see which claim was correct. Thanks  Spintendo      18:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped in another source which says "not quite ten minutes"; also changed Follow You Follow Me to follow suit. (I wonder if the "five minutes" is sneaky vandalism?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was placed there 6 years ago by Rodericksilly who is still an active editor. At that time they placed a paragraph of text in the article, and they cited the paragraph to a magazine article by Jon Young entitled "Genesis Look at themselves - An Autodiscography" (Trouser Press magazine, 1982), a citation which still exists in the article today as a reference for the quote that was originally part of that paragraph Rodericksilly added. Perhaps the claim was misread or misprinted in that source.  Spintendo      16:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None, I think. It's been nuked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banks's first solo album A Curious Feeling"..... his solo album count isn't relevant here
It is, because it was his first, having been committed to Genesis at that point, and directly re-used a theme from this album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I've missed something, this doesn't state or even suggest that "Scenes from a Night's Dream" involves Little Nemo at al
Bizzare. Replaced, with a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more heavy track" → "a heavier track"
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeve design

  • "As with their past three studio albums"..... not everyone who reads this article is automatically know which ones these are (especially when not big Genesis fans), and I have a feeling that such detail is probably better for the Hipgnosis article anyway; focus more on what they did with this cover art
However, people getting as far as reading down to this section probably at least are interested in Genesis (those that aren't would never even get this far!) so it's nice to have some consistency. Plus Hipgnosis have designed so many albums, it would make their article a trivia magnet if we included all of them! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Release" will follow in my next batch. ♫ It will follow you, will it follow me? All the bits and pieces that we must fix soon. I will review this, will you work it up? Just one single section before the tracklist. ♫ :P

Release

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you fix that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I just searched for it through OCC Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaargh, bare urls. Forgot to check that one. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any UK sales for album known, or even a certification?
Not a clue, this isn't my speciality Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RIAA doesn't provide album peaks, so we need a separate citation for the Billboard 200 position, and I thankfully knew just where to look :)
Added Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since certifications don't automatically equate to definitive sales figures, even for those released before downloads and streams were tracked, "selling" or "sold" is potentially misleading and it likely would be better to say 500K or 1M copies were shipped
  • You mention three singles released, but only provide support for "Follow You Follow Me" and "Many Too Many". Please be consistent and mention here all singles known for certain to have been released.
The article previously said three, but I only have sources for two, so that needs to be trimmed down Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you mention a US peak in the lead for FYFM, I would also do so here (and it obviously needs to be cited). You definitely should also note how it was their breakthrough track. Perhaps we could additionally compare its commercial performance to how "Many Too Many" charted.
"Breakthough" is subjective, to the hardcore people who think that Supper's Ready is the greatest song ever made, ever, this may be sacrilegious, to the 80s fans, they didn't really get into gear until Abacab where they were hitmaking material, and to the hardcore fan, the breakthrough track is more likely to be "Afterglow" from Wind and Wuthering which might have been a hit single itself had it been released as one. In short - bit too much POV to mention. Keep it at "highest-charting single", that's a concrete fact that can't be argued with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously meant commercial breakthrough as it brought them much more fame (as well as fans) after previously having little to no chart success (especially outside Europe). Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in Bowler / Dray's biography and dropped that in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite good for the album, but I'm saying you should also talk about how the track itself immensely boosted their popularity. It would additionally be nice to mention (and of course cite) the single release dates here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the source doesn't say that. It does say the Genesis were on the verge of a commercial breakthrough, and Collins put his marriage on the line to do the tour, but it was Duke that really cemented their status (first number 1) and then Face Value and Abacab put them in the serious big time. ATTWT was more an intermediate step. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't the "reissues" subsection up closer to the album's release?
Nobody thought to do it - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tour" and "Critical reception" should be their own sections
Agreed, and done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time to comment on for now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues

  • My only concern is how this only talks about the 2007 reissue; you'll need a separate source for the 1994 one.
I suppose we can cite the CDs themselves, with serial numbers, so I've done that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer and closer..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, what's left? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still have to assess "critical reception", "tour", tracklists, and citation formatting. Should at least get critical reception out within a day or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • If you can find anything that mentions an overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable reception, then I'd include it here
  • This section should be expanded with reviews from publications you've listed in the scorebox
  • I'm not convinced "Wall-of-sound" is likely to have its own article anytime soon, so let's unlink that
Changed link. Phil Spector's Wall of Sound is more famous than Genesis[citation needed] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charley Walters wrote a review for Sounds and notes"..... it's from Circus and this is rather wordy, try something like "Writing for Circus, Charley Walters noted that"
Agreed. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up next is "Tour". Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tour

Done, though I'm not sure exactly how notable all these Genesis tour articles are; I've already got 3-4 deleted at AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would need to be able"..... needed to be able
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "didn't" should be "did not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS, and is "gel" really appropriate tone?
Reworded to something else Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding tour earnings if that can be found
I've added something about tour costs, which is close. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs are a bit short, maybe merge them so the text doesn't look so choppy.
.... or beef them up a bit with something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

I've combined the sections, though I'm not sure about hatting the B-sides in the same manner as the CD reissues as discussed in those articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you've gone with seems fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides

  • See above comment on "Track listing"

Personnel

  • Nothing of concern

I'll next check citation formatting and then re-scan the article for anything else that still hasn't been addressed or new things that come to mind. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. Sorry, I've been off-wiki for a couple of days (which sounds like a lot for me!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Citations

  • "allmusic.com" → AllMusic (no italics), and "AllMusic" shouldn't be part of the "And Then There Were Three – Genesis | AllMusic" title
  • "robertchristgau.com" shouldn't be italicized
  • Remove "Rolling Stone" from "Genesis: And Then There Were Three : Music Reviews : Rolling Stone"
  • Delete the "via Newspapers.com" bit
  • Cirucs → Circus
All done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books

  • Seems fine

DVD Media

  • All good

Final assessment to come. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • Prose: Mostly good, main concerns are how original release should go first even if outside the UK, lead needs to include both singles, and Sounds in "critical reception" is supposed to read Circus
  • Referencing: A few malformatted citations, but nothing major. Anything mentioned within lead should also be cited within article body (I don't see support for US peak or the album having more "radio-oriented and chart-friendly" material than past works in there)
  • Coverage: Critical reception section still needs to be expanded, and so does detail on commercial performance for singles (i.e. note the peaks for each track, talk about how "Follow You Follow Me" boosted their career)
  • Neutrality: This is A-OK
  • Stability: Nothing of concern
  • Media: All appropriately licensed
  • Verdict: Starting now, this is on hold for seven days to address the remaining issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie I'm really sorry for this, but time's up for the hold and you couldn't get enough done before it expired :/, so I'm failing the nomination. The biggest remaining issue is how critical reception still needs to be expanded to include more reviews. I even noted that you could use those included in the score box. It just isn't long enough right now with only 5 reviews, especially for what was by far the band's biggest commercial success (at the time of its release). You also still need more for commercial performance of singles and a mention of how they helped the band gain popularity. Once that's all set, be sure the lead takes into account such success before you renominate. Better luck next time bro. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Little Nemo

King Morpheus
Little Nemo
(there are a ton more Little Nemo images in the commons)

I'm surprised there is no mention of Winsor McCay's Little Nemo which is referenced in "Scenes from a Night's Dream". I don't have your source to hand, but given the pretty clear references to the comic, "based on a childhood dream" seems actually false. This affords the opportunity to adorn the article with an additional image. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:...And_Then_There_Were_Three...&oldid=838766349"